VoterID / Fraud (Split from Gun Show Loophole)
Quote: AZDuffmanReally? 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!
Weak! Why wouldn't death records regularly be used to purge voter rolls? Same with lists of felons.
The panel that looked at the votes in Minnesota was bipartisan and unanimous. Senator Al Franken won and so did America.Quote: TwirdmanEven 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: rdw4potus
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?
I am saying "minorities" in the racial sense because that is who the liberals always say are incapable of getting to the polls. Poor whites probably have a harder time getting there as poor whites are more likely to live in a rural area with less public transit while poor blacks are more likely to live in a city with the polling place a few blocks away. Yes, I do know independent groups exercise their First Amendment rights to get people to the polls. Good for them. Just make sure the people they bring have an ID is all I am saying.
Lets have clean elections!
What if the person made a fraudulent application for the voter ID in the dead person's name? They wouldn't even have to match the signature anymore because they have an easily forged ID card.Quote: AZDuffmanReally? 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!
NEXT!
Quote: Beethoven9th
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!
I do not have you blocked. Your non-political posts are too freaking hilarious for me to ever do that. I just struggle to keep up in threads where individual posts are so physically long.
Yes, of course everybody exaggerates in polarizing arguments. That's sort of how it works;-)
Quote: s2dbakerThe panel that looked at the votes in Minnesota was bipartisan and unanimous. Senator Al Franken won and so did America.
Yeah I agree I was just saying that even if I granted it it provides no reason for voter ID. Also when I said I may be willing to grant I wasn't specifically talking about the Franken election just the possibility that there is occasional fraud with election officials.
Ah, my apologies then! Can't lump you in with s2dbaker, I guess.....lolQuote: rdw4potusI do not have you blocked.
+1Quote: rdw4potusYour non-political posts are too freaking hilarious for me to ever do that.
:D
Quote: s2dbakerWhat if the person made a fraudulent application for the voter ID in the dead person's name? They wouldn't even have to match the signature anymore because they have an easily forged ID card.
NEXT!
This doesn't even make sense. How would they get an ID card if they cannot prove they are the dead person?
As it is now they can register to vote via mail, never seeing a person, sign the dead person's name (could be an alive person as well, but lets keep it simple for our readers near Hicksville.) The signatures match. The fraudulent person goes to the polls, she signs the name, and votes.
Under an ID system she would register to vote via mail same as now. But she has to show ID at the polls. FRAUD STOPPED. Or she has to try to get a photo ID some other way, which means she needs to convince a state-level employee she is said person. Much harder to commit fraud. Risk of arrest by even trying.
Nice try, NO SOUP FOR YOU!
Quote: s2dbakerWhat if the person made a fraudulent application for the voter ID in the dead person's name? They wouldn't even have to match the signature anymore because they have an easily forged ID card.
NEXT!
And there is the argument in a nutshell. Very few people other than hard core liberals feel America won with this fool in the Senate. Even the liberals that invested in his Air America dislike him.
Quote: BozAnd there is the argument in a nutshell. Very few people other than hard core liberals feel America won with this fool in the Senate. Even the liberals that invested in his Air America dislike him.
I disagree. I don't always agree with Franken, but I have no doubt that's he's trying harder than most of his colleagues. Gotta respect the (misguided) effort!
http://www.pacourts.us/assets/files/setting-647/file-3490.pdf?cb=a5ec29
Quote: AZDuffman
Under an ID system she would register to vote via mail same as now. But she has to show ID at the polls. FRAUD STOPPED. Or she has to try to get a photo ID some other way, which means she needs to convince a state-level employee she is said person. Much harder to commit fraud. Risk of arrest by even trying.
Nice try, NO SOUP FOR YOU!
Couldn't I register as McLovin' this way? Register by mail under that name, then show up with my fake ID at the polls? Where's the check that the name and ID are real? All you've done is ensure that the name and ID match...
Ding! Voter ID adds nothing at all to security. Making a person sign their name and matching the signature is a far better system. Fortunately, it's the one that most of us have now.Quote: rdw4potusCouldn't I register as McLovin' this way? Register by mail under that name, then show up with my fake ID at the polls? Where's the check that the name and ID are real? All you've done is ensure that the name and ID match...
Quote: rdw4potusCouldn't I register as McLovin' this way? Register by mail under that name, then show up with my fake ID at the polls? Where's the check that the name and ID are real? All you've done is ensure that the name and ID match...
The point is that when you require an ID you make fraud harder. Yes, any criminal will try and try to commit the crime. But sending an election card with a name is one thing, getting a good, fake ID is another. Getting fake IDs on a large scale is yet another. Ideally they would be Drivers Licenses or Non-Driver's ID with a readable stripe that could be scanned for validity at the polls. Technology for that is from the 1980s.
Sounds to me like a big government program trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist.Quote: AZDuffmanThe point is that when you require an ID you make fraud harder. Yes, any criminal will try and try to commit the crime. But sending an election card with a name is one thing, getting a good, fake ID is another. Getting fake IDs on a large scale is yet another. Ideally they would be Drivers Licenses or Non-Driver's ID with a readable stripe that could be scanned for validity at the polls. Technology for that is from the 1980s.
Quote: s2dbakerSounds to me like a big government program trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist.
Fortunately, unlike health insurance and care, ensuring clean elections is a government function.
Quote: s2dbakerSounds to me like a big government program...
Federal elections are one of the few things that the federal government actually needs to be involved in, yet s2 can't even recognize that. lol
There's no need to waste money on a big government program that isn't going to help the problem that doesn't even exist.Quote: AZDuffmanFortunately, unlike health insurance and care, ensuring clean elections is a government function.
Quote: s2dbakerThere's no need to waste money on a big government program that isn't going to help the problem that doesn't even exist.
I've been saying this in the gun thread until I was blue in the myself.
Quote: s2dbakerThere's no need to waste money on a big government program that isn't going to help the problem that doesn't even exist.
Finally you are in agreement we need to repeal Obamacare!
Good luck with that.Quote: AZDuffmanFinally you are in agreement we need to repeal Obamacare!
Quote: s2dbakerGood luck with that.
So the Heritage Foundation supports Obamacare, but you want to repeal it now??? :D
Quote: Beethoven9thSo the Heritage Foundation supports Obamacare, but you want to repeal it now??? :D
He said something about "no need to waste money on a big government program that isn't going to help the problem that doesn't even exist" so you would assume Obamacare would be the first target.
Although I am disturbed that he thinks running elections is a "big government program." I guess being a health insurance agent is not a big government program while holding clean elections is not?
Quote: AZDuffmanAlthough I am disturbed that he thinks running elections is a "big government program."
Yeah, I don't get s2 at all. He doesn't want the government involved in things like federal elections, national defense, etc.....which are the few things government SHOULD be involved in. But then he wants the government to be heavily involved in health care, global warming, gun control...you name it! *facepalm*
Quote: boymimboFraud is a very minor issue with elections.
80 cases referred to prosecutors in Iowa alone!
Quote: s2dbakerThere's no need to waste money on a big government program that isn't going to help the problem that doesn't even exist.
+1
Mummified Woman Believed To Have Died In 2008 Somehow Voted In 2010
(But I can almost guarantee that they'll come up with some cockamamie excuse to ignore voter fraud...smh)
Show me a pattern of voter fraud within a certain precinct, ward, district, where a lot of dead people voted. Then I'll agree there's a problem.
Quote: beachbumbabsKey words: "Believed to have died". Her DOD is an estimate. The article doesn't say what the 2008 estimate is based on, and suggests there may have been an administrative error. Start of an agenda-based exaggeration otherwise.
Show me a pattern of voter fraud within a certain precinct, ward, district, where a lot of dead people voted. Then I'll agree there's a problem.
I don't know how much voter fraud there is. There is some. I don't know how much voter intimidation there is. I know that there was some by Black Panthers that was reported but there may be more.
The thing is I don't see how people without IDs can get anything done and why the ability to vote shouldn't be held to the same standard of ID required for most everyday things like cashing a check, getting on a plane, driving a car, etc. If a state requires ID but gives everyone the chance to get an ID (free, if they are that poor), why is it an issue?
If it is such a "voter suppression" issue, make the laws have a one year waiting period before enforcement. Surely anyone that could get an ID in that period of time.
Quote: beachbumbabsKey words: "Believed to have died". Her DOD is an estimate. The article doesn't say what the 2008 estimate is based on, and suggests there may have been an administrative error. Start of an agenda-based exaggeration otherwise.
Show me a pattern of voter fraud within a certain precinct, ward, district, where a lot of dead people voted. Then I'll agree there's a problem.
http://www.freep.com/article/20140307/NEWS03/303070113/mummified-body-of-woman-found-in-foreclosed-house
She died sometime between Sept 2008 and Jan 2009. That's why they wrote "believe to have died" in '08, just to cover their bases.
As for voter fraud:
+1Quote: RonCThe thing is I don't see how people without IDs can get anything done and why the ability to vote shouldn't be held to the same standard of ID required for most everyday things like cashing a check, getting on a plane, driving a car, etc. If a state requires ID but gives everyone the chance to get an ID (free, if they are that poor), why is it an issue?
Isn't it funny how Dems want the US to be like the rest of the world, yet they ignore the fact that many other countries ban gay marriage, require voter ID, etc.? Hmm...
Quote: FaceI'm very late to this party.
Me too, and I'm probably not going to read all these posts.
I wonder if anyone has mentioned one concern that turns out to be a delicate subject: it surfaced in North Carolina, perhaps elsewhere:
Quote: http://www.citizen-times.com/article/20140305/OPINION07/303050005/Early-voting-sliced-after-allThe groups that have sued the state argue that restricting early voting, because minority voters utilize it in disproportionate numbers to their population, discriminates against those voters. http://www.citizen-times.com/article/20140305/OPINION07/303050005/Early-voting-sliced-after-all
The state is cutting back on the time allowed for early voting; absentee ballots in particular are a concern.
Personally, it bothers me quite a bit to imagine what is going on with that. I can picture these "community organizers" manipulating the situation. I've heard some percentages as high as 80% absentee for some minority areas.
There must be two sides to the argument:
*Minorities have had bad experiences with Jim Crow laws, etc., and are just more comfortable not having to go to polling stations. Their votes should be counted.
*Absentee ballots are notoriously dicey, and some would say the same about community organizers. Me probably, for example.
Sorry if this has already been discussed.
Quote: RonC
If it is such a "voter suppression" issue, make the laws have a one year waiting period before enforcement. Surely anyone that could get an ID in that period of time.
Sir, you appear to be suffering from extreme reason and common sense. I would suggest take the day off, have some hot soup, binge watch "Breaking Bad" on Netflix, and see if it passes.
Local State legislator recently introduced a bill to require ID when cashing food stamps (SNAP) to help curtail the countless millions in fraud in that program in the state as revealed by audits. But it was tabled because the libs immediately expressed outrage that it would be discriminatory to identify the user. Geez...Quote: RonC
The thing is I don't see how people without IDs can get anything done and why the ability to vote shouldn't be held to the same standard of ID required for most everyday things like cashing a check, getting on a plane, driving a car, etc. If a state requires ID but gives everyone the chance to get an ID (free, if they are that poor), why is it an issue?
Quote: chickenmanLocal State legislator recently introduced a bill to require ID when cashing food stamps (SNAP) to help curtail the countless millions in fraud in that program in the state as revealed by audits. But it was tabled because the libs immediately expressed outrage that it would be discriminatory to identify the user. Geez...
This shows how out of touch with reality liberals are these days. When I was a cashier in the late-1980s it was required to show your food-stamp issued ID when you used food stamps. People used to moan and complain because we were the only store around that followed the law.
I still retort that if we should not require ID to vote because it is a "right" then we should not require ID to buy a gun because that is a right as well.
Quote:I still retort that if we should not require ID to vote because it is a "right" then we should not require ID to buy a gun because that is a right as well.
Not an exact comparison. There's nothing stopping me from borrowing my friend's gun, except the law, just like there's nothing stopping me from voting illegally, except the law. There's also nothing stopping me from taking that T-bone steak from the grocery aisle, except the law. And morality.
Law is in place for voter fraud and enough checkpoints are in place such that people are being charged and prosecuted. There are plenty of aged republicans who do not have ID who vote.
The fear, it seems, is that there has been enough voter fraud to influence an election, and that fear normally comes from the right. Whlie the left complains that the access to voting is unfairly biased due to shortened polling hours and less access to advance polling, which biases the demographics of those available to vote.
That said, I support a voterID law, provided that the government provides ID, free of charge. And I support longer voting hours and access as well. Everyone should be encouraged to cast a legal vote.
Quote: boymimboNot an exact comparison. There's nothing stopping me from borrowing my friend's gun, except the law, just like there's nothing stopping me from voting illegally, except the law. There's also nothing stopping me from taking that T-bone steak from the grocery aisle, except the law. And morality.
Law is in place for voter fraud and enough checkpoints are in place such that people are being charged and prosecuted. There are plenty of aged republicans who do not have ID who vote.
The possibility of voter fraud is easily lessened by requiring proper ID. The possibility of borrowing a friend's gun against his wishes is easily lessened with proper security, which all should have. The possibility of you getting away with that steak are lessened by proper security procedures like cameras and mirrors.
I would argue that the election process is sacred enough to protect even without widespread abuse.
Quote: boymimboThe fear, it seems, is that there has been enough voter fraud to influence an election, and that fear normally comes from the right. Whlie the left complains that the access to voting is unfairly biased due to shortened polling hours and less access to advance polling, which biases the demographics of those available to vote.
The left also complains about voter ID suppressing votes, which is why I suggest long compliance windows and free IDs so that every eligible voter can get the proper ID and is able to vote.
Quote: boymimboThat said, I support a voterID law, provided that the government provides ID, free of charge. And I support longer voting hours and access as well. Everyone should be encouraged to cast a legal vote.
I think voting hours should be longer and that everyone who is eligible should vote. Open it up for more days!! I am sure there is some conservative somewhere who actually thinks shorter voting periods and IDs will help ensure Conservative victories, but that person (or those very few people) are just as much idiots as those on the Liberal side that think the whole voter ID thing is to suppress votes or that showing an ID for food stamps is somehow discriminatory.
Quote: RonC
I think voting hours should be longer and that everyone who is eligible should vote. Open it up for more days!! I am sure there is some conservative somewhere who actually thinks shorter voting periods and IDs will help ensure Conservative victories, but that person (or those very few people) are just as much idiots as those on the Liberal side that think the whole voter ID thing is to suppress votes or that showing an ID for food stamps is somehow discriminatory.
I would potentially support a 24-hour election day. But we do not need all this "early voting" for a week before. It was called Election Day for a reason.
I used to think everyone eligible should vote, but I no longer think that. I would prefer the uninformed stay home. The older I get the more I hear what some uninformed people think it is scary. I will try to convince people on the issues but I no longer think "everyone voting" is a good thing in and of itself.
Quote: 1arrowheaddrWhy should it only be one day? Conservatives loved early voting until 2008 when Democrats started to beat them at it.
...and some Liberals want non-citizens and others to vote.
The vast majority of Conservatives and Liberals want people to exercise their right to vote. Give them 48 hours. Give them three days.
The only issue I see with early voting is the inability to change your vote when the bombshell drops at the last minute about your candidate and you feel the other candidate is now a better choice, but your vote is already cast. I handle that by voting on election day. I favor the polls opening for the full 24 hours of election day.
Quote: 1arrowheaddrWhy should it only be one day? Conservatives loved early voting until 2008 when Democrats started to beat them at it.
Why do we need more than one day is the question. I have never liked early voting and never heard any conservative "push" for it. The idea barely existed until liberals tried to convince people it takes 8 hours to vote.
Quote: 1arrowheaddrMore voting days would alleviate pressure at polling places on election day. I remember seeing the lines in 1992 that were a couple hours long.
More machines and more polling places are a better way to handle this. Stretching it over several days increases chances of fraud or errors and makes it harder to monitor. Machines have to be secured every night.
Lines of a couple hours in a mid-term election seems strange and a local problem.
Quote: 1arrowheaddrI disagree, fewer machines and fewer polling places are better for limiting fraud. If early voting can decrease the number of precincts, ballot boxes, machines, and poll workers need there is less opportunity.
But it only increases the number of poll workers. More are needed for the longer number of days the polls are open. Securing it all overnight is a huge enough problem. And if you have a crooked poll worker it gives that much more time for fraud to happen.
The best-run polling places I have seen are smaller ones. Same workers year in and year out. They know the patterns and if too many unknown voters come in they can alert the proper channels.
Quote: AZDuffmanMore machines and more polling places are a better way to handle this. Stretching it over several days increases chances of fraud or errors and makes it harder to monitor. Machines have to be secured every night.
Lines of a couple hours in a mid-term election seems strange and a local problem.
Machines? Don't need no stinking machines. Paper, pencil and a cross. Very simple system. Hand count everything. There's no requirement for counts to be faster than a day or two.
I see nothing wrong in presenting ID to vote. I see nothing wrong in making voting one day. Though postal ballots makes sense for people out of town for business, military or otherwise indisposed. Lets face it, we aren't going to get national holidays for voting. Most Union contracts I have been on, however, did allow 1-2 hours of (unpaid) on voting days to go and vote. I have been surprised by voting booths closing at 7pm here, it's 10pm in the UK.
Quote: thecesspitI see nothing wrong in making voting one day.
Men and women can have family obligations (where you have to go take care of your child) or you really are sick with a 24 hour bug. Or something else.
Not that I think multiple days should be taken to any extreme, but it does seem unwise not to be able to have them. I don't see how it favors anyone in particular.
Quote: rxwineMen and women can have family obligations (where you have to go take care of your child) or you really are sick with a 24 hour bug. Or something else.
Sure there is unpredictable reasons, but if I am sick on voting day, I woldn't be able to take care of voting on a previous day if I intended to vote on the actual day.
Quote:Not that I think multiple days should be taken to any extreme, but it does seem unwise not to be able to have them. I don't see how it favors anyone in particular.
Me neither. But for simplicity, it seems to me that give a day to vote, let postal votes occur (somehow) and there we go. There's no reason voting has to be super convenient. Just possible by every elector with no undue cost.
Quote: thecesspitMachines? Don't need no stinking machines. Paper, pencil and a cross. Very simple system. Hand count everything. There's no requirement for counts to be faster than a day or two.
Way too inaccurate and would take way too long. You can debate what kind of machines work best, but a hand-count can only work in very thinly populated areas.
Quote:I see nothing wrong in presenting ID to vote. I see nothing wrong in making voting one day. Though postal ballots makes sense for people out of town for business, military or otherwise indisposed. Lets face it, we aren't going to get national holidays for voting. Most Union contracts I have been on, however, did allow 1-2 hours of (unpaid) on voting days to go and vote. I have been surprised by voting booths closing at 7pm here, it's 10pm in the UK.
My only issue with absentee ballots is that I feel you should be required to vote in-person with ID the first time you vote (ie: no absentee ballot for your first vote.) Only way out is pick up the absentee ballot at election bureau in person. This is to prevent fraud and should not hinder anyone.
Quote: thecesspitSure there is unpredictable reasons, but if I am sick on voting day, I woldn't be able to take care of voting on a previous day if I intended to vote on the actual day.
I guess I would put it more, as if you knew you had a tight unpredictable schedule, you would plan to vote if you can get over there as soon as the first break rather than wait until the last possible day to get there. So, that gives the option.
