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

[Wrighteous Ray]

I have to present my ID. I don't know why others shouldn't.

Not everyone has a valid ID.

I don't understand why. Had one since I was 15. You need it to do everything. Open a bank account. Cash a check. Drive a car. Vote.

All this stuff has been addressed earlier in this thread.

 

[saintsfan]

I have to present my ID. I don't know why others shouldn't.

Not everyone has a valid ID.

I don't understand why. Had one since I was 15. You need it to do everything. Open a bank account. Cash a check. Drive a car. Vote.

All this stuff has been addressed earlier in this thread.

I don't feel like reading the whole thing so I'll take your word for it. See. You could be lying to me and I wouldn't even know it.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

All this stuff has been addressed earlier in this thread.

I don't feel like reading the whole thing so I'll take your word for it. See. You could be lying to me and I wouldn't even know it.

We've also conclusively proven my unparalleled lovemaking prowess.

 

[pantagrapher]

McCain Strategist: Voter Fraud Is GOP ‘Mythology’

RYAN J. REILLY NOVEMBER 5, 2012, 12:45 PM

A strategist for Sen. John McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign said on Monday morning that voter fraud was virtually nonexistent in the U.S. and yet has somehow become part of the Republican “mythology.”

“I think that all of this stuff that has transpired over the last two years is in search of a solution to a problem, voting fraud, that doesn’t really exist when you look deeply at the question,” strategist Steve Schmidt said on MSNBC.

“It’s part of the mythology now in the Republican Party that there’s widespread voter fraud across the country,” Schmidt said. “In fact, there’s not. Both sides are lawyered up to the nth degree and they’ll all posture back and forth on it but it probably won’t come down to lawyers.”

Republican-led legislatures across the county have passed voter ID laws during the past several years, including laws in Pennsylvania and Texas that have been blocked or delayed by courts.

McCain, Schmidt’s former boss, warned at the last presidential debate in 2008 that the election could be affected voter fraud and claimed the community organizing group known as ACORN was “now on the verge of maybe perpetrating one of the greatest frauds in voter history in this country, maybe destroying the fabric of democracy.”

link

 

[RCon]

In light of Sandy, New Jersey to allow e-mail voting. I'm curious where people come down on this.

I don't see a way to make it secure, so I'm against it.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

McCain Strategist: Voter Fraud Is GOP ‘Mythology’

RYAN J. REILLY NOVEMBER 5, 2012, 12:45 PM

A strategist for Sen. John McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign said on Monday morning that voter fraud was virtually nonexistent in the U.S. and yet has somehow become part of the Republican “mythology.”

“I think that all of this stuff that has transpired over the last two years is in search of a solution to a problem, voting fraud, that doesn’t really exist when you look deeply at the question,” strategist Steve Schmidt said on MSNBC.

“It’s part of the mythology now in the Republican Party that there’s widespread voter fraud across the country,” Schmidt said. “In fact, there’s not. Both sides are lawyered up to the nth degree and they’ll all posture back and forth on it but it probably won’t come down to lawyers.”

Republican-led legislatures across the county have passed voter ID laws during the past several years, including laws in Pennsylvania and Texas that have been blocked or delayed by courts.

McCain, Schmidt’s former boss, warned at the last presidential debate in 2008 that the election could be affected voter fraud and claimed the community organizing group known as ACORN was “now on the verge of maybe perpetrating one of the greatest frauds in voter history in this country, maybe destroying the fabric of democracy.”

link

 

[Two Deep]

yes.

 

[The Commish]

In light of Sandy, New Jersey to allow e-mail voting. I'm curious where people come down on this.

I don't see a way to make it secure, so I'm against it.

Remember...it's not a problem until someone exploits it.

 

[The Commish]

In light of Sandy, New Jersey to allow e-mail voting. I'm curious where people come down on this.

I don't see a way to make it secure, so I'm against it.

Remember...it's not a problem until someone exploits it.

How can you read so much and understand so little? I get that you thought that you were being clever but that's just silly. The issue isn't that, "OMG, somebody is going to figure this out and then totally ruin an election." It's out there. Everyone is aware of the danger that you're talking about. It's better advertised than any other sort of election fraud. People don't do it because it doesn't make sense to do it. And if one idiot decides to try it, that will still be the case. It will still be stupid, risky, inefficient, and ineffective.

It's not clever, it's stupid and it's the end result when you take the current position of the democrats (not thinking it's necessary to identify people) all the way to it's full conclusion. It's stupid that we are exposing ourselves here and it's stupid that we expose ourselves on election day. You could have a completely secure system void of 99% of all these scenarios if we just took the time to do it. Then we wouldn't have to worry about all the one off scenarios

 

[Sarnoff]

In light of Sandy, New Jersey to allow e-mail voting. I'm curious where people come down on this.

Apparently this is more of a headache than originally thought. It can be emailed, but must also be printed out and mailed in like a regular absentee ballot application.

 

[Underachievers]

Right on cue to prove the ridiculousness of a completely secure system.

Given how much they value the ability to vote, both Bernice and Wardell Chavis of Vallejo said they were appalled when they found discarded vote-by-mail ballots in the street near their home.

On two occasions in the last month, the couple said they were on their regular morning walk when they came upon discarded vote-by-mail ballots in their north Vallejo neighborhood.

The discovery -- including one ballot envelope torn open and missing the ballot-- has prompted the Solano Registrar of Voters staff to review other vote-by-mail ballots in that neighborhood as well as encourage voters to verify that the Registrar of Voters has received their ballots.

People who vote-by-mail can check to see if their ballots were received by going to www.solanocounty.com/elections and clicking on the red button "Look Up Your Vote-by-Mail Ballot Status." Ballots are posted about 24 hours they're received.

"We were angry. We were appalled and we didn't know what to do," Bernice Chavis said after they found the ballots, including the envelope with a missing ballot.

"You feel anger that someone would do that. As hard as it is and as important as it is to vote, it's appalling. That's their vote in there," Wardell Chavis said.

The couple first found three rain-soaked, but intact, vote-by-mail ballots in the gutter on Headwater Street about two weeks ago. They found the torn ballot envelope last week on the same street.

So this couple found 4 ballots which is probably more than a decade's worth of impersonation voter fraud.

In all honesty....how "secure" is a voting system that requires ZERO identification? I walked into the polls last week to vote early, gave them my name, and was handed a ballot. How is that secure?

If you want to argue that voter fraud may not be as rampant as some think, that is one thing. But to call it "secure" is really an odd statement.

 

[Underachievers]

In all honesty....how "secure" is a voting system that requires ZERO identification? I walked into the polls last week to vote early, gave them my name, and was handed a ballot. How is that secure?If you want to argue that voter fraud may not be as rampant as some think, that is one thing. But to call it "secure" is really an odd statement.

No.I'm saying that the idea that we would have a secure system if we only checked photo IDs is a fallacy. There's a number of places for the accuracy of the vote to breakdown, either through intentional manipulation or unintentional mistake. So for this single-minded jihad to try to eradicate this single type of error in the system while introducing a whole host of other problematic complexities on the idea that, "Well, at least we now know it's right" is to be totally naive.

Okay, sorry for the misunderstanding.

 

[The Commish]

It's not clever, it's stupid and it's the end result when you take the current position of the democrats (not thinking it's necessary to identify people) all the way to it's full conclusion. It's stupid that we are exposing ourselves here and it's stupid that we expose ourselves on election day. You could have a completely secure system void of 99% of all these scenarios if we just took the time to do it. Then we wouldn't have to worry about all the one off scenarios

Again, it always comes back to the cost. You can always improve something. But the question is: is it worth it?We know that people commit tax fraud. They get convicted of it every year. And I'm absolutely positive that some people do it without getting caught. I'm fairly certain that if we made everybody file their taxes, in person, at the IRS and go through all of their return we would cut down on fraud. Should we do this? It looks like: no. The cost of doing it this way isn't worth the benefit of cutting down on the fraud.

And a completely secure system? GTFO. No system is ever completely secure and the current gaping holes in the voting system would not be plugged by a voter ID requirement.

To YOU it's about cost and it's a convenient rock to hide behind. To me, there is no "expense" to insure the bedrock process of our country is sound and secure. 99% should have been a clue that "completely secure" wasn't a literal term, but again....I forgot I was here in the FFA. As to your "gaping hole" argument, I don't think I've ever suggested it would be fixed with voter ID. What I have suggested all along is a complete redo of our system. Almost all scenarios could be addressed relatively easily at a one time cost, but I'm not going down that road again. You didn't seem to care the other 5 times it's been gone over.

 

[Zegras11]

Opened up my sample ballot Saturday to review the local stuff.

On the front cover it says, "The law requires voters to show ID" and "Bring your ID and VOTE"

Very happy to do so.

 

[Sarnoff]

I don't see anyone saying it's the only gaping hole in our system. But just because there are others doesn't mean we shouldn't start plugging them all.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Opened up my sample ballot Saturday to review the local stuff.

On the front cover it says, "The law requires voters to show ID" and "Bring your ID and VOTE"

Very happy to do so.

You know it's racist to have ID, right? God you're such a racist.

 

[The Commish]

It's not clever, it's stupid and it's the end result when you take the current position of the democrats (not thinking it's necessary to identify people) all the way to it's full conclusion. It's stupid that we are exposing ourselves here and it's stupid that we expose ourselves on election day. You could have a completely secure system void of 99% of all these scenarios if we just took the time to do it. Then we wouldn't have to worry about all the one off scenarios

Again, it always comes back to the cost. You can always improve something. But the question is: is it worth it?We know that people commit tax fraud. They get convicted of it every year. And I'm absolutely positive that some people do it without getting caught. I'm fairly certain that if we made everybody file their taxes, in person, at the IRS and go through all of their return we would cut down on fraud. Should we do this? It looks like: no. The cost of doing it this way isn't worth the benefit of cutting down on the fraud.

And a completely secure system? GTFO. No system is ever completely secure and the current gaping holes in the voting system would not be plugged by a voter ID requirement.

To YOU it's about cost and it's a convenient rock to hide behind. To me, there is no "expense" to insure the bedrock process of our country is sound and secure. 99% should have been a clue that "completely secure" wasn't a literal term, but again....I forgot I was here in the FFA.

Did you also mean the 99% or was that something else not to take literally? Because in the scheme of voter fraud, the variety which would be prevented by a Voter ID is the < 1%, not the 99%+. Or was that just another figure of speech.Also, hint: not all costs are monetary costs. Some costs are in terms of the exact harm you're trying to prevent, i.e., a qualified voter having their preference thwarted.

This is such a load of crap. Do you REALLY believe that this country can't take say $50 million dollars and create a voting system that doesn't "thwart" us citizens? Read what I said....I said the WHOLE SYSTEM has to be ditched and redone. If done correctly, it would solve 99% of the problems/potential problems we have/could have. This "cost" nonsense is just that...nonsense. It's a fear tactic much like the "if you vote for a GOPer, they'll overturn Roe v Wade or if you vote for a Dem, you're voting for socialism.I'll say one last time.....I am not, nor have I ever suggested that the voter fraud problem would be solved by IDs alone. It IS a potential problem and I personally believe the "well, no one is exploiting it so it's not a problem" shtick is just lazy.

The fact remains, it takes more for me to get into my YMCA or my neighborhood pool than it does to vote. If you don't think that's a problem, we'll agree to disagree. I think it's mind boggling stupid.

 

[Rayderr]

In light of Sandy, New Jersey to allow e-mail voting. I'm curious where people come down on this.

I don't see a way to make it secure, so I'm against it.

Plus it's disenfranchising all those poor black voters that don't have a computer and internet. Seriously, if these people can't afford a bus ride to get ID, why would they have the money to pay for hardware and services necessary to vote online?

 

[Zegras11]

Opened up my sample ballot Saturday to review the local stuff.

On the front cover it says, "The law requires voters to show ID" and "Bring your ID and VOTE"

Very happy to do so.

You know it's racist to have ID, right? God you're such a racist.

Thought I wasn't going to hear this until Tuesday

 

[dfwboiler]

It's not clever, it's stupid and it's the end result when you take the current position of the democrats (not thinking it's necessary to identify people) all the way to it's full conclusion. It's stupid that we are exposing ourselves here and it's stupid that we expose ourselves on election day. You could have a completely secure system void of 99% of all these scenarios if we just took the time to do it. Then we wouldn't have to worry about all the one off scenarios

Again, it always comes back to the cost. You can always improve something. But the question is: is it worth it?We know that people commit tax fraud. They get convicted of it every year. And I'm absolutely positive that some people do it without getting caught. I'm fairly certain that if we made everybody file their taxes, in person, at the IRS and go through all of their return we would cut down on fraud. Should we do this? It looks like: no. The cost of doing it this way isn't worth the benefit of cutting down on the fraud.

And a completely secure system? GTFO. No system is ever completely secure and the current gaping holes in the voting system would not be plugged by a voter ID requirement.

To YOU it's about cost and it's a convenient rock to hide behind. To me, there is no "expense" to insure the bedrock process of our country is sound and secure. 99% should have been a clue that "completely secure" wasn't a literal term, but again....I forgot I was here in the FFA.

Did you also mean the 99% or was that something else not to take literally? Because in the scheme of voter fraud, the variety which would be prevented by a Voter ID is the < 1%, not the 99%+. Or was that just another figure of speech.Also, hint: not all costs are monetary costs. Some costs are in terms of the exact harm you're trying to prevent, i.e., a qualified voter having their preference thwarted.

This is such a load of crap. Do you REALLY believe that this country can't take say $50 million dollars and create a voting system that doesn't "thwart" us citizens? Read what I said....I said the WHOLE SYSTEM has to be ditched and redone. If done correctly, it would solve 99% of the problems/potential problems we have/could have. This "cost" nonsense is just that...nonsense. It's a fear tactic much like the "if you vote for a GOPer, they'll overturn Roe v Wade or if you vote for a Dem, you're voting for socialism.I'll say one last time.....I am not, nor have I ever suggested that the voter fraud problem would be solved by IDs alone. It IS a potential problem and I personally believe the "well, no one is exploiting it so it's not a problem" shtick is just lazy.

The fact remains, it takes more for me to get into my YMCA or my neighborhood pool than it does to vote. If you don't think that's a problem, we'll agree to disagree. I think it's mind boggling stupid.

There's no way this would only cost us $50 million. We can't even buy voting machines that are secure. I'd say we need a national standard and voting machines that are more tamper proof.

 

[The Commish]

It's not clever, it's stupid and it's the end result when you take the current position of the democrats (not thinking it's necessary to identify people) all the way to it's full conclusion. It's stupid that we are exposing ourselves here and it's stupid that we expose ourselves on election day. You could have a completely secure system void of 99% of all these scenarios if we just took the time to do it. Then we wouldn't have to worry about all the one off scenarios

Again, it always comes back to the cost. You can always improve something. But the question is: is it worth it?We know that people commit tax fraud. They get convicted of it every year. And I'm absolutely positive that some people do it without getting caught. I'm fairly certain that if we made everybody file their taxes, in person, at the IRS and go through all of their return we would cut down on fraud. Should we do this? It looks like: no. The cost of doing it this way isn't worth the benefit of cutting down on the fraud.

And a completely secure system? GTFO. No system is ever completely secure and the current gaping holes in the voting system would not be plugged by a voter ID requirement.

To YOU it's about cost and it's a convenient rock to hide behind. To me, there is no "expense" to insure the bedrock process of our country is sound and secure. 99% should have been a clue that "completely secure" wasn't a literal term, but again....I forgot I was here in the FFA.

Did you also mean the 99% or was that something else not to take literally? Because in the scheme of voter fraud, the variety which would be prevented by a Voter ID is the < 1%, not the 99%+. Or was that just another figure of speech.Also, hint: not all costs are monetary costs. Some costs are in terms of the exact harm you're trying to prevent, i.e., a qualified voter having their preference thwarted.

This is such a load of crap. Do you REALLY believe that this country can't take say $50 million dollars and create a voting system that doesn't "thwart" us citizens? Read what I said....I said the WHOLE SYSTEM has to be ditched and redone. If done correctly, it would solve 99% of the problems/potential problems we have/could have. This "cost" nonsense is just that...nonsense. It's a fear tactic much like the "if you vote for a GOPer, they'll overturn Roe v Wade or if you vote for a Dem, you're voting for socialism.I'll say one last time.....I am not, nor have I ever suggested that the voter fraud problem would be solved by IDs alone. It IS a potential problem and I personally believe the "well, no one is exploiting it so it's not a problem" shtick is just lazy.

The fact remains, it takes more for me to get into my YMCA or my neighborhood pool than it does to vote. If you don't think that's a problem, we'll agree to disagree. I think it's mind boggling stupid.

There's no way this would only cost us $50 million. We can't even buy voting machines that are secure. I'd say we need a national standard and voting machines that are more tamper proof.

What would the largest expense be? Computers? Agree on voting machines...no need for them. They are inflated POS machines. Even if it were $500 million, I'd be fine with it. That's what...5-6 fighter jets' postponed creation for one year?

 

[Rayderr]

It's not clever, it's stupid and it's the end result when you take the current position of the democrats (not thinking it's necessary to identify people) all the way to it's full conclusion. It's stupid that we are exposing ourselves here and it's stupid that we expose ourselves on election day. You could have a completely secure system void of 99% of all these scenarios if we just took the time to do it. Then we wouldn't have to worry about all the one off scenarios

Again, it always comes back to the cost. You can always improve something. But the question is: is it worth it?We know that people commit tax fraud. They get convicted of it every year. And I'm absolutely positive that some people do it without getting caught. I'm fairly certain that if we made everybody file their taxes, in person, at the IRS and go through all of their return we would cut down on fraud. Should we do this? It looks like: no. The cost of doing it this way isn't worth the benefit of cutting down on the fraud.

And a completely secure system? GTFO. No system is ever completely secure and the current gaping holes in the voting system would not be plugged by a voter ID requirement.

To YOU it's about cost and it's a convenient rock to hide behind. To me, there is no "expense" to insure the bedrock process of our country is sound and secure. 99% should have been a clue that "completely secure" wasn't a literal term, but again....I forgot I was here in the FFA.

Did you also mean the 99% or was that something else not to take literally? Because in the scheme of voter fraud, the variety which would be prevented by a Voter ID is the < 1%, not the 99%+. Or was that just another figure of speech.Also, hint: not all costs are monetary costs. Some costs are in terms of the exact harm you're trying to prevent, i.e., a qualified voter having their preference thwarted.

This is such a load of crap. Do you REALLY believe that this country can't take say $50 million dollars and create a voting system that doesn't "thwart" us citizens? Read what I said....I said the WHOLE SYSTEM has to be ditched and redone. If done correctly, it would solve 99% of the problems/potential problems we have/could have. This "cost" nonsense is just that...nonsense. It's a fear tactic much like the "if you vote for a GOPer, they'll overturn Roe v Wade or if you vote for a Dem, you're voting for socialism.I'll say one last time.....I am not, nor have I ever suggested that the voter fraud problem would be solved by IDs alone. It IS a potential problem and I personally believe the "well, no one is exploiting it so it's not a problem" shtick is just lazy.

The fact remains, it takes more for me to get into my YMCA or my neighborhood pool than it does to vote. If you don't think that's a problem, we'll agree to disagree. I think it's mind boggling stupid.

There's no way this would only cost us $50 million. We can't even buy voting machines that are secure. I'd say we need a national standard and voting machines that are more tamper proof.

What would the largest expense be? Computers? Agree on voting machines...no need for them. They are inflated POS machines. Even if it were $500 million, I'd be fine with it. That's what...5-6 fighter jets' postponed creation for one year?

Ummmmm..... no.Congress has already given over $3billion to the states under the Help America Vote Act in 2000 and we still have the conditions that we have. The problem which you're ignoring is that there's millions of voting locations. So if you want to adopt something standard and universal, then you have to implement it everywhere.

The other problem you have is that Congress can't adopt something standard and universal. It's not up to them. There's various things that states are prohibited from doing (say discriminating against their voters or holding Presidential elections on December 1st) but the way in which they conduct their elections is up to them. So any system would have to be opt-in at the state level.

The last obvious problem you have is that there is no thing such as a fraud-free system. I don't know what kind of system you were envisioning, or if you were envisioning anything other than just throwing money at the problem and hoping magic happens, but there is no system which is fraud-free. Voter registrations can (and have) been thrown away. Bags of ballots have been found in the trash can. In a pure electronic voting system, machines can be hacked to report false totals. People proctoring an election could stuff the ballot box voting for people who didn't show up that day. That's just 30 seconds off of the top of my head. And that's not in addition to the problems of people who are confused by a ballot or mark it incorrectly or incorrectly follow some procedure, getting their vote thrown out.

There's more to things than just saying we should spend more money.

Except for health care apparently.

 

[The Commish]

It's not clever, it's stupid and it's the end result when you take the current position of the democrats (not thinking it's necessary to identify people) all the way to it's full conclusion. It's stupid that we are exposing ourselves here and it's stupid that we expose ourselves on election day. You could have a completely secure system void of 99% of all these scenarios if we just took the time to do it. Then we wouldn't have to worry about all the one off scenarios

Again, it always comes back to the cost. You can always improve something. But the question is: is it worth it?We know that people commit tax fraud. They get convicted of it every year. And I'm absolutely positive that some people do it without getting caught. I'm fairly certain that if we made everybody file their taxes, in person, at the IRS and go through all of their return we would cut down on fraud. Should we do this? It looks like: no. The cost of doing it this way isn't worth the benefit of cutting down on the fraud.

And a completely secure system? GTFO. No system is ever completely secure and the current gaping holes in the voting system would not be plugged by a voter ID requirement.

To YOU it's about cost and it's a convenient rock to hide behind. To me, there is no "expense" to insure the bedrock process of our country is sound and secure. 99% should have been a clue that "completely secure" wasn't a literal term, but again....I forgot I was here in the FFA.

Did you also mean the 99% or was that something else not to take literally? Because in the scheme of voter fraud, the variety which would be prevented by a Voter ID is the < 1%, not the 99%+. Or was that just another figure of speech.Also, hint: not all costs are monetary costs. Some costs are in terms of the exact harm you're trying to prevent, i.e., a qualified voter having their preference thwarted.

This is such a load of crap. Do you REALLY believe that this country can't take say $50 million dollars and create a voting system that doesn't "thwart" us citizens? Read what I said....I said the WHOLE SYSTEM has to be ditched and redone. If done correctly, it would solve 99% of the problems/potential problems we have/could have. This "cost" nonsense is just that...nonsense. It's a fear tactic much like the "if you vote for a GOPer, they'll overturn Roe v Wade or if you vote for a Dem, you're voting for socialism.I'll say one last time.....I am not, nor have I ever suggested that the voter fraud problem would be solved by IDs alone. It IS a potential problem and I personally believe the "well, no one is exploiting it so it's not a problem" shtick is just lazy.

The fact remains, it takes more for me to get into my YMCA or my neighborhood pool than it does to vote. If you don't think that's a problem, we'll agree to disagree. I think it's mind boggling stupid.

There's no way this would only cost us $50 million. We can't even buy voting machines that are secure. I'd say we need a national standard and voting machines that are more tamper proof.

What would the largest expense be? Computers? Agree on voting machines...no need for them. They are inflated POS machines. Even if it were $500 million, I'd be fine with it. That's what...5-6 fighter jets' postponed creation for one year?

Ummmmm..... no.Congress has already given over $3billion to the states under the Help America Vote Act in 2000 and we still have the conditions that we have. The problem which you're ignoring is that there's millions of voting locations. So if you want to adopt something standard and universal, then you have to implement it everywhere.

The other problem you have is that Congress can't adopt something standard and universal. It's not up to them. There's various things that states are prohibited from doing (say discriminating against their voters or holding Presidential elections on December 1st) but the way in which they conduct their elections is up to them. So any system would have to be opt-in at the state level.

The last obvious problem you have is that there is no thing such as a fraud-free system. I don't know what kind of system you were envisioning, or if you were envisioning anything other than just throwing money at the problem and hoping magic happens, but there is no system which is fraud-free. Voter registrations can (and have) been thrown away. Bags of ballots have been found in the trash can. In a pure electronic voting system, machines can be hacked to report false totals. People proctoring an election could stuff the ballot box voting for people who didn't show up that day. That's just 30 seconds off of the top of my head. And that's not in addition to the problems of people who are confused by a ballot or mark it incorrectly or incorrectly follow some procedure, getting their vote thrown out.

There's more to things than just saying we should spend more money.

Yeah, you keep trying to fix the current system. Again, that's not going to work. It has to be completely redone. I doubt a trillion dollars would fix the current mess we have. There's plenty of opportunity to do things correctly and reduce the costs making things more efficient. This of course would include a set of guidelines that the states would have to operate under. I've never understood why a federal election is left up to the states. You like to try and reduce everything I say into short little one line ideas. Not sure what you get from that, but it's weird. It's not about spending the money. It's about fixing the most important event in our democratic process and making sure it's sound. It annoys me to no end when people give the "it's just too hard" crap. It's lazy. And for the last time, I didn't say 100% fraud free EVER. There's always exceptions and people will find ways around things, but you can't tell me what we have today is acceptable. It can be completely ripped out and replaced. I know the current politicians and their minion followers like the way it is, but it's not acceptable to me.To your "millions of voter locations", I'm not seeing the math. The average voting location services 1100. We have 315,000,000 people in this country. Let's say every one of those people can vote, which they can't. That's approx 290,000ish voting locations. That speaks to the inefficiency of our system, but it's not "millions".

 

[pantagrapher]

I don't see anyone saying it's the only gaping hole in our system. But just because there are others doesn't mean we shouldn't start plugging them all.

I haven't seen a single conservative raising hell in the voter registration fraud thread.But start a voter ID thread and it's like conservative catnip.

 

[The Commish]

I don't see anyone saying it's the only gaping hole in our system. But just because there are others doesn't mean we shouldn't start plugging them all.

I haven't seen a single conservative raising hell in the voter registration fraud thread.But start a voter ID thread and it's like conservative catnip.

Both areas need to be fixed.

 

[Sarnoff]

I haven't seen a single conservative raising hell in the voter registration fraud thread.

Wasn't a big part of the uproar over ACORN about their shady registrations?

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

I haven't seen a single conservative raising hell in the voter registration fraud thread.

Wasn't a big part of the uproar over ACORN about their shady registrations?

That doesn't really help your argument. Pantagrapher is saying that the conservatives are just being partisan hacks. Both ACORN and ID-less voting benefit Democrats, so conservatives love to talk about them. the voter registration fraud thread was about an incident that was intended to benefit Republicans, and it got far less attention.

 

[RCon]

I haven't seen a single conservative raising hell in the voter registration fraud thread.

Wasn't a big part of the uproar over ACORN about their shady registrations?

That doesn't really help your argument. Pantagrapher is saying that the conservatives are just being partisan hacks. Both ACORN and ID-less voting benefit Democrats, so conservatives love to talk about them. the voter registration fraud thread was about an incident that was intended to benefit Republicans, and it got far less attention.

I made a note in the thread that whatever it is that happened certainly appears to be shenanigans and sucks. I'm too lazy to do significant research into exactly what happened and who is at fault, and since no one posted a good set of cliff's notes for me, that's about all I can say.

 

[Mello]

Just got through getting my papers scanned and re-scanned so I could be allowed to take part in my civic right. Then got on my electronic voting machine with text so big anyone could read it and poorly calibrated so I had to change my selection to the right person a few times. Thanks GOP.

 

[Sheriff66]

They asked for my ID, I refused to show it, if others don't have to I'm not.

 

[Sarnoff]

I haven't seen a single conservative raising hell in the voter registration fraud thread.

Wasn't a big part of the uproar over ACORN about their shady registrations?

That doesn't really help your argument. Pantagrapher is saying that the conservatives are just being partisan hacks. Both ACORN and ID-less voting benefit Democrats, so conservatives love to talk about them. the voter registration fraud thread was about an incident that was intended to benefit Republicans, and it got far less attention.

Oh, I didn't realize that the voter registration fraud thread was about a specific incident. I misread pants's post, I thought he meant that conservatives don't care about that kind of fraud. I'm for fixing all the holes in the system.

 

[Mello]

I haven't seen a single conservative raising hell in the voter registration fraud thread.

Wasn't a big part of the uproar over ACORN about their shady registrations?

That doesn't really help your argument. Pantagrapher is saying that the conservatives are just being partisan hacks. Both ACORN and ID-less voting benefit Democrats, so conservatives love to talk about them. the voter registration fraud thread was about an incident that was intended to benefit Republicans, and it got far less attention.

Oh, I didn't realize that the voter registration fraud thread was about a specific incident. I misread pants's post, I thought he meant that conservatives don't care about that kind of fraud. I'm for fixing all the holes in the system.

No matter the cost or outcome. What a conservative point of view!

 

[Wrigley]

Was not asked for ID



Thinking about going back at lunch to vote as my brother.

 

[Sarnoff]

As usual, the dingbat old lady asked to see my "sample ballot" that everyone in the state receives by mail, which lists polling place, measures on the ballot, etc. She was going to use it to ID me... something that everyone gets and just sits out in an easily accessible mailbox. I refused to show it to her, but this time I didn't remind her it's against the state code for her to ask to see it. Didn't feel like putting up with that conversation again.

The "electioneer" guy from the primaries was working the polls again today. When I voted back in June, he was also at the sign-in table, loudly telling the rest of his pollworkers next to the voting booths that anyone showing up to vote for a particular candidate was an idiot. One of the other workers called him on it, "Dude, shut up, you can't say stuff like that when there are voters in the room." "But I'm just saying, (the guy) is terrible and anyone who would vote for him is a moron." "Dude, really, it's against the law for you to say that right now." "All I'm saying is Republicans are idiots. Is that a crime?"

 

[RCon]

As usual, the dingbat old lady asked to see my "sample ballot" that everyone in the state receives by mail, which lists polling place, measures on the ballot, etc. She was going to use it to ID me... something that everyone gets and just sits out in an easily accessible mailbox. I refused to show it to her, but this time I didn't remind her it's against the state code for her to ask to see it. Didn't feel like putting up with that conversation again.

The "electioneer" guy from the primaries was working the polls again today. When I voted back in June, he was also at the sign-in table, loudly telling the rest of his pollworkers next to the voting booths that anyone showing up to vote for a particular candidate was an idiot. One of the other workers called him on it, "Dude, shut up, you can't say stuff like that when there are voters in the room." "But I'm just saying, (the guy) is terrible and anyone who would vote for him is a moron." "Dude, really, it's against the law for you to say that right now." "All I'm saying is Republicans are idiots. Is that a crime?"

Yes?

 

[Topes]

Former Florida GOP leaders say voter suppression was reason they pushed new election law

 

[Rayderr]

Former Florida GOP leaders say voter suppression was reason they pushed new election law

OK, I'll accept what they are saying as true if you accept that Patrick Moran (Jim Moran's son) was going to commit voter fraud. Deal?

 

[Guest]

Former Florida GOP leaders say voter suppression was reason they pushed new election law

OK, I'll accept what they are saying as true if you accept that Patrick Moran (Jim Moran's son) was going to commit voter fraud. Deal?

That's stupid.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Former Florida GOP leaders say voter suppression was reason they pushed new election law

OK, I'll accept what they are saying as true if you accept that Patrick Moran (Jim Moran's son) was going to commit voter fraud. Deal?

Not. Even. Close.

 

[Rayderr]

Former Florida GOP leaders say voter suppression was reason they pushed new election law

OK, I'll accept what they are saying as true if you accept that Patrick Moran (Jim Moran's son) was going to commit voter fraud. Deal?

That's stupid.

So is trusting the word of a guy under indictment for stealing $200k from a political party.

 

[Guest]

Former Florida GOP leaders say voter suppression was reason they pushed new election law

OK, I'll accept what they are saying as true if you accept that Patrick Moran (Jim Moran's son) was going to commit voter fraud. Deal?

That's stupid.

So is trusting the word of a guy under indictment for stealing $200k from a political party.

He's not the only source.But hey, only one of the GOP representatives who passed this stuff has been caught on video saying he was doing it for partisan reasons so clearly you should make them trustworthy sources and equivocate with a 23-year-old kid talking to O'Keefe.

I thought you were better than that but now I'm thinking I was just giving you too much credit.

 

[RCon]

Former Florida GOP leaders say voter suppression was reason they pushed new election law

I freely admit there are lots of douchebags in the GOP, and that many of them advocate certain policies for the wrong reasons. That doesn't necessarily make the policy itself wrong. Pretty sure I've stated this exact thing previously in one of these threads, and that some advocates were doing so for the wrong reason.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Former Florida GOP leaders say voter suppression was reason they pushed new election law

OK, I'll accept what they are saying as true if you accept that Patrick Moran (Jim Moran's son) was going to commit voter fraud. Deal?

That's stupid.

So is trusting the word of a guy under indictment for stealing $200k from a political party.

He's not the only source.But hey, only one of the GOP representatives who passed this stuff has been caught on video saying he was doing it for partisan reasons so clearly you should make them trustworthy sources and equivocate with a 23-year-old kid talking to O'Keefe.

I thought you were better than that but now I'm thinking I was just giving you too much credit.

I will give the story 25% weight since out of the four people they quote as "sources", one is under indictment, the other was kicked out of the party, one is "unnamed" and the other seems to be legit.

 

[Guest]

I will give the story 25% weight since out of the four people they quote as "sources", one is under indictment, the other was kicked out of the party, one is "unnamed" and the other seems to be legit.

So if it didn't have the first 3 sources, you would give the story 100% weight?Great math.

 

[MaxThreshold]

I will give the story 25% weight since out of the four people they quote as "sources", one is under indictment, the other was kicked out of the party, one is "unnamed" and the other seems to be legit.

So if it didn't have the first 3 sources, you would give the story 100% weight?Great math.

Exactly - Math you can believe in too.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Former Florida GOP leaders say voter suppression was reason they pushed new election law

I freely admit there are lots of douchebags in the GOP, and that many of them advocate certain policies for the wrong reasons. That doesn't necessarily make the policy itself wrong. Pretty sure I've stated this exact thing previously in one of these threads, and that some advocates were doing so for the wrong reason.

The policy itself is wrong.

 

[jon_mx]

Wtf is the big deal about showing an ID to vote? How is a voting system legit if we have no assurance that all the votes were done properly. Stupidest debate ever. Sure there are self-serving motivations on each side, it does not change it

 

[cubd8]

Former Florida GOP leaders say voter suppression was reason they pushed new election law

I freely admit there are lots of douchebags in the GOP, and that many of them advocate certain policies for the wrong reasons. That doesn't necessarily make the policy itself wrong. Pretty sure I've stated this exact thing previously in one of these threads, and that some advocates were doing so for the wrong reason.

The policy itself is wrong.

Incorrect response. This is a pretty stupid debate.

 

[Novice2]

Former Florida GOP leaders say voter suppression was reason they pushed new election law

Early voting only helps lazy moochers vote for free stuff!

 

[Anthony Borbely]

Wtf is the big deal about showing an ID to vote? How is a voting system legit if we have no assurance that all the votes were done properly. Stupidest debate ever. Sure there are self-serving motivations on each side, it does not change it

How is the voting system legit if votes are suppressed?