VoterID / Fraud (Split from Gun Show Loophole)
Quote: boymimbo10 VOTER fraud cases in the past 12 years, and it's a big issue, cuz Fox News says so: "ACORN!"
With millions illegally on voter registration rolls, there are certainly more than 10 cases. It's just a question of compiling the list. You are correct about the multitude and magnitude of the problems. Here the facts and figures from the Pew Center, a notably un-conservative yet highly respected organization:
"Approximately 24 million voter registrations in the United States are no longer valid or have significant inaccuracies, according to the Pew Center on the States. Research in Pew's report, "Inaccurate, Costly, and Inefficient," underscores the need for registration systems that better maintain voter records, save money, and streamline processes. This is an effort that eight states are spearheading with Pew’s support.
The report highlights the challenges nationwide:
At least 51 million eligible citizens remain unregistered—more than 24 percent of the eligible population.
More than 1.8 million deceased individuals are listed as voters.
Approximately 2.75 million people have registrations in more than one state.
About 12 million records have incorrect addresses, meaning either the voters moved, or errors in the information make it unlikely any mailings can reach them."
Quote:Absentee ballot fraud, vote buying, election rigging, and shitty voting machines are far bigger problems then VOTER fraud
Quote: Beethoven9thHuh?? Those things are voter fraud.
The act of voter fraud is legally defined as an individual appearing at a polling station, providing identification bearing a false name, and casting a ballot.
Quote: rxwineThe act of voter fraud is legally defined as an individual appearing at a polling station, providing identification bearing a false name, and casting a ballot.
Look here. The final sentence:
Quote:Electoral fraud is also termed voter fraud.
Then again, perhaps I just don't know what the definition of "is" is. (haha)
Quote: SanchoPanza
The report highlights the challenges nationwide:
At least 51 million eligible citizens remain unregistered—more than 24 percent of the eligible population.
More than 1.8 million deceased individuals are listed as voters.
Approximately 2.75 million people have registrations in more than one state.
About 12 million records have incorrect addresses, meaning either the voters moved, or errors in the information make it unlikely any mailings can reach them."
These are definitely all problems, and they certainly lead to additional costs. But none of them is voter fraud.
Quote: s2dbakerEveryone is required to sign their name in front of an election official. That kind of ID is not easily faked.
It most surely is questioned -- and more than firmly -- when trying to cash a check drawn at a bank where you don't have an account.
Quote: Beethoven9thQuote: rxwineThe act of voter fraud is legally defined as an individual appearing at a polling station, providing identification bearing a false name, and casting a ballot.
Look here. The final sentence:Quote:Electoral fraud is also termed voter fraud.
Then again, perhaps I just don't know what the definition of "is" is. (haha)
Of course, here's the first "sentence" from that same definition: "Electoral fraud refers to is illegal interference with the process of an election." So maybe this just isn't the best place to look for help with using and defining terms. Or, alternatively, maybe I don't know what the definition of "is" is. It certainly doesn't make any sense here...
Quote: RonCIt is laughable to think anyone would truly think that signing a document in front of an election official without any documentation at all constitutes "proof" of identification.
Sure, but it's also laughable to think that in-person voter fraud is common or is a serious problem. In order for me to impersonate you, I'd need to:
1. know your full name
2. know your address
3. know your polling place
4. know that you hadn't voted yet
5. look approximately your age (they have your DOB on the roll)
6. hope that the little old lady from your neighborhood who is working the polls doesn't actually know you
7. Be willing to risk 10 years in prison to cast 1 illegal vote.
Quote: rdw4potusOf course, here's the first "sentence" from that same definition: "Electoral fraud refers to is illegal interference with the process of an election." So maybe this just isn't the best place to look for help with using and defining terms.
I didn't realize this was some type of legal discussion. All I know is that I'm pretty sure the member who first brought up 'voter fraud' wasn't talking about it in a strict legal sense. Kinda like when someone says 'murder'. The average person (i.e. non-attorney) who says 'murder' could mean 1st/2nd degree murder, voluntary manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, etc. *shrug*
Dead people can't vote either. Live people can vote for them using their absentee ballot.
Where is the evidence? Where are the cases and the prosecutions that shows this widespread voter fraud that cost the Republicans the election? Or is it a big gigantic conspiracy that nobody is prosecuting?
It isn't a problem. It's a fictituous argument because FNC and the RNC can't accept that it lost the 2008 and 2012 election to a black man with a Muslim sounding name. Take Wisconsin for example. Rampant voter fraud. Seven cases of an illegal vote in the 2004 election, all cast illegally by felons. Oh, and look at Ohio where many precincts had not one vote for Romney... must be voter fraud, or the more likely fact that the entire polling station has black voters with absolutely no connection to Mitt Romney or the RNC.
But whatever.
If you want to solve the perceived problems, (1) purge dead people using the SSI death index.
(2) create voter ID laws (not the year of an election) and then make a concerted effort to ensure that all registered voters get a photo ID.
(3) add verification for absentee balloting which is a huge source of fraud.
(4) create nationwisde electronic voting registration to ensure that someone doesn't vote twice.
Quote: rdw4potusSure, but it's also laughable to think that in-person voter fraud is common or is a serious problem. In order for me to impersonate you, I'd need to:
1. know your full name
Easy enough to find out
Quote: rdw4potus2. know your address
See # 1
Quote: rdw4potus3. know your polling place
How hard is that to find? I think it is on the internet here.
Quote: rdw4potus4. know that you hadn't voted yet
Depending on the election, the WORST chance of getting caught is 50%, since we have such low voter turnout
Quote: rdw4potus5. look approximately your age (they have your DOB on the roll)
Getting the DOB is not hard; of course. Stay within 10 years of your age and this is easy.
Quote: rdw4potus6. hope that the little old lady from your neighborhood who is working the polls doesn't actually know you
Less than a 1% chance of that! Plus, if I see someone I know, I just don't proceed.
Quote: rdw4potus7. Be willing to risk 10 years in prison to cast 1 illegal vote.
Yes, they max people out on sentences all the time. There is little chance of jail time.
I'm NOT saying that a lot of people do it...but it is easier than any of the folks on the non-ID side acknowledge. Their best argument is that it really doesn't happen that much; not that signing a form is proof of ID.
Maybe that's why they have double voting.Quote: rxwineDemocrats are actually concerned with just getting ALL their actual registered voters to the poll. That's enough of a problem by itself.
They had a Voter ID protest but told people in the protest to BRING ID!
Could this be because virtually everyone has a photo ID or can easily get one and the only reason to be against Voter ID laws is to allow voter fraud?
So in conclusion, don't urinate on me and tell me it's raining.
Quote: onenickelmiracleCan't support fraud, but think it's uncommon. Voting is too sacred to make it complicated and most laws are passed to restrict the vote under the guise of security. Having a provisional ballot would be ok but just don't think forcing someone to pay for an ID should be a requirement when it's mainly a revenue avenue for government which has become perverted by greed.
So in conclusion, don't urinate on me and tell me it's raining.
How on earth is having ID "making it complicated?" Adults have ID, it is part of life.
If voting is sacred, isn't it important that we put in some reasonable controls to see it is kept clean?
OTOH, the right to keep and bear arms is sacred. Why are we allowed to make it so complicated?
+1Quote: AZDuffmanHow on earth is having ID "making it complicated?" Adults have ID, it is part of life.
If voting is sacred, isn't it important that we put in some reasonable controls to see it is kept clean?
That's hilarious. Voting is "sacred", but how dare anyone try to prevent voter fraud!! lol. This reminds me of that article where the NAACP told people to bring ID to a rally where they protested voter ID!
NAACP Requires Marchers Protesting Voter ID Law To Show Photo ID
This alone proves that many liberals are incapable of any type of coherent thought.
Quote: AZDuffmanHow on earth is having ID "making it complicated?" Adults have ID, it is part of life.
I'm very late to this party. What is the issue with requiring ID? I heard some people say that voting is a Right and, since ID's cost money, it was a "poll tax". But at $10 for a non driver ID that lasts 5 years, even I, who rail against most things that the gov does, don't see the huge issue.
Is there more to it than that?
Quote: FaceI'm very late to this party. What is the issue with requiring ID? I heard some people say that voting is a Right and, since ID's cost money, it was a "poll tax". But at $10 for a non driver ID that lasts 5 years, even I, who rail against most things that the gov does, don't see the huge issue.
Is there more to it than that?
There's a bit more.
1. In a state like MN that has a very short residency requirement to vote, but does not instantly print IDs, it's possible that people with the right to vote don't have the ability to get ID in time (College freshmen are a prime example).
2. In addition to the poll-tax idea, there's also a jim crow aspect. I do think the cost of an ID is an undue burden, but most states do have waivers if the ID is required to vote (some across the board, some subject to income requirements). But, more than that, it's not fair to require an elderly would-be voter without ID to find a birth certificate and SS card to get the ID when they didn't need it in the past. It's very easy to get a new photo ID when you already have one, but it's pretty hard for an adult to get one for the first time. That's especially true for people born in the segregationist south, where birth records for non-whites were notoriously awful.
3. This is just an unnecessary regulation. It solves a "problem" that doesn't actually exist in any meaningful way. The pro argument seems to always talk about how so "few" people are negatively impacted. How many people need to be affected before it's a worthy issue? If we keep even 500 old people and college students from voting and we stop 3 instances of would-be fraud, are we going to say this was a good idea? I would argue that we weakened our democracy by 497 net units of freedom.
They're not trying to establish residency with ID; they're trying to establish basic identity.Quote: rdw4potus1. In a state like MN that has a very short residency requirement to vote, but does not instantly print IDs, it's possible that people with the right to vote don't have the ability to get ID in time (College freshmen are a prime example).
Who are these elderly people who have never had any form of ID in their lives??Quote: rdw4potusIt's very easy to get a new photo ID when you already have one, but it's pretty hard for an adult to get one for the first time. That's especially true for people born in the segregationist south, where birth records for non-whites were notoriously awful.
Hmm...497 people who can't figure out how to get ID? If they can't even figure that out, I doubt they understand anything about true freedom. Just sayin.Quote: rdw4potusIf we keep even 500 old people and college students from voting and we stop 3 instances of would-be fraud, are we going to say this was a good idea? I would argue that we weakened our democracy by 497 net units of freedom.
Quote: rdw4potusThere's a bit more.
Roger that. Thanks for the education =)
Quote: rdw4potusThere's a bit more.
1. In a state like MN that has a very short residency requirement to vote, but does not instantly print IDs, it's possible that people with the right to vote don't have the ability to get ID in time (College freshmen are a prime example).
Minimal people affected and they can use passports, etc. In any case, college freshmen should vote in their home state unless they have relocated on a perm basis, which is rare.
Quote:2. In addition to the poll-tax idea, there's also a jim crow aspect. I do think the cost of an ID is an undue burden, but most states do have waivers if the ID is required to vote (some across the board, some subject to income requirements). But, more than that, it's not fair to require an elderly would-be voter without ID to find a birth certificate and SS card to get the ID when they didn't need it in the past. It's very easy to get a new photo ID when you already have one, but it's pretty hard for an adult to get one for the first time. That's especially true for people born in the segregationist south, where birth records for non-whites were notoriously awful.
Oh, please. Is the elderly voter getting social security? Then they have a SS. EVERYONE has ID, unless they are leading a life of crime. Do they drive? Have they WORKED since the 1980s? And the "segregationist south" thing is silly. Do you expect us to believe these people lasted all these years without ID?
Quote:3. This is just an unnecessary regulation. It solves a "problem" that doesn't actually exist in any meaningful way. The pro argument seems to always talk about how so "few" people are negatively impacted. How many people need to be affected before it's a worthy issue? If we keep even 500 old people and college students from voting and we stop 3 instances of would-be fraud, are we going to say this was a good idea? I would argue that we weakened our democracy by 497 net units of freedom.
It doesn't matter how many people are negatively impacted as that itself is a problem that does not exist, they can just get an ID and problem solved. OTOH a fraudulent election can have huge consequences. A stolen election in MN helped flip the Senate to a Democrat supermajority and allowed Obamacare to pass.
But as I said before, if I have to show ID to buy a gun why do I not have to do so to vote?
Also, the 2004 Washington gubernatorial race was another stolen election. It may not have been a federal election, but Dems are still the masters of voter fraud. (Christine Gregoire had votes mysteriously appear out of thin air with each recount)Quote: AZDuffmanA stolen election in MN helped flip the Senate...
+10Quote: AZDuffmanBut as I said before, if I have to show ID to buy a gun why do I not have to do so to vote?
Holder has gotta be the sorriest excuse for an attorney general I've ever seen. *facepalm*
Quote: Beethoven9thSpeaking of voting: Eric Holder Urges States to Lift Bans on Felons’ Voting
Holder has gotta be the sorriest excuse for an attorney general I've ever seen. *facepalm*
From the same story:
Quote:Senator Rand Paul, a Kentucky Republican and a possible presidential candidate, has endorsed his state’s effort to give felons the right to vote.
Quote: rxwineFrom the same story:
[snip]
From me:
Who cares??
Your brain must be as thick as two coconuts. You aren't preventing fraud, it's voting which is prevented. I laugh because you think i'm the idiot.Quote: Beethoven9th+1
That's hilarious. Voting is "sacred", but how dare anyone try to prevent voter fraud!! lol. This reminds me of that article where the NAACP told people to bring ID to a rally where they protested voter ID!
NAACP Requires Marchers Protesting Voter ID Law To Show Photo ID
This alone proves that many liberals are incapable of any type of coherent thought.
Um...people who want to commit voter fraud can't do so if they don't vote, Einstein.Quote: onenickelmiracleYou aren't preventing fraud, it's voting which is prevented.
Wow, such anger & vitriol. You haven't even written me in several days, but you've obviously been stewing over my previous posts to you. I must be really getting on your nerves...lolQuote: onenickelmiracleYour brain must be as thick as two coconuts.
Quote: onenickelmiracleYou aren't preventing fraud, it's voting which is prevented. I laugh because you think i'm the idiot.
How is it voting that is being prevented? Just show your ID and you vote.
OTOH it does prevent poll workers from voting for Obama six times, which we have seen has happened. I would rather 1,000 lumps who refuse to show the ID they already have or refuse to get one because of whatever reason be denied their "right to vote" than one fraudulent vote be cast.
Just show your ID, same as when you buy cold medicine
EDIT: The level that liberals use to attack Voter ID laws mean they know fraud is probably going on, otherwise why wouldn't they just put the same effort into educating their voters that they already have some form of ID?
Darnit, liberals have been foiled by AZDuffman again! Our massive voter fraud machine has been revealed! We would have gotten away with it too if it wasn't for you meddling teenagers!Quote: AZDuffmanEDIT: The level that liberals use to attack Voter ID laws mean they know fraud is probably going on
Quote: AZDuffmanMinimal people affected and they can use passports, etc. In any case, college freshmen should vote in their home state unless they have relocated on a perm basis, which is rare.
Sure. Minimal. >0 is the threshold for a constitutional violation, but minimal is OK. Also, LOTS of college freshmen sign 12 month leases to live off campus. That meets just about every state's definition of permanent residency.
Quote: AZDuffmanOh, please. Is the elderly voter getting social security? Then they have a SS. EVERYONE has ID, unless they are leading a life of crime. Do they drive? Have they WORKED since the 1980s? And the "segregationist south" thing is silly. Do you expect us to believe these people lasted all these years without ID?
It takes an SS card AND a birth certificate to get photo ID in most states. Even if they're getting SS, they may not have access to their birth certificate if one was even issued. Lots of people lasted this long without ID. Plenty of housewives and home workers from that era never drove or even worked officially. But, again, if there's even 1 person that fits into this "group" there's a constitutional issue. And, again, the "fraud" that we're "combating" DOESN'T ACTUALLY EXIST.
Quote: AZDuffmanIt doesn't matter how many people are negatively impacted as that itself is a problem that does not exist, they can just get an ID and problem solved. OTOH a fraudulent election can have huge consequences. A stolen election in MN helped flip the Senate to a Democrat supermajority and allowed Obamacare to pass.
Franken won. I was there. It was scary for a minute or two when it looked like Lizard People was going to pull out the victory. Also, Coleman is pretty liberal on healthcare. Are you sure he wouldn't have supported the law after negotiation? Do you really think that all 41 of the would-be Senate republicans would have failed to vote for cloture? Wouldn't Reid and Obama just have talked more with Snowe and won her support like they did with Nelson and Lieberman? She was still on the fence when they realized they didn't need her and went after Nelson instead...
Quote: rdw4potusSure. Minimal. >0 is the threshold for a constitutional violation, but minimal is OK. Also, LOTS of college freshmen sign 12 month leases to live off campus. That meets just about every state's definition of permanent residency.
If you cannot get an ID after being somewhere for 12 months the problem is you and not the system.
BTW, by your standard if even ONE fraudulent vote is cast then there is a Constitutional issue, correct?
Quote:It takes an SS card AND a birth certificate to get photo ID in most states. Even if they're getting SS, they may not have access to their birth certificate if one was even issued. Lots of people lasted this long without ID. Plenty of housewives and home workers from that era never drove or even worked officially. But, again, if there's even 1 person that fits into this "group" there's a constitutional issue. And, again, the "fraud" that we're "combating" DOESN'T ACTUALLY EXIST.
So if the fraud DOESN'T ACTUALLY EXIST, why are liberals so afraid to ensure clean elections?
As to the "lasted this long" do you really expect an intelligent person to believe a person can make it 50 years without any form of ID?
Quote:Franken won. I was there. It was scary for a minute or two when it looked like Lizard People was going to pull out the victory.
He won because of a "recount" where they added votes that they "thought" people meant to cast. Stray marks near his name, LETS COUNT IT! "Found" votes. The election-stealing works. After Al Gore failed to steal the election in 2000 the left practiced their skills.
Quote: AZDuffmanIf you cannot get an ID after being somewhere for 12 months the problem is you and not the system.
BTW, by your standard if even ONE fraudulent vote is cast then there is a Constitutional issue, correct?
What would the constitutional problem with fraudulent votes be? The constitution guarantees the right to vote. Statute makes fraudulent voting a crime. Fraudulent voting isn't a constitutional problem. And if I move into an apartment on August 1 and there's a primary on August 20th, I have a right to vote in that primary (at least, in about 20 states I would). But, in several of those states, it'd be virtually impossible to get an ID and register in time to actually vote. I think we're talking past each other on the 12 months thing...
To B9's point about establishing identity and not residency - same-day registration is pretty common and requires the establishment of both.
Quote: AZDuffman
So if the fraud DOESN'T ACTUALLY EXIST, why are liberals so afraid to ensure clean elections?
As to the "lasted this long" do you really expect an intelligent person to believe a person can make it 50 years without any form of ID?
If the fraud DOESN'T ACTUALLY EXIST, why would we go to the time and expense of protecting against it? Why make it more difficult to vote when there is no compelling reason to do so? Please understand, I do feel this way about pretty much all issues. It should also be easier to gain access to guns and abortions and public education and healthcare and all other lawful and/or constitutionally guaranteed services.
Maybe these folks have some forms of ID. But a bus pass and library card are insufficient forms of ID to register to vote or to be admitted to a polling place. For that matter, so is a social security card. Even my passport card is insufficient here in PA (damn loophole/oversight!).
Nobody is afraid to ensure clean elections. We've de-funded Acorn 27 times and everything (NFN, but all 27 of those actions happened AFTER the group ceased to exist. Talk about being thorough...) But it's very odd that the conservative wing of the republican party chooses this one issue as the time that they want to support unnecessary additional regulations. Are rational people supposed to believe that it's just an unfortunate side-effect that the would-be voters who are most affected are supporters of the other party? Please.
Quote: AZDuffmanHe won because of a "recount" where they added votes that they "thought" people meant to cast. Stray marks near his name, LETS COUNT IT! "Found" votes. The election-stealing works. After Al Gore failed to steal the election in 2000 the left practiced their skills.
Both vote counts went up in the recount. Both candidates had advocates and witnesses in every room where votes were recounted. If your argument is that Franken's goons were better than Coleman's goons, well, hmm...sorry? But still, I'm pretty sure Coleman could have been a "yes" cloture vote even if he voted against the bill in the end. Same with Snowe. And, 6 months later, certainly Scott Brown would have compromised. So you can blame who/whatever you want, but the law would have passed...
Quote: rdw4potusThe constitution guarantees the right to vote.
Where? The Supreme Court decided that the Constitution does not guarantee the right to vote, but rather it is a privelige given to qualified citizens.
Perhaps you would like to rephrase.
Quote: rdw4potusWhat would the constitutional problem with fraudulent votes be? The constitution guarantees the right to vote.
Actually it does not guarantee that right. It says you cannot be denied the right based on race or gender, and says the age cannot be over 18. It prohibits a poll tax. But although I do not have the time to look it all up right now I do not see where it says there is a "right to vote."
Quote:To B9's point about establishing identity and not residency - same-day registration is pretty common and requires the establishment of both.
Same-day registration is another invitation to fraud and needs to be banned. The elections bureau should have time to process a registration.
Quote:If the fraud DOESN'T ACTUALLY EXIST, why would we go to the time and expense of protecting against it?
Because most fraud is unnoticed and unmeasured until it is found. It is not a great deal of problem to tell people to bring ID to the polls. It is really no problem when people need to show ID all the time as a part of life.
Quote:But still, I'm pretty sure Coleman could have been a "yes" cloture vote even if he voted against the bill in the end. Same with Snowe.
No way. The leadership put it out plain and clear that the filibuster was on. If he had broken ranks he would have been an outcast and never gotten anywhere or gotten anything done in politics. Don't kid yourself, newly elected pols do not vote their conscience against the party.
Pencil cross next to the name, in a box. Count the number of crosses. If you can't make a cross in the box next to the name, your vote is 'spoiled' and not counted. Keep it on paper, and you can recount any time. Electronic voting is a big old MacGuffin and white elephant if you ask me. No need for it. There's no requirement for an election to be finalized in super fast time, in most cases.
Totally makes sense to this 'liberal' to show ID for a job, to vote, or to take part in the state's apparatus.
Quote: AZDuffman
No way. The leadership put it out plain and clear that the filibuster was on. If he had broken ranks he would have been an outcast and never gotten anywhere or gotten anything done in politics. Don't kid yourself, newly elected pols do not vote their conscience against the party.
He was running for reelection, is very moderate, and was a dem until the late '90s. Also, Snowe still hasn't said that she'd have voted no. Plus...Brown happened.
Quote: AZDuffmanActually it does not guarantee that right. It says you cannot be denied the right based on race or gender, and says the age cannot be over 18. It prohibits a poll tax. But although I do not have the time to look it all up right now I do not see where it says there is a "right to vote."
The right to vote cannot be impeded by the requirement to pay a poll tax or other tax. The argument here would be that the 24th amendment prohibits the fees (either as a poll tax or "other tax") collected to get an ID that is being requested for the sole purpose of voting. I'd personally argue that the whole process must be costless (including a fee/fare required to get to the ID vendor via public transit).
+1Quote: AZDuffmanAs to the "lasted this long" do you really expect an intelligent person to believe a person can make it 50 years without any form of ID?
Guess rdw4potus must have me blocked.....hehehehehehehe ;) I love how liberals are so open-minded that they don't even want to hear the other side. (Just for the record, I have nobody blocked *thumbs up*)
Anyway, it's funny because libs claim that the amount of voter fraud is exaggerated. Well, guess what? I claim that the number of people who can't get an ID is exaggerated. Hell, there are probably less cases of that than voter fraud!
+1 againQuote: AZDuffmanHe won because of a "recount" where they added votes that they "thought" people meant to cast. Stray marks near his name, LETS COUNT IT! "Found" votes. The election-stealing works. After Al Gore failed to steal the election in 2000 the left practiced their skills.
What kills me about libs is that they want us to become "like the rest of the world", yet there are many foreign countries who require voter ID. (As usual, libs love to cherry pick)
Quote: rdw4potusThe right to vote cannot be impeded by the requirement to pay a poll tax or other tax. The argument here would be that the 24th amendment prohibits the fees (either as a poll tax or "other tax") collected to get an ID that is being requested for the sole purpose of voting. I'd personally argue that the whole process must be costless (including a fee/fare required to get to the ID vendor via public transit).
It isn't a "tax" because it is not being collected for the sole purpose of voting. Same as driving to the polls is not a "tax" either.
So by your logic we need to ride the minorities who have no ID to the polls? Do we need to get them a TV with free FNC on cable so they can be informed to vote?
Quote: AZDuffmanIt isn't a "tax" because it is not being collected for the sole purpose of voting. Same as driving to the polls is not a "tax" either.
So by your logic we need to ride the minorities who have no ID to the polls? Do we need to get them a TV with free FNC on cable so they can be informed to vote?
We should probably pick a less costly and ridiculously biased news source, don't you think? Local Fox affiliates would be sufficient. ;-)
And, YES, my ENTIRE point is that the "tax" IS being collected for the sole purpose of voting IF the ID is being requested for the sole purpose of voting. And, to the extent that these folks have made it to old age without an ID that's acceptable for voting, maintaining the ability to vote is almost certainly the entire purpose for requesting the ID.
The minorities who have no ID? Are you injecting racism into the argument? Or does "minorities" in this context refer to the tiny fraction of all people of all races who would need a ride? And, you do know that there are literally hundreds of groups who DO shuttle voters to the polls, right? Like, that's a thing already?
Quote: AZDuffman
He won because of a "recount" where they added votes that they "thought" people meant to cast. Stray marks near his name, LETS COUNT IT! "Found" votes. The election-stealing works. After Al Gore failed to steal the election in 2000 the left practiced their skills.
Even if you argue this type of fraud happens which I may be willing to grant, how does an ID prevent it. This is not someone voting when they shouldn't it is fraud committed by election officials.
Quote: Beethoven9th+1
That's hilarious. Voting is "sacred", but how dare anyone try to prevent voter fraud!! lol. This reminds me of that article where the NAACP told people to bring ID to a rally where they protested voter ID!
NAACP Requires Marchers Protesting Voter ID Law To Show Photo ID
This alone proves that many liberals are incapable of any type of coherent thought.
It's not a requirement! It's a list of DOs and don'ts. They're asked to bring photoID in case they get arrested.
But I agree that voters must have a valid id to vote. Here's a thought. Next election, if you don't have photoID, they'll give you one, right at the polling booth. I mean, those voting machines costs tens of thousands of dollars each.. why not spend an extra few thousands of dollars and have a voter ID booth at each polling station. They take your picture, they throw it in a template, and there's your voter ID. Hell, throw a magnetic stripe on there and use it for food stamps, welfare, and anything else you can think of. And make it free. If it's a requirement to vote, then NOTHING should impede you from voting, including having to pay for something.
I agree, they shouldn't have used the word "requires" in the title of that piece. (It's still pretty ironic though that the NAACP was telling people to bring ID to a rally to protest ID. lol)Quote: boymimboIt's not a requirement! It's a list of DOs and don'ts.
Quote: s2dbakerEveryone already brings voter ID to the polling place in the form of their signature which is on file and must match the signature that the voter signs in front of the poll worker. Nothing further is needed.
Next time you get carded in a casino, just show them your signature. LOL
Quote: Beethoven9thI agree, they shouldn't have used the word "requires" in the title of that piece. (It's still pretty ironic though that the NAACP was telling people to bring ID to a rally to protest ID. lol)[/q
Stop being so agreeable! Agree with you that it was ironic, though.----- You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
Quote: s2dbakerEveryone already brings voter ID to the polling place in the form of their signature which is on file and must match the signature that the voter signs in front of the poll worker. Nothing further is needed.
Really? What if the person made a fraudulent application and signed it in the dead person's name. The sigs would match even if the name did not.
NEXT!
