What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Should voters be required to show ID? (1 Viewer)

I cannot believe people can actually think certain votes are more important than others or that peoples' votes don't have value.
:shrug: If a person is unable to manage his or her own life effectively, that person probably shouldn't be managing the lives of others. We've been over this one before a bunch of times too.
You can go down that road all you want. I think it's fundamentally wrong. I'm sure your opinion of what managing a life effectively is, is completely different from others' opinions. A basic facet of our system is that everyone is supposed to have a vote and everyone's vote should be equal. The millionaire should be equal to the homeless guy as far as their say in who represents them goes. Any effort to filter out voters based on their education, lifestyle, religion, race, anything else other than age is a failure. Someone is not getting their proper say.
Yeah, I'm not sure this is true....see the electoral college.
 
'Matthias said:
I cannot believe people can actually think certain votes are more important than others or that peoples' votes don't have value. Silly me thinking universal suffrage was kind of important to modern democratic systems. Let's go back to only white land owners being able to vote :rolleyes:
You're missing the point. I don't think any one specific person's vote is less important. I think the vote of a person who can't be bothered to vote isn't a significant loss. I think the vote of a person who can't be bothered to register to vote isn't a significant loss. Essentially, if the voter himself/herself doesn't place importance on their own vote, then neither do I.
Voter ID doesn't effectively weed these out. These require annually-renewed voter ID cards which will require some expenditure of bother and hassle to obtain in order to properly segregate the population. We may have to do it on a percentage-income/wealth basis so that the impact is reasonably equated.
"Voter ID" doesn't do what you suggest above. Maybe specific laws do and we can discuss what the requirements for voter id should be, but voter id doesn't inherently require an annual renewal. And I think this discussion at this point is about whether a voter should be required to show an ID in order to vote, in very broad terms. Let's be honest. You'd be against voter ID even if a person only had to get it once and could use that same ID for the rest of their lives.
He would be against it if the ID's were mailed to everybody and available for pickup at any post office if they didnt have a mailbox or address.
of if they could do it on site at the voting place
 
That said, I still think fingerprints is the way to go. When you go to register, prove that you're eligible to vote, and do a finger print scan. Everytime you go to vote, you get your fingerprint scanned. Wonderfully simple.
How many polling places are there in the US? Got to be in the 10's of thousands, right? That is a lot of fingerprint scanners. And what, they need to all be connected to some national database in order to get instantaneous voter ID info? I imagine there are some polling places where the vast majority of people have never even used the internet. You want them running these machines? The cost of something like this would be astronomical.Seems very unsimple to me.
Just about everyone in this country is afforded to be printed at birth. You'd need scanners at the polling places for a period of time, but after a while, they'd be less necessary. The alternative is to take the prints on site and have them loaded into the system via scanner later. That seems more reasonable. It's not real time, but at least you have proof of who the person was that came into the polling area and you could go after him/her after the fact.
 
'Matthias said:
Here's my challenge then. Take a few steps back. Think about what social good you are trying to achieve via the process of elections. Define it. Then think about how that social good is impacted by this process and think in particular about other processes that could also be done which would capture even greater social value.
My answer: I want the process to elect politicians who don't suck.
 
I don't think fingerprints would work very well. I don't think it's like on some TV shows where you can have a computer compare one print against a zillion other prints to accurately find a match. The error rate seems to be quite substantial.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fingerprint#Criticism
We're not there yet where we can instantaneously scan through millions of other prints to find the match. We will be someday, but not yet. But we don't need that capability. We just need to see if it matches the one on file. If I go in and get my fingerpint scanned, they just need to see if it matches the one filed for Rayderr. They don't need to scan everyone else's. This technology is already being used in several places, including the gov't and military.
 
I don't think fingerprints would work very well. I don't think it's like on some TV shows where you can have a computer compare one print against a zillion other prints to accurately find a match. The error rate seems to be quite substantial.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fingerprint#Criticism
We're not there yet where we can instantaneously scan through millions of other prints to find the match. We will be someday, but not yet. But we don't need that capability. We just need to see if it matches the one on file. If I go in and get my fingerpint scanned, they just need to see if it matches the one filed for Rayderr. They don't need to scan everyone else's. This technology is already being used in several places, including the gov't and military.
Why can't we just use digital photos for the same purpose?
 
I don't think fingerprints would work very well. I don't think it's like on some TV shows where you can have a computer compare one print against a zillion other prints to accurately find a match. The error rate seems to be quite substantial.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fingerprint#Criticism
We're not there yet where we can instantaneously scan through millions of other prints to find the match. We will be someday, but not yet. But we don't need that capability. We just need to see if it matches the one on file. If I go in and get my fingerpint scanned, they just need to see if it matches the one filed for Rayderr. They don't need to scan everyone else's. This technology is already being used in several places, including the gov't and military.
Why can't we just use digital photos for the same purpose?
If I cut my hair and shave, I'll probably look quite different. Plus, I think the fingerprint system can be used to stop voter fraud through absentee ballots (which we do know happens. There's been convictions of it even.)
 
I don't think fingerprints would work very well. I don't think it's like on some TV shows where you can have a computer compare one print against a zillion other prints to accurately find a match. The error rate seems to be quite substantial.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fingerprint#Criticism
We're not there yet where we can instantaneously scan through millions of other prints to find the match. We will be someday, but not yet. But we don't need that capability. We just need to see if it matches the one on file. If I go in and get my fingerpint scanned, they just need to see if it matches the one filed for Rayderr. They don't need to scan everyone else's. This technology is already being used in several places, including the gov't and military.
Why can't we just use digital photos for the same purpose?
If I cut my hair and shave, I'll probably look quite different. Plus, I think the fingerprint system can be used to stop voter fraud through absentee ballots (which we do know happens. There's been convictions of it even.)
How much effort does it take to not get a new hairstyle? If you can't be bothered to keep the same general appearance, I'm not sure we really want you to vote anyway.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't think fingerprints would work very well. I don't think it's like on some TV shows where you can have a computer compare one print against a zillion other prints to accurately find a match. The error rate seems to be quite substantial.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fingerprint#Criticism
We're not there yet where we can instantaneously scan through millions of other prints to find the match. We will be someday, but not yet. But we don't need that capability. We just need to see if it matches the one on file. If I go in and get my fingerpint scanned, they just need to see if it matches the one filed for Rayderr. They don't need to scan everyone else's. This technology is already being used in several places, including the gov't and military.
Why can't we just use digital photos for the same purpose?
If I cut my hair and shave, I'll probably look quite different. Plus, I think the fingerprint system can be used to stop voter fraud through absentee ballots (which we do know happens. There's been convictions of it even.)
How much effort does it take to not get a new hairstyle? If you can't be bothered to keep the same general appearance, I'm not sure we really want you to vote anyway.
According to the Marines i've worked with, quite a lot.
 
'Matthias said:
'Matthias said:
'Matthias said:
Forget becoming obsessed with voter ID for a second. Say you're designing a brand new voting system for the nation. What are your relevant considerations? What concepts do you value, positively and negatively?
In no particular order:1. Educated and informed voters2. Transparency of the process3. Accuracy of the result4. Equality of opportunity to vote5. Ease of use by the voter6. Ease of implementation by the government7. Integrity of the resultProbably a few others that I'm missing off the top of my head.
How do you feel about your "educated and informed voters" versus "equality of opportunity to vote" criteria? Should some voters be favored in the process?
Well, the question was "what concepts do I value", and I think educated and informed voters is perhaps the most positive concept of all. Unfortunately, in practice, I don't see any method of screening these voters that is 100% fair and accurate. In practice, I'd probably abandon that goal and try to make all the others happen as best I could.
Where would you rank #4 & #5 vs #7?
#4 and #7 are equally high, #5 well below those two.
 
If one were to slip behind the Veil of Ignorance, and design a safe and secure voting system from the ground up, I'm sure some sort of method to ID an eligible voter would be a part of it.

 
'Matthias said:
'Matthias said:
'Matthias said:
'Matthias said:
Forget becoming obsessed with voter ID for a second. Say you're designing a brand new voting system for the nation. What are your relevant considerations? What concepts do you value, positively and negatively?
In no particular order:1. Educated and informed voters2. Transparency of the process3. Accuracy of the result4. Equality of opportunity to vote5. Ease of use by the voter6. Ease of implementation by the government7. Integrity of the resultProbably a few others that I'm missing off the top of my head.
How do you feel about your "educated and informed voters" versus "equality of opportunity to vote" criteria? Should some voters be favored in the process?
Well, the question was "what concepts do I value", and I think educated and informed voters is perhaps the most positive concept of all. Unfortunately, in practice, I don't see any method of screening these voters that is 100% fair and accurate. In practice, I'd probably abandon that goal and try to make all the others happen as best I could.
Where would you rank #4 & #5 vs #7?
#4 and #7 are equally high, #5 well below those two.
Do away with absentee voting then?
If a secure method for ensuring that the voter is who he/she says he/she is cannot be found, then yes. I'm not completely versed in the ins and outs of absentee ballots and how integrity is ensured, so I don't think I can comment intelligently on it. The one time I did it, I picked up my absentee ballot at town hall, in person, and they made me show ID and I filled it out then and there.
 
'Matthias said:
'Matthias said:
Do away with absentee voting then?
If a secure method for ensuring that the voter is who he/she says he/she is cannot be found, then yes. I'm not completely versed in the ins and outs of absentee ballots and how integrity is ensured, so I don't think I can comment intelligently on it. The one time I did it, I picked up my absentee ballot at town hall, in person, and they made me show ID and I filled it out then and there.
A large amount of what actually constitutes voter fraud involves absentee ballots.
So I've heard, but like I said, I don't really feel educated on the details of absentee balloting at the moment. I don't know the percentage of total votes that are submitted via absentee, or how the integrity is typically ensured. My off-the-cuff response would be that voting by mail is just begging for fraud, and therefore should be done away with.
 
I cannot believe people can actually think certain votes are more important than others or that peoples' votes don't have value.
:shrug: If a person is unable to manage his or her own life effectively, that person probably shouldn't be managing the lives of others. We've been over this one before a bunch of times too.
You can go down that road all you want. I think it's fundamentally wrong. I'm sure your opinion of what managing a life effectively is, is completely different from others' opinions. A basic facet of our system is that everyone is supposed to have a vote and everyone's vote should be equal. The millionaire should be equal to the homeless guy as far as their say in who represents them goes. Any effort to filter out voters based on their education, lifestyle, religion, race, anything else other than age is a failure. Someone is not getting their proper say.
These teens want their say:

I'm 17 and I Want To Vote Too!

(just introduction to the story...)

In this age of voter apathy, a group of teenagers in one of Massachusetts' oldest Mill towns is fighting for the right to weigh-in on city business and cast ballots before they turn 18. The 'Vote 17' movement looks like a well-organized campaign, with office space in downtown Lowell where the teens involved spent Tuesday morning creating information packets and prepping for a trip to the state capitol -- where they're trying to get state lawmakers to support their cause. Carline Kirksey just graduated from Lowell High School. She's heading off to college in the fall but remains passionate about ensuring the next generation of classmates will get a say when it comes to school and City Council elections.

"I feel like if we were able to vote at 17 we'd be able to create civic habits and increase engagement and increase voter turnout and increase youth voices in Lowell and a lot of the youth in Lowell are really engaged," said Kirksey from the organization's busy office. "We just come here every day and shoot emails to the representatives, senators and make sure we get to talk to them about why we want this to happen."

The right to vote at 17 years old in the Lowell municipal elections is not coming easy. The teens had to overcome concerns expressed by the Secretary of State's office about constitutionality that were ultimately addressed by creating a special ballot and keeping the teens off the general voting rolls. The initiative still has to be approved by the state legislature, passing through the House and Senate, before being signed by the governor. Then the measure goes before the voters in a citywide referendum in 2013. By then many of the teens involved will be 18 years old, but that's not slowing their efforts.
 
Did the Associated Press Airbrush an Inconvenient Quote?

On Tuesday the Department of Justice called a witness in its trial against Texas’ voter ID law. The witness, 18-year-old Victoria Rose Rodriguez, was originally noted in this AP story accordingly:

Victoria Rose Rodriguez, 18, told a federal court in Washington that she had limited documentation — a birth certificate, a high school transcript and a student ID card with a photo on it — but is currently a registered voter in Texas. She said her parents are too busy to take her or her twin sister to get the new voter identification cards required by the law. (emphasis added)

Rodriguez’s story contains a glaring hole: She flew to Washington to testify. How did she have time to do that, but not have time to get a photo ID?

Since Christian Adams noted the discrepancy here at PJM, the AP story has changed and now reads:

In her testimony Tuesday, Rodriguez testified that she’s currently a registered voter but would not be able to meet the requirements of Texas’ new law. She said she lacked the necessary documents and the ability to travel to a location where she can obtain the newly required voter ID.

Her obvious problem remains: If she has the time to fly from San Antonio to Washington to testify and fly back to Texas, she has time to get an ID. But the time reference is now gone from the AP story.

For the Department of Justice to attempt such a snow job is a disgrace. For the Associated Press to buy her story hook, line and sinker is a joke. For the AP to also airbrush its story once the hole in her testimony is exposed is an act of dishonesty.
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/07/12/did-the-associated-press-airbrush-an-inconvenient-quote/ :lmao:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't think I've ever shown anyone my ID to get work.
I've probably had about 20 different jobs in my lifetime and I have had to show a picture ID for every one.
I call BS. Not only that you have had 20 different jobs, not only that you have had to show ID for each one, but even that you would have the ability to remember showing ID for every single one of them. Get real.
Seriously?Here goes:1. Dishwasher at The Grub Steak2. Dishwasher at Guggy's3. Pizza maker at Peter Piper Pizza4. New Times Delivery guy5. Manager at Peter Piper Pizza (2nd round)6. Manager at KFC7. Tile layer at Arizona Tile8. Waiter at The Spaghetti Company9. Waiter at The Other Place10. Waiter at The Olive Garden11. Bartender at The Prescott Mining Company12. Bartender at The Gurley Street Grill13. Bartender at The Good Time Charlie's14. Bartender at Billy's Western Bar15. Bartender at Bobby McGee's16. Wall Street Journal Delivery Guy17. Engineer at Honeywell18. Engineer at ICS19. Owner, Kutta Technologies, Inc.OK. So I was one job off. I'm sure I could find one more if I dug deep enough. Actually, if you count my paper route I had for four years, that would make an even 20.And yes, just about every job I've ever had I had to fill out an I-9 and that requires either a current passport or a Driver's license and SS card. I always figured it was standard practice to show an ID for work. I've hired over 100 people in my company, and every person is required to show an ID. Everyone I ever hired at Peter Piper Pizza and KFC were required to show ID's.
 
every job I've ever had I had to fill out an I-9 and that requires either a current passport or a Driver's license and SS card. I always figured it was standard practice to show an ID for work.
We do start paperwork here every day and we always verify either current or expired passport, or, current drivers license & Social Security card. Must be signed off as witnessed by an appropriate higher-up each time. I've never worked a job where I didn't have to fill out an I-9 on the first day. Back when I did a lot of short-term gigs, I'd bring photocopies of my passport, DL, and SS card just to save the time of having to take a trip to the copier for the file copy.
 
I don't think I've ever shown anyone my ID to get work.
I've probably had about 20 different jobs in my lifetime and I have had to show a picture ID for every one.
I call BS. Not only that you have had 20 different jobs, not only that you have had to show ID for each one, but even that you would have the ability to remember showing ID for every single one of them. Get real.
Seriously?Here goes:1. Dishwasher at The Grub Steak2. Dishwasher at Guggy's3. Pizza maker at Peter Piper Pizza4. New Times Delivery guy5. Manager at Peter Piper Pizza (2nd round)6. Manager at KFC7. Tile layer at Arizona Tile8. Waiter at The Spaghetti Company9. Waiter at The Other Place10. Waiter at The Olive Garden11. Bartender at The Prescott Mining Company12. Bartender at The Gurley Street Grill13. Bartender at The Good Time Charlie's14. Bartender at Billy's Western Bar15. Bartender at Bobby McGee's16. Wall Street Journal Delivery Guy17. Engineer at Honeywell18. Engineer at ICS19. Owner, Kutta Technologies, Inc.OK. So I was one job off. I'm sure I could find one more if I dug deep enough. Actually, if you count my paper route I had for four years, that would make an even 20.And yes, just about every job I've ever had I had to fill out an I-9 and that requires either a current passport or a Driver's license and SS card. I always figured it was standard practice to show an ID for work. I've hired over 100 people in my company, and every person is required to show an ID. Everyone I ever hired at Peter Piper Pizza and KFC were required to show ID's.
I forgot one. Between 5 and 6 I should have had: usher at Mann's Christown Theater.So there's your twenty.
 
Judges Seem Ready To Mess With Texas’ Voter ID LawRYAN J. REILLY JULY 13, 2012, 3:45 PM 3291 WASHINGTON — A panel of three federal judges in D.C. posed skeptical questions on Friday about Texas’ voter ID law during closing arguments in a trial about whether the measure is discriminatory.The panel of federal judges — Bush nominee Rosemary M. Collyer, Clinton nominee David S. Tatel and Obama nominee Robert L. Wilkins — hopes to issue a ruling on the case in “short order,” according to Collyer, who expressed doubts about the findings of Texas’ experts in the case.John Hughes, a lawyer for Texas, argued in his closing arguments that people who want to vote already have an ID or can easily get it. Hughes argued that if the state’s voter ID law really disenfranchised anyone the D.C. “courtroom would be filled” with Texans who couldn’t obtain voter ID.In one of the more awkward exchanges, Hughes offered a semi-defense of literacy tests after one judge said that the reason literacy tests were racist years ago was because of inequalities in the education system. The judge asked if it was Texas’ theory that there would be a problem with literacy tests today. Setting aside other laws banning literacy tests and poll taxes, Hughes said he did not believe a literacy test would violate Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.When a judge noted that some voters would have to travel 120 miles to the nearest DMV to obtain a voter ID, Hughes argued that people in those areas had to travel “long distances to do any number of things.” The judge pointed out that people who live more than 100 miles from a courtroom aren’t even allowed to be subpoenaed because it is “unduly burdensome,” but Hughes argued that traveling far distances was a “reality to life of choosing to live in that part of Texas.”The panel of judges were also highly critical of how Texas handled discovery during the case, pointing out that they did not request federal records about what Texas residents had forms of federal identification, such as passports. (Texas was making the case that many individuals who did not have a Texas drivers license might have a federal form of ID.)Matthew Colangelo, a deputy assistant attorney general in DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, argued that Texas’ voter ID law was “exactly the kind of law Congress had in mind” when it passed the Voting Rights Act. He said surveys indicating that even the majority of African-Americans and Latino voters believe voter ID laws are okay shouldn’t weigh on the case.“If there were a poll that said literacy tests or poll taxes were popular, that wouldn’t keep the court from striking them down,” Colangelo said.Colangelo, whose boss Assistant Attorney General Tom Perez listened in on a portion of closing arguments from an overflow room at the courthouse, told the judges it was important to look at the passage of the voter ID law within the context of “tremendous population growth” within Texas’ Latino community.He argued that the bill gives discretion to poll watchers when matching individuals to names on the voter rolls and could give them “the opportunity to discriminate against Hispanics.”“Texas has not met its burden,” Colangelo argued.J. Gerald Hebert, a well-known civil rights lawyer representing those intervening in the case, argued during his closing that the threat of voter fraud was “merely a pretext, a cloak” for a voter suppression effort and that Texas’ effort had been “tinged with race from day one.” He asked the court make an affirmative finding that the law was enacted with a discriminatory purpose.
 
It is about time...Can we shut this #### down now???

Feds OK Florida's access to citizens listIn a victory for Republicans, the federal government has agreed to let Florida use a law enforcement database to challenge people's right to vote if they are suspected of not being U.S. citizens.The agreement, made in a letter to Florida Gov. Rick Scott's administration that was obtained by The Associated Press, grants the state access to a list of resident noncitizens maintained by the Department of Homeland Security. The Obama administration had denied Florida's request for months, but relented after a judge ruled in the state's favor in a related voter-purge matter.Voting rights groups, while acknowledging that non-citizens have no right to vote, have expressed alarm about using such data for a purpose not originally intended: purging voter lists of ineligible people. They say voter purges less than four months before a presidential election might leave insufficient time to correct mistakes stemming from faulty data or other problems.Democrats say that the government's concession is less troubling than some GOP-controlled states' push to require voters to show photo identification.But Republicans count it as a victory nonetheless in their broad-based fight over voter eligibility, an issue that could play a big role in the White House race. That's especially true in pivotal states such as Florida, Colorado, Nevada and North Carolina.Republican officials in several states say they are trying to combat voter fraud. Democrats, however, note that proven cases of voter fraud are rare. They accuse Republicans of cynical efforts to suppress voting by people in lower socio-economic groups who tend to vote Democratic.Colorado and other states have asked for similar access to the federal database being granted to Florida.After a judge recently ruled against federal efforts to stop Florida's aggressive voter-list review, the Homeland Security Department this past week agreed to work on details for how the state can access the federal SAVE database -- Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements -- to challenge registered voters suspected of being non-citizens.Florida has agreed that it can challenge voters only if the state provides a "unique identifier," such as an "alien number," for each person in question. Alien numbers generally are assigned to foreigners living in the country legally, often with visas or other permits such as green cards.Unless they become naturalized citizens, however, these people cannot vote.The agreement will prevent Florida from using only a name and birthdate to seek federal data about a suspected noncitizen on voter rolls. It's unlikely to catch illegal immigrants who might have managed to register to vote because such people typically would not have an alien number.Scott, whose administration had sued Homeland Security for access to the SAVE list, said the agreement "marks a significant victory for Florida and for the integrity of our election system.""Access to the SAVE database will ensure that noncitizens do not vote in future Florida elections," Scott said in a statement Saturday.In a letter Monday, the department told Florida it was ready to work out details for providing access to the SAVE list. The letter was signed by Alejandro N. Mayorkas, director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.It follows a flurry of legal actions between Florida and the federal government. On June 11, the Justice Department said it would sue Scott's administration on grounds that the state's voter-purge efforts violated voting rights laws.The same day, Scott announced a lawsuit against Homeland Security seeking access to the SAVE list. He said it could be a valuable tool in determining who is a citizen. Two weeks later, a U.S. judge blocked the federal efforts to stop Florida's voter review efforts; the Mayorkas letter soon followed.A Homeland Security spokesman said Saturday the agency had no further comment.Department officials told the Orlando Sentinel last month they had concerns about using the SAVE list for voter-review purposes. They said the list's information is incomplete and does not provide comprehensive data on all eligible voters, the newspaper reported.Scott's administration hopes to restart a suspended voter registration purge that was hampered this year by faulty data and bad publicity. The review, based largely on driver's license information, turned up 2,625 suspected noncitizens registered to vote.But some were in fact citizens. An examination by the Tampa Bay Times found "just a handful" that had actually voted illegally. Florida officials said access to the federal data will allow a more reliable review of voter rolls.While some noncitizens who are legal residents may knowingly try to register and vote, others apparently do so unwittingly. After obtaining a driver's license, some assume they also can vote, officials say.Access to the federal SAVE list may catch such ineligible voters in Florida. They presumably would have an alien number and be listed in state motor vehicle records.Voter-rights groups expressed concerns about Florida's efforts."No matter what database Florida has access to, purging voters from the rolls using faulty criteria on the eve of an election could prevent thousands of eligible voters from exercising their rights," said Jonathan Brater, a lawyer with the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law. "Florida must use a more transparent and accurate process, and must leave enough time for voters targeted for removal to be notified and correct errors," he said.Some state governments have sought access to the federal database for years. Federal officials told Washington state in 2005 they saw no way to compare voters and the Homeland Security information.Colorado has sought the federal data for a year. Colorado, which has a Democratic governor but a Republican secretary of state, Scott Gessler, has identified about 5,000 registered voters that it wants to check against the federal information.Officials in the politically competitive states of Ohio, Michigan, New Mexico and Iowa -- all led by GOP governors -- are backing his efforts.Gessler said 430 registered voters have acknowledged being ineligible, but an "unenforceable honor system does not build confidence in our elections."Gessler also is seeking information from jails in 10 of the state's largest counties for persons held on "immigration detainers" since 2010, the Denver Post reported.
 
so I got my voter ID card in the mail last week. I'm fully registered to legally vote in Florida. I HAVEN'T LIVED IN FLORIDA FOR 4 YEARS!!!!ONE!!

The Great State of Florida sent a valid voter registration card to my address in South Carolina. If I so chose to, I could go down to Florida and cast a ballot there, as well as in SC. As far as I know, I could even cast an absentee ballot if I so chose to.

Please don't tell me that there is no voter fraud, and that states like Florida should not be culling their voter lists. If I'm on their list, I'm positive lots of others are as well.

The only way they could catch me is by noting that my photo ID was issued by SC. One would hope that would raise a flag.

 
so I got my voter ID card in the mail last week. I'm fully registered to legally vote in Florida. I HAVEN'T LIVED IN FLORIDA FOR 4 YEARS!!!!ONE!!The Great State of Florida sent a valid voter registration card to my address in South Carolina. If I so chose to, I could go down to Florida and cast a ballot there, as well as in SC. As far as I know, I could even cast an absentee ballot if I so chose to.Please don't tell me that there is no voter fraud, and that states like Florida should not be culling their voter lists. If I'm on their list, I'm positive lots of others are as well. The only way they could catch me is by noting that my photo ID was issued by SC. One would hope that would raise a flag.
:lmao: You would travel from state to state to commit a felony by casting one extra vote?
 
I don't think fingerprints would work very well. I don't think it's like on some TV shows where you can have a computer compare one print against a zillion other prints to accurately find a match. The error rate seems to be quite substantial.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fingerprint#Criticism
not really. It's pretty easy to compare 1 vs N, where N is a database containing all known voters in a particualr district, for example. It doesn't need to be done on a national scale. The scanner breaks down the scanned image into metadata markers, each file of which is really small - like 10k bites per person. It's not hard to fit a database of 10k-100k people into a single laptop.That being said, India is doing biometrics on a national scale, and they are much larger than we are.

the criticism link above refers primarily to collecting latent prints for use in crime investigation... that's a completely different animal to collecting biometric data.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ahead Of Voter ID Trial, Pennsylvania Admits There’s No In-Person Voter FraudRYAN J. REILLY JULY 24, 2012, 6:25 AMAs the Justice Department investigates Pennsylvania’s voter ID law on the federal level, a coalition of civil rights groups is gearing up for a state trial starting Wednesday examining whether the law is allowable under Pennsylvania’s constitution.In that case, Pennsylvania might have handed those groups and their clients (including 93-year-old Viviette Applewhite) a bit of an advantage: They’ve formally acknowledged that there’s been no reported in-person voter fraud in Pennsylvania and there isn’t likely to be in November.The state signed a stipulation agreement with lawyers for the plaintiffs which acknowledges there “have been no investigations or prosecutions of in-person voter fraud in Pennsylvania; and the parties do not have direct personal knowledge of any such investigations or prosecutions in other states.”Additionally, the agreement states Pennsylvania “will not offer any evidence in this action that in-person voter fraud has in fact occurred in Pennsylvania and elsewhere” or even argue “that in person voter fraud is likely to occur in November 2012 in the absense of the Photo ID law.”Pennsylvania has said that over 750,000 registered voters do not have ID from the Transportation Department, a problem more concentrated in urban centers like Philadelphia. One top state Republican has claimed the voter ID law would help Mitt Romney win the Keystone state and Democrats have already altered their campaign plans should the law survives legal challenges.Judge Robert Simpson will hear the case, Applewhite et al. v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, et al., in Harrisburg starting on Wednesday. The ACLU expects the trial to last five to seven days.
 
so I got my voter ID card in the mail last week. I'm fully registered to legally vote in Florida. I HAVEN'T LIVED IN FLORIDA FOR 4 YEARS!!!!ONE!!The Great State of Florida sent a valid voter registration card to my address in South Carolina. If I so chose to, I could go down to Florida and cast a ballot there, as well as in SC. As far as I know, I could even cast an absentee ballot if I so chose to.Please don't tell me that there is no voter fraud, and that states like Florida should not be culling their voter lists. If I'm on their list, I'm positive lots of others are as well. The only way they could catch me is by noting that my photo ID was issued by SC. One would hope that would raise a flag.
:lmao: You would travel from state to state to commit a felony by casting one extra vote?
I would not. I'm not one to commit felonies. I also would not mail my voter registration card to my ex-con brother in law, just to be sure he can vote in my place.Others might though. Are you cool with that?
 
so I got my voter ID card in the mail last week. I'm fully registered to legally vote in Florida. I HAVEN'T LIVED IN FLORIDA FOR 4 YEARS!!!!ONE!!The Great State of Florida sent a valid voter registration card to my address in South Carolina. If I so chose to, I could go down to Florida and cast a ballot there, as well as in SC. As far as I know, I could even cast an absentee ballot if I so chose to.Please don't tell me that there is no voter fraud, and that states like Florida should not be culling their voter lists. If I'm on their list, I'm positive lots of others are as well. The only way they could catch me is by noting that my photo ID was issued by SC. One would hope that would raise a flag.
:lmao: You would travel from state to state to commit a felony by casting one extra vote?
I would not. I'm not one to commit felonies. I also would not mail my voter registration card to my ex-con brother in law, just to be sure he can vote in my place.Others might though. Are you cool with that?
No, which is why I support voter fraud continuing to be a criminal act with stiff penalties attached, making it downright idiotic to attempt for the sake of casting an extra vote.
 
so I got my voter ID card in the mail last week. I'm fully registered to legally vote in Florida. I HAVEN'T LIVED IN FLORIDA FOR 4 YEARS!!!!ONE!!The Great State of Florida sent a valid voter registration card to my address in South Carolina. If I so chose to, I could go down to Florida and cast a ballot there, as well as in SC. As far as I know, I could even cast an absentee ballot if I so chose to.Please don't tell me that there is no voter fraud, and that states like Florida should not be culling their voter lists. If I'm on their list, I'm positive lots of others are as well. The only way they could catch me is by noting that my photo ID was issued by SC. One would hope that would raise a flag.
:lmao: You would travel from state to state to commit a felony by casting one extra vote?
I would not. I'm not one to commit felonies. I also would not mail my voter registration card to my ex-con brother in law, just to be sure he can vote in my place.Others might though. Are you cool with that?
No, which is why I support voter fraud continuing to be a criminal act with stiff penalties attached, making it downright idiotic to attempt for the sake of casting an extra vote.
how would one detect someone attempting to vote with my registration card, absent photo ID?
 
so I heard some dude on NPR talking about this a while ago. His care point was this - even if voter fraud is not rampant, voters have to be able to trust the system for people to feel like voting matters. If voters believe it's a rigged game, why bother?

From this perspective, it's irrelevant if there has been actual cases of fraud. What matters is the perception that there might be.

I'll submit this very thread that some people think that there may be voter fraud. Requiring Voter ID would be a way to ensure confidence in the system. Don't you guys think that's important?

 
so I heard some dude on NPR talking about this a while ago. His care point was this - even if voter fraud is not rampant, voters have to be able to trust the system for people to feel like voting matters. If voters believe it's a rigged game, why bother?From this perspective, it's irrelevant if there has been actual cases of fraud. What matters is the perception that there might be. I'll submit this very thread that some people think that there may be voter fraud. Requiring Voter ID would be a way to ensure confidence in the system. Don't you guys think that's important?
What about all of us people that mistrust the voter ID system? Don't you think our perceptions are also important?
 
so I heard some dude on NPR talking about this a while ago. His care point was this - even if voter fraud is not rampant, voters have to be able to trust the system for people to feel like voting matters. If voters believe it's a rigged game, why bother?From this perspective, it's irrelevant if there has been actual cases of fraud. What matters is the perception that there might be. I'll submit this very thread that some people think that there may be voter fraud. Requiring Voter ID would be a way to ensure confidence in the system. Don't you guys think that's important?
What about all of us people that mistrust the voter ID system? Don't you think our perceptions are also important?
what part of the voter ID system do you mistrust?
 
so I heard some dude on NPR talking about this a while ago. His care point was this - even if voter fraud is not rampant, voters have to be able to trust the system for people to feel like voting matters. If voters believe it's a rigged game, why bother?From this perspective, it's irrelevant if there has been actual cases of fraud. What matters is the perception that there might be. I'll submit this very thread that some people think that there may be voter fraud. Requiring Voter ID would be a way to ensure confidence in the system. Don't you guys think that's important?
Ahhhh yes. Faced with the idiocy of committing such a crime, voter ID pushers have to fall back on "confidence." I'm already pretty confident that voter fraud is not effecting elections. It's just so implausible—it would take a wide-ranging conspiracy of people willing to run around town casting multiple votes, committing a felony, mind you, without even knowing if their criminal act will have any effect on the outcome of the election. Not only that, but while we're talking about far-fetched conspiracy theories, what if voters from BOTH PARTIES go commit voter fraud in droves, canceling out the effects of each other's voter fraud plots? The mind boggles!
 
so I heard some dude on NPR talking about this a while ago. His care point was this - even if voter fraud is not rampant, voters have to be able to trust the system for people to feel like voting matters. If voters believe it's a rigged game, why bother?From this perspective, it's irrelevant if there has been actual cases of fraud. What matters is the perception that there might be. I'll submit this very thread that some people think that there may be voter fraud. Requiring Voter ID would be a way to ensure confidence in the system. Don't you guys think that's important?
The reality is except for head cases on both ends of the spectrum people aren't concerned with voter fraud. The system people are worried is fixed is the economic one and they already perceive it to be fixed. Voter ID is about helping to elect Republicans, as several of them have made clear, not about making voting fair or clean of non-existent fraud.
 
There's a philosophical difference that nobody has mentioned directly...Liberals believe that every adult inside the US with a pulse should be able to vote. The bar should be very low because it's a fundamental right, without qualification. Conservatives believe you should be legally qualified and able prove it.
You are painting with an very big brush with this statement. I would label myself a liberal and I am all in favor of requiring an ID to vote. Simply stated if you are not smart enough to get an ID, you are not smart enough to vote.
 
There's a philosophical difference that nobody has mentioned directly...Liberals believe that every adult inside the US with a pulse should be able to vote. The bar should be very low because it's a fundamental right, without qualification. Conservatives believe you should be legally qualified and able prove it.
You are painting with an very big brush with this statement. I would label myself a liberal and I am all in favor of requiring an ID to vote. Simply stated if you are not smart enough to get an ID, you are not smart enough to vote.
It isn't about smart.
 
what part of the voter ID system do you mistrust?
It suppresses votes from certain demographics.
I think that's rather insulting to said demographics.
OK then. Still true.
Why wouldn't certain demographics be able to show an ID card?
It's a hassle for old people and for minorities. It's ridiculous and it's a solution looking for a non-existent problem.
 
what part of the voter ID system do you mistrust?
It suppresses votes from certain demographics.
I think that's rather insulting to said demographics.
OK then. Still true.
Why wouldn't certain demographics be able to show an ID card?
It doesn't matter why. Some legal voters will not vote as a result of the ID requirement. That's why I mistrust the system.
 
what part of the voter ID system do you mistrust?
It suppresses votes from certain demographics.
I think that's rather insulting to said demographics.
OK then. Still true.
Why wouldn't certain demographics be able to show an ID card?
It doesn't matter why. Some legal voters will not vote as a result of the ID requirement. That's why I mistrust the system.
Why won't they vote? Have you spoken with these people? Why can't they get an ID card?
 
what part of the voter ID system do you mistrust?
It suppresses votes from certain demographics.
I think that's rather insulting to said demographics.
OK then. Still true.
Why wouldn't certain demographics be able to show an ID card?
It's a hassle for old people and for minorities. It's ridiculous and it's a solution looking for a non-existent problem.
If someone was interested in voting, get the ID. I don't think that's asking much considering the dates for an upcoming election are well known months in advance.
 
what part of the voter ID system do you mistrust?
It suppresses votes from certain demographics.
I think that's rather insulting to said demographics.
OK then. Still true.
Why wouldn't certain demographics be able to show an ID card?
It's a hassle for old people and for minorities. It's ridiculous and it's a solution looking for a non-existent problem.
Why is it a hassle? So someone that is African-American can't find a way to get an ID card? So all old people are are bedridden and don't ever leave where they live?
 
So what happens when someone uses a fake or stolen id? Then what?

I have no problem with showing id when voting. However if someone wants to commit fraud and vote with or without ID they will find a way.

Either way this is a minor issue, that the Republicans keep trying to push through.

 
So what happens when someone uses a fake or stolen id? Then what?

I have no problem with showing id when voting. However if someone wants to commit fraud and vote with or without ID they will find a way.

Either way this is a minor issue, that the Republicans keep trying to push through.
Exactly. You can get ID's for 100.00 that will pass DHS at the airport inspection much less the retired lady sitting at the polling place. Stupid. It's just meant to increase Republicans chances of getting elected. Cut and dry, pure and simple.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top