VoterID / Fraud (Split from Gun Show Loophole)

Sigh.

We know that the issue is partisan, because it is RED states that are tightening up voter registration laws and BLUE states that are loosening them. Clearly, the research shows and is believed that tighter voting laws favors Republicans, due to demographics.

Demographics like:

- poor people and the elderly are less likely to have valid ID and overwhelmingly vote left.
- underemployed / low wage earners have a more difficult time getting to the polls because of work hours that they cannot escape, giving them less opportunity as a mass to vote.
- poor people are less stable, move around alot, and are less likely to be on voter rolls, making it more difficult for them to register and vote on/around election day.
- poor people are less likely to know when election day is either because they are unintelligent or working too many hours trying to make ends meet.

And these people apparently vote left.

These are classic left arguments, and the right must believe them, because they go about citing voter fraud to tighten up laws, whereas we see the exact opposite argument out of blue states who attempt to take away any barriers for voting.

PhotoID doesn't prevent all voter frauds. As pointed out you can absentee and show up. You could have an old address and vote twice. The solution, like gun crimes, is to penalize heavily those who get caught as a deterrent. Clearly, those 765 voters in NC who voted twice probably went via the absentee ballot route as there is no really easy way to show up in two different states on the same day and cast two valid votes using ID.

The solution is to:
(1) open up polling stations and more hours.
(2) national voting registration system that tracks all voters giving them a unique voter ID number.
(3) prosecute fraud.
(4) Free photo voter ID for those who don't have valid photo ID, taken at the polling station on the day of vote.

But realize that voter fraud goes both ways, and I have serious doubts whether the miniscule amounts of fraud that took place in 2008 or 2012 might have changed the course of a country or changed a congressman or senator's election from blue to green or vice-versa. Now, 2000 is a different story, but the good guy won, right, fair and square.

It doesn't matter anyway, as it's money that buys votes anyway, but SCOTUS sees the ability to provide candidates with money ad adsurdium as completely fair.

God bless America.

Quote: rxwine

Money is not free speech then like conservative court rules. The word is not even close to free speech. Much farther off than day is to days or weeks. So that's even more egregious.

Yes, it is in that money is needed to generate the speech one is trying to make. If a person has access to a TV Network and say they make up a false story about a candidate's military service years ago the other person has a right to be able to respond. But without access to their own program they have to buy time. Similarly if a candidate gets up and makes up stories about their service and people who know better are not media execs who can do an investigation and put it on the air they have the right to buy ads refuting said claims.

This takes money. The reality is anybody who is a citizen should be allowed to give any candidate or party an unlimited amount.

Quote: boymimbo

RED states that are tightening up voter registration laws and BLUE states that are loosening them. Clearly, the research shows and is believed that tighter voting laws favors Republicans, due to demographics.

Also clearly, the research shows that wildly loose voting procedures favor Democrats, due to demographics.

Quote: boymimbo

Demographics like: - poor people and the elderly are less likely to have valid ID.

"Poor people" -- and with half the U.S. on food stamps that means virtually anybody -- have to have valid ID to receive benefits like welfare and EBT cards.

Quote: boymimbo

Poor people are less likely to know when election day is either because they are unintelligent. . . . And these people apparently vote left.

No comment needed.

Quote: boymimbo

- poor people and the elderly are less likely to have valid ID and overwhelmingly vote left.

Nonsense, if they work they have to have ID. If they get government benefits they should have ID. If they want they can easily get an ID. Come to think of it, if you are too lazy to get an ID maybe this is part of why you are not working in the first place?

Quote:

- underemployed / low wage earners have a more difficult time getting to the polls because of work hours that they cannot escape, giving them less opportunity as a mass to vote.

My gosh, are you saying they work from 7:00 AM to 9:00 PM? A bit hard to believe. But harder to believe is that there are all kinds of lines at the same time they cannot get to the polls in the first place.

Quote:

- poor people are less stable, move around alot, and are less likely to be on voter rolls, making it more difficult for them to register and vote on/around election day.

So you are saying they should be allowed to vote when they are not on voter rolls? What does "being poor" have to do with being harder to register to vote? You get the registration card and vote. Same procedure for everyone, unless there is some "easy" way for people who lean GOP to register and nobody has told me about?

Quote:

poor people are less likely to know when election day is either because they are unintelligent or working too many hours trying to make ends meet.

If you don't know when election day is in November you have bigger problems than you can imagine.

Quote: AZDuffman

Nonsense, if they work they have to have ID. If they get government benefits they should have ID. If they want they can easily get an ID. Come to think of it, if you are too lazy to get an ID maybe this is part of why you are not working in the first place?

If you work you have to have an SSN, not necessarily an ID that would be valid for voting. You could have got that SSN when you were a baby. I go to workplaces all of the time, and ID isn't required. When Larry hired me, I didn't need to show ID - I needed to write down my SIN.

Quote:

My gosh, are you saying they work from 7:00 AM to 9:00 PM? A bit hard to believe. But harder to believe is that there are all kinds of lines at the same time they cannot get to the polls in the first place.

No but they might work 7am to 7pm and then have family obligations, or might be on the bus coming home. Or they might decide to go before they show up to work, only to find a 2 hour voting line because the republican state purposefully did not put in enough voting stations in order to suppress the vote in districts that vote left. And don't give me the BS that it doesn't happen. Have you looked at your congressional maps lately?


Pennsylvania's 12th

Quote:

So you are saying they should be allowed to vote when they are not on voter rolls? What does "being poor" have to do with being harder to register to vote? You get the registration card and vote. Same procedure for everyone, unless there is some "easy" way for people who lean GOP to register and nobody has told me about?

No, they should be on the voter rolls, of course. But voter rolls need to be improved and be more accurate. And yeah, obviously, it's more difficult to get people to become registered when they are transient.

Quote:

If you don't know when election day is in November you have bigger problems than you can imagine.

True, but ignorance and stupidity does not invalidate one's right to vote (proof: the 2004 election.... Zing!)

-----
If you are an American Citizen and 18 years of age or older and are not otherwise disqualified from voting, you should not be impeded from the right to vote. You shouldn't be impeded from voting when you show up at the polling station due to long lines, missing ID, government error, bad voter rolls, etc. How the government works that out is up to them. Of course this opens up the opportunity for fraud, but it is up to the government to protect the election process. The fact that blue states are trying to go out of their way to make voting possible (with increased opportunites for fraud) vs red states going out of their way to tighten the voting process (in the name of the fear of unsubstantiated fraud, the type that actually changes results) just goes to show you that political interests are getting in the way of fair and free elections.

There has to be a middle ground.

In Canada, on voting days, you must have three hours in the voting day where you are allowed to vote. That is, if your work day is from 7-7 and the polling station is open from 9-8, you can leave work at 5pm and vote. Canada has a vouching system where a friend can sign off for you if you don't have ID. Canada also allows you to register at the polling station (and to correct registration issues, such as changes in address), all of which are good ideas, and maintains the ability to vote, for everyone who is qualified to do so. Does that mean that someone could file an absentee ballot in one place and vote in another. Absolutely. If Elections Canada catches you doing that, will you be fined and sent to jail.

Not that people in Canada don't tamper with elections. The Conversative party did it in Guelph during the last federal election, sending out thousands of calls to Liberal supporters telling them that the polling station had changed. Brilliant. Mind you, our elections are far less complicated than yours.

Kisses and hugs.

Quote: boymimbo

They might work 7am to 7pm and then have family obligations, or might be on the bus coming home. Or they might decide to go before they show up to work, only to find a 2 hour voting line because the republican state purposefully did not put in enough voting stations in order to suppress the vote in districts that vote left. And don't give me the BS that it doesn't happen. Have you looked at your congressional maps lately?
Pennsylvania's 12th

Is that trying to say that those green districts all have two-hour lines on Election Days? If the map is supposed to show gerrymandering, there is not one place in the U.S. where that is not practiced.

Quote: boymimbo

The fact that blue states are trying to go out of their way to make voting possible (with increased opportunites for fraud) vs red states going out of their way to tighten the voting process (in the name of the fear of unsubstantiated fraud, the type that actually changes results) just goes to show you that political interests are getting in the way of fair and free elections.

Blue states increasing the likelihood of fraud? Heaven forfend!

Quote: boymimbo

In Canada, on voting days, you must have three hours in the voting day where you are allowed to vote.

As is the case in many states.

Quote: boymimbo

Canada also allows you to register at the polling station.

Does Canada make any effort to verify the validity of the registration or does it just assume that all its citizens are completely honest and aboveboard?

Quote: boymimbo

If Elections Canada catches you doing that, will you be fined and sent to jail.

Any statistics, studies or reports on that? In the U.S., if we are to believe so many blogs, there are significant problems on that score.

Quote: boymimbo

If you work you have to have an SSN, not necessarily an ID that would be valid for voting. You could have got that SSN when you were a baby. I go to workplaces all of the time, and ID isn't required. When Larry hired me, I didn't need to show ID - I needed to write down my SIN.

*sigh* How many times do we need to beat this into the ground? If you get a regular job in the USA your employer has to fill out form I-9 to show you are legal to work in the USA and said form I-9 requires photo ID.

Quote:

No but they might work 7am to 7pm and then have family obligations, or might be on the bus coming home. Or they might decide to go before they show up to work, only to find a 2 hour voting line because the republican state purposefully did not put in enough voting stations in order to suppress the vote in districts that vote left. And don't give me the BS that it doesn't happen. Have you looked at your congressional maps lately?

My congressional map has nothing to do with where I vote. My parents have lived in the same house for over 40 years which had several redistrictings and their polling station has not moved 5 feet in that entire time. And give me a break on "the republican state not putting in enough stations." Voting stations are placed based on historical averages and are done at a more county than state level. Please get off the black-helicopter talk, it does not further the discussion.

Quote:

No, they should be on the voter rolls, of course. But voter rolls need to be improved and be more accurate. And yeah, obviously, it's more difficult to get people to become registered when they are transient.

If you are transient then you have no business voting because it cannot be established where your residence is and whom you should be voting for. In any case, the transient population is probably <.0001%.

Quote:

If you are an American Citizen and 18 years of age or older and are not otherwise disqualified from voting, you should not be impeded from the right to vote. You shouldn't be impeded from voting when you show up at the polling station due to long lines, missing ID, government error, bad voter rolls, etc. How the government works that out is up to them. Of course this opens up the opportunity for fraud, but it is up to the government to protect the election process. The fact that blue states are trying to go out of their way to make voting possible (with increased opportunites for fraud) vs red states going out of their way to tighten the voting process (in the name of the fear of unsubstantiated fraud, the type that actually changes results) just goes to show you that political interests are getting in the way of fair and free elections.

If you have missing ID it is your responsibility as an adult to go and get another form of ID. If you work on Election Day you need to call ahead for an absentee ballot. If you have to vote absentee the first time you should have to show your face and ID at the elections bureau to confirm who you are. If you cannot find the time to do this TOO BAD. Just because you have the right to vote does not mean the government is supposed to jump thru hoops because you have to put forth effort to exercise that right.

You have the right to assembly but that may mean getting a permit. If you work all day when the office is open does that mean the government is supposed to open an all-night location? NO! It means you figure things out.

As to "changing results" if added security of asking for ID "changes the result" then that is a pretty good indication some kind of fraud was happening as showing up on Election Day and showing ID to vote is really not an issue for anyone other than those too lazy to follow the procedure.

Quote: SanchoPanza

and with half the U.S. on food stamps that means virtually anybody -- have to have valid ID to receive benefits like welfare and EBT cards.

this website claims that 14% of the population is on the food stamp program. http://www.statisticbrain.com/food-stamp-statistics/

Quote: Dalex64

this website claims that 14% of the population is on the food stamp program. http://www.statisticbrain.com/food-stamp-statistics/

I think the OP was exaggerating the number on Food Stamps in theion. name of humor. Similar to "30 million without health insurance" was an exaggeration.

Quote: AZDuffman

Yes, it is in that money is needed to generate the speech one is trying to make. If a person has access to a TV Network and say they make up a false story about a candidate's military service years ago the other person has a right to be able to respond. But without access to their own program they have to buy time. Similarly if a candidate gets up and makes up stories about their service and people who know better are not media execs who can do an investigation and put it on the air they have the right to buy ads refuting said claims.

This takes money. The reality is anybody who is a citizen should be allowed to give any candidate or party an unlimited amount.

No my point was when you said it says "election day", not election week, I'm saying, it says free speech, not money spent. So, the court can render judgment beyond the exact words, if that was you point, which I think it was.

edit- of course I believe speech is free if I can get my message out, I can, but different than unlimited amounts to a candidate. That's potential corruption. But I can spend all sorts of money putting info on my beliefs, who is stopping me? Conservative Court just wants to fester corruption

1. electors does not refer to the voters; it refers to the Electoral College, where each state's representatives (not those elected to House or Senate) formally assemble to vote the results of their popular election into the record. It takes place some time AFTER election day and BEFORE Inauguration Day, but after all states have certified their vote count. There is one representative for each House or Senate seat. There is nothing that requires the popular vote to happen in a particular time frame (ie 1 day, 2 weeks, whatever).

2. In Florida, this last national election, it was the Republicans that committed felony voter fraud; they had paid vote-registrars who threw away all voter registrations that checked "Democrat" for party. I did a lot of work registering voters here, mostly in protest of the actions the Governor and Florida House had taken in trying to suppress it. We were scrupulous about accepting all forms and ensuring they were filled out correctly, and respecting all time-lines required, even while fighting the new strictures in court, which we won mid-way through the summer of 2012. I was also teaching the course on how to gather registrations correctly IAW the strictures, and the maze of rules was beyond belief. The things that will motivate you; I was so appalled by my fellow Republicans I spent hundreds of hours volunteering just to make it right in my own world. lol....

Quote: AZDuffman

*sigh* How many times do we need to beat this into the ground? If you get a regular job in the USA your employer has to fill out form I-9 to show you are legal to work in the USA and said form I-9 requires photo ID.

Perfect. So, if you are working, you have voterID. Therefore, those who don't work or who never worked are likely not to have voter ID. And how do these people tend to vote? Basically, you're saying, if you don't work, then you don't have a need to get ID, and therefore, you can't vote. Disenfranchising at its best.

Quote:

My congressional map has nothing to do with where I vote. My parents have lived in the same house for over 40 years which had several redistrictings and their polling station has not moved 5 feet in that entire time. And give me a break on "the republican state not putting in enough stations." Voting stations are placed based on historical averages and are done at a more county than state level. Please get off the black-helicopter talk, it does not further the discussion.

Your congressional map pretty much guarantees who is going to win, no matter what personal preference you might have.

Quote:

If you are transient then you have no business voting because it cannot be established where your residence is and whom you should be voting for. In any case, the transient population is probably <.0001%.

Says who?

Quote:

If you have missing ID it is your responsibility as an adult to go and get another form of ID. If you work on Election Day you need to call ahead for an absentee ballot. If you have to vote absentee the first time you should have to show your face and ID at the elections bureau to confirm who you are. If you cannot find the time to do this TOO BAD. Just because you have the right to vote does not mean the government is supposed to jump thru hoops because you have to put forth effort to exercise that right.

Why is it your responsibility. You get ID because you need to have ID. If you're not working, then you don't need ID. If you don't drive you don't need ID. If you live in a nursing home and lose your ID you probably don't need to get ID.

When you have the right to vote, the government is supposed to jump through hoops to make sure that you can't exercise that right?

Quote:

You have the right to assembly but that may mean getting a permit. If you work all day when the office is open does that mean the government is supposed to open an all-night location? NO! It means you figure things out.

Easy enough to figure it out when you might have a few hours of disposable income or vacation time to take to vote -- not easy to figure out when you're living on the fringes and every cent of earnings counts.

Quote:

As to "changing results" if added security of asking for ID "changes the result" then that is a pretty good indication some kind of fraud was happening as showing up on Election Day and showing ID to vote is really not an issue for anyone other than those too lazy to follow the procedure.

How many people have actually been convicted of election fraud? This is just fear-mongering and a non-issue in order to get less democrats to the poll and to skew elections. You can bet your bottom dollar that democrats would try the same crap if the situation was reversed.

Quote: Dalex64

this website claims that 14% of the population is on the food stamp program. http://www.statisticbrain.com/food-stamp-statistics/

You are correct. My mistake was confusing millions and percentages. It's 47 million are on food stamps. A total of 67 million receives direct federal benefits:
"Today, more people than ever before—67.3 million Americans, from college students to retirees to welfare beneficiaries—depend on the federal government for housing, food, income, student aid, or other assistance once considered to be the responsibility of individuals, families, neighborhoods, churches, and other civil society institutions. The United States reached another milestone in 2010: For the first time in history, half the population pays no federal income taxes." --heritage.org

Quote: beachbumbabs

1. electors does not refer to the voters; it refers to the Electoral College, where each state's representatives (not those elected to House or Senate) formally assemble to vote the results of their popular election into the record. It takes place some time AFTER election day and BEFORE Inauguration Day, but after all states have certified their vote count. There is one representative for each House or Senate seat. There is nothing that requires the popular vote to happen in a particular time frame (ie 1 day, 2 weeks, whatever).

2. In Florida, this last national election, it was the Republicans that committed felony voter fraud; they had paid vote-registrars who threw away all voter registrations that checked "Democrat" for party. I did a lot of work registering voters here, mostly in protest of the actions the Governor and Florida House had taken in trying to suppress it. We were scrupulous about accepting all forms and ensuring they were filled out correctly, and respecting all time-lines required, even while fighting the new strictures in court, which we won mid-way through the summer of 2012. I was also teaching the course on how to gather registrations correctly IAW the strictures, and the maze of rules was beyond belief. The things that will motivate you; I was so appalled by my fellow Republicans I spent hundreds of hours volunteering just to make it right in my own world. lol....

I live in Florida also and it is so sad what infurriates republicans in this state. We used to be able to vote on the Sunday just prior to Election day Tuesday. Many Black Churches hired busses on that Sunday to take their poor and elderly Church goers to the polls. The program was "souls to the polls." This infurriated the Republicans. Therefore this is one of the reasons they cutting back early voting , polls that were once open on Sunday in past years are now closed on the Sunday prior to Election Day.

Quote: beachbumbabs

1. electors does not refer to the voters; it refers to the Electoral College, where each state's representatives (not those elected to House or Senate) formally assemble to vote the results of their popular election into the record. It takes place some time AFTER election day and BEFORE Inauguration Day, but after all states have certified their vote count. There is one representative for each House or Senate seat. There is nothing that requires the popular vote to happen in a particular time frame (ie 1 day, 2 weeks, whatever).

You are correct about the Constitution but it was a combination of what the Constitution required and other things that led to an Election DAY being established. The point is that we had an Election DAY when it was really hard to vote--people had to travel a day or more to get to their polling place. If we could figure out how to have an Election DAY then, why the need to change it to Election MONTH as it seems we are moving towards? I want everyone to vote but the supposed obstacles that people claim exist are not nearly as bad as they make them out to be--if there was a $1000 for everyone at the polling place, I bet they'd figure out how to get there on Election DAY or get a properly executed absentee ballot in by Election DAY. Not that there are no issues; we can work on resolving those. I'm all for longer voting hours and accept more days but it seems to me there isn't really all that much of a need for the latter.

Quote: beachbumbabs

2. In Florida, this last national election, it was the Republicans that committed felony voter fraud; they had paid vote-registrars who threw away all voter registrations that checked "Democrat" for party. I did a lot of work registering voters here, mostly in protest of the actions the Governor and Florida House had taken in trying to suppress it. We were scrupulous about accepting all forms and ensuring they were filled out correctly, and respecting all time-lines required, even while fighting the new strictures in court, which we won mid-way through the summer of 2012. I was also teaching the course on how to gather registrations correctly IAW the strictures, and the maze of rules was beyond belief. The things that will motivate you; I was so appalled by my fellow Republicans I spent hundreds of hours volunteering just to make it right in my own world. lol....

Did you help them prosecute the felons? How many were prosecuted? If they were not prosecuted, why not? There is no way I would stand for that crap from either party. We can't let fraud stand either way.

Quote: AZDuffman

*sigh* How many times do we need to beat this into the ground? If you get a regular job in the USA your employer has to fill out form I-9 to show you are legal to work in the USA and said form I-9 requires photo ID.



My congressional map has nothing to do with where I vote. My parents have lived in the same house for over 40 years which had several redistrictings and their polling station has not moved 5 feet in that entire time. And give me a break on "the republican state not putting in enough stations." Voting stations are placed based on historical averages and are done at a more county than state level. Please get off the black-helicopter talk, it does not further the discussion.

Just decided to look up what you need for I-9 since couldn't remember what I had to bring in. You either need 1 thing from list A or 1 from list B and 1 from list C. List C includes just a social security card and list B could include a student ID. Neither of these are considered valid for voting but are acceptable for getting a job. So if no one else could be found college students are someone who could be legally allowed to vote and yet have no reason other than voting to have an ID valid for voting so they would be disenfranchised. I mean I know plenty of people at Davis who had no ID other than student IDs since the bus system there was amazing. Another is tribal IDs are not accepted for voting but are accepted for I-9.

As for elderly people they could very simply just not be working anymore and thus need no ID to work. Again you keep saying no one will be affected because everyone has an ID and this is why they do but the fact is there have been numbers showing not everyone has ID.

Quote: Twirdman

Just decided to look up what you need for I-9 since couldn't remember what I had to bring in. You either need 1 thing from list A or 1 from list B and 1 from list C. List C includes just a social security card and list B could include a student ID. Neither of these are considered valid for voting but are acceptable for getting a job. So if no one else could be found college students are someone who could be legally allowed to vote and yet have no reason other than voting to have an ID valid for voting so they would be disenfranchised. I mean I know plenty of people at Davis who had no ID other than student IDs since the bus system there was amazing. Another is tribal IDs are not accepted for voting but are accepted for I-9.

Look again. It is

One thing from List "A"

OR

One from List "B" AND One from List "C"

A&B Establish Identity. You cannot legally work in the USA unless you establish identity.

Quote: boymimbo

Perfect. So, if you are working, you have voterID. Therefore, those who don't work or who never worked are likely not to have voter ID. And how do these people tend to vote? Basically, you're saying, if you don't work, then you don't have a need to get ID, and therefore, you can't vote. Disenfranchising at its best.

No, I am saying virtually everyone has at least worked so they have ID. Nowhere did I say if you don't work you don't have ID. Work is just one reason you MUST have ID. There are dozens of others.

But are you saying the Democrat Party is the party of people who refuse to work?

Quote:

Your congressional map pretty much guarantees who is going to win, no matter what personal preference you might have.

It might, but you implied that it affects where your polling place is located.

Quote:

Why is it your responsibility. You get ID because you need to have ID. If you're not working, then you don't need ID. If you don't drive you don't need ID. If you live in a nursing home and lose your ID you probably don't need to get ID.

It is your responsibility because you are a free adult in free society, not a child who needs things done for you. And the second sentence says it best. YOU GET ID BECAUSE YOU NEED TO HAVE ID! And this should include to vote!

Quote:

How many people have actually been convicted of election fraud? This is just fear-mongering and a non-issue in order to get less democrats to the poll and to skew elections. You can bet your bottom dollar that democrats would try the same crap if the situation was reversed.

What is the difference how many have been convicted? A photo-ID is just a way to assure a cleaner election. But to throw it back at you, how many people have been convicted of voter suppression?

Quote: AZDuffman

Look again. It is

One thing from List "A"

OR

One from List "B" AND One from List "C"

A&B Establish Identity. You cannot legally work in the USA unless you establish identity.

Yes list B establish identity list B includes a student ID or a native card which are not sufficient to serve as voter ID. And C is a standard SS card. So a student may only have a student ID and a SS card and would be eligible to work but not to vote.

Quote: Twirdman

Yes list B establish identity list B includes a student ID or a native card which are not sufficient to serve as voter ID. And C is a standard SS card. So a student may only have a student ID and a SS card and would be eligible to work but not to vote.

Then they should prepare for adulthood and get said ID.

Quote: AZDuffman

Then they should prepare for adulthood and get said ID.

What is wrong with having a student ID or a native ID. I mean if that is all they need to get around in life why force them to get anything else. Again you have been shown this will disenfranchise tons of people. Both statistics and examples of people who wouldn't have valid ID have been shown so now you need to show that the prevention of fraud outweighs disenfranchising these people. Which means you should at least show some cases of fraud that would be stopped by voter ID. And it has to be far more significant than just oh look at these 3 guys who voted in 2 places since you are potentially disenfranchising thousands maybe even millions of people.

Quote: AZ

What is the difference how many have been convicted? A photo-ID is just a way to assure a cleaner election. But to throw it back at you, how many people have been convicted of voter suppression?

Governments are difficult to convict.

Quote: boymimbo

Governments are difficult to convict.

Quote: AZ

What is the difference how many have been convicted? A photo-ID is just a way to assure a cleaner election. But to throw it back at you, how many people have been convicted of voter suppression?

Governor Rick Scott and the Florida Legislature, for one government; their crappy laws were thrown out as illegal and biased in the summer of 2012.

Quote: Twirdman

What is wrong with having a student ID or a native ID. I mean if that is all they need to get around in life why force them to get anything else. Again you have been shown this will disenfranchise tons of people. Both statistics and examples of people who wouldn't have valid ID have been shown so now you need to show that the prevention of fraud outweighs disenfranchising these people. Which means you should at least show some cases of fraud that would be stopped by voter ID. And it has to be far more significant than just oh look at these 3 guys who voted in 2 places since you are potentially disenfranchising thousands maybe even millions of people.

I am not "disenfranchising" anyone. ID is no different a requirement than registering to vote in the first place. A student ID is not government issued and is easier to fake than something issued by the state as when I got mine it was students running the machine. Additionally, you cannot tell at a glance if they are still a student or not. Tirbal ID is not by a state or US Government but rather ID by a sovereign government. Might as well be from Brazil from that standpoint.

I am betting when it comes time to buy alcohol most of those students will suddenly decide they can get an ID!

Everyone has or can get an ID, the requirement hurt nobody, it only provides better election security.

Quote: AZDuffman

What is the difference how many have been convicted? A photo-ID is just a way to assure a cleaner election. But to throw it back at you, how many people have been convicted of voter suppression?

Quote: beachbumbabs

Governor Rick Scott and the Florida Legislature, for one government; their crappy laws were thrown out as illegal and biased in the summer of 2012.

If their laws were illegal and crappy, then they should have been thrown out. That is not a conviction but it is a step in the right direction. Well, unless activist courts toss something that should not be tossed, but that is a whole different can of worms.

It is like people think that you can't have both--a good ID law and allowing everyone to vote. That is how stupid this whole thing has gotten. Toss out the outliers on either side--the Radical Liberals who secretly want dead people to vote and their people to have 2, 3, or 12 votes and the Crazy Conservatives who say that a good ID law is one which keeps anyone potentially opposed to them and let's meet in the middle.

Voters should provide proper ID to vote. Everyone eligible to vote should have a way to get a proper ID that imposes no more burden that voting itself will impose. Free, if need be. Voters need to register with the last four of their SSN to run comparisons to find potential problems via database query. Voters who are old and can't provide ID, say ones born in 1940 or before, should be exempt. If you were born after 1940, everyone needs to have an ID. We can adjust that before implementing the law.

Voting should be an "event"--it starts at a certain time or date and ends at a certain time or date. During that time, the polls should remain open either a long (16 hour day) day or all 24 hours a day from open to close. All precincts need to be open and manned for the same hours. Any waits longer than an hour are a local issue and need to be handled from the locals on up--in other words, you fix it this time or we'll step in and make you fix it next time.

Absentee ballots should be provided only to people who can't vote within the required time and should be postmarked no later than the day of the election. The aim is not to disenfranchise anyone; this can be adjusted as necessary.

We can do this and it isn't really that hard...

Quote: RonC

If their laws were illegal and crappy, then they should have been thrown out. That is not a conviction but it is a step in the right direction. Well, unless activist courts toss something that should not be tossed, but that is a whole different can of worms.

It is like people think that you can't have both--a good ID law and allowing everyone to vote. That is how stupid this whole thing has gotten. Toss out the outliers on either side--the Radical Liberals who secretly want dead people to vote and their people to have 2, 3, or 12 votes and the Crazy Conservatives who say that a good ID law is one which keeps anyone potentially opposed to them and let's meet in the middle.

Voters should provide proper ID to vote. Everyone eligible to vote should have a way to get a proper ID that imposes no more burden that voting itself will impose. Free, if need be. Voters need to register with the last four of their SSN to run comparisons to find potential problems via database query. Voters who are old and can't provide ID, say ones born in 1940 or before, should be exempt. If you were born after 1940, everyone needs to have an ID. We can adjust that before implementing the law.

Voting should be an "event"--it starts at a certain time or date and ends at a certain time or date. During that time, the polls should remain open either a long (16 hour day) day or all 24 hours a day from open to close. All precincts need to be open and manned for the same hours. Any waits longer than an hour are a local issue and need to be handled from the locals on up--in other words, you fix it this time or we'll step in and make you fix it next time.

Absentee ballots should be provided only to people who can't vote within the required time and should be postmarked no later than the day of the election. The aim is not to disenfranchise anyone; this can be adjusted as necessary.

We can do this and it isn't really that hard...

This is all I am asking.

Quote: AZDuffman

Quote: RonC

If their laws were illegal and crappy, then they should have been thrown out. That is not a conviction but it is a step in the right direction. Well, unless activist courts toss something that should not be tossed, but that is a whole different can of worms.

It is like people think that you can't have both--a good ID law and allowing everyone to vote. That is how stupid this whole thing has gotten. Toss out the outliers on either side--the Radical Liberals who secretly want dead people to vote and their people to have 2, 3, or 12 votes and the Crazy Conservatives who say that a good ID law is one which keeps anyone potentially opposed to them and let's meet in the middle.

Voters should provide proper ID to vote. Everyone eligible to vote should have a way to get a proper ID that imposes no more burden that voting itself will impose. Free, if need be. Voters need to register with the last four of their SSN to run comparisons to find potential problems via database query. Voters who are old and can't provide ID, say ones born in 1940 or before, should be exempt. If you were born after 1940, everyone needs to have an ID. We can adjust that before implementing the law.

Voting should be an "event"--it starts at a certain time or date and ends at a certain time or date. During that time, the polls should remain open either a long (16 hour day) day or all 24 hours a day from open to close. All precincts need to be open and manned for the same hours. Any waits longer than an hour are a local issue and need to be handled from the locals on up--in other words, you fix it this time or we'll step in and make you fix it next time.

Absentee ballots should be provided only to people who can't vote within the required time and should be postmarked no later than the day of the election. The aim is not to disenfranchise anyone; this can be adjusted as necessary.

We can do this and it isn't really that hard...

This is all I am asking.

Glad to hear you are finally on board with early voting (multiple election days).

Quote: endermike

Glad to hear you are finally on board with early voting (multiple election days).

I'm not for it in the current form. My form would have voting start and close, in your own precinct, from the first day to last. Or we could just have the thing we did for so long (and, as I pointed out before, when getting to the polls was actually a challenge) called, funny enough, Election Day.

I am not for the way it is done in my state--only certain polls open and not on consecutive days. I am for as long as necessary to "give everyone a chance to vote" but not for endless days of 10-20 people coming to the polls.

Quote: RonC

I'm not for it in the current form. My form would have voting start and close, in your own precinct, from the first day to last. Or we could just have the thing we did for so long (and, as I pointed out before, when getting to the polls was actually a challenge) called, funny enough, Election Day.

I am not for the way it is done in my state--only certain polls open and not on consecutive days. I am for as long as necessary to "give everyone a chance to vote" but not for endless days of 10-20 people coming to the polls.

Oh. Sorry, I was saying that to AZD. I was still under the impression AZD only wanted one 12-14 hour period for people to do all voting.

I saw what you stated (the "Election weekend" idea), I like it. There might be reasons that I'm not familiar with that would be problematic, but I think it may settle a lot of problems.

Quote: RonC

I'm not for it in the current form. My form would have voting start and close, in your own precinct, from the first day to last. Or we could just have the thing we did for so long (and, as I pointed out before, when getting to the polls was actually a challenge) called, funny enough, Election Day.

I am not for the way it is done in my state--only certain polls open and not on consecutive days. I am for as long as necessary to "give everyone a chance to vote" but not for endless days of 10-20 people coming to the polls.

Yes I did stretch it a bit, but here are some first day totals for Harris County, Texas:

"From my review, Republican recorded numbers totaling 11,855 compared to the Democratic recorded numbers totaling 3356, shows high energy on the Republican side."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/3124615/posts

With a population of 4.254 million (from the Census Bureau), that is a 0.36% turnout of the population and 0.76% of the approx. 2 million registered voters--that goes down if I find the right figure, since 2 million registered voters was something reported in 2012.

Quote: endermike

Oh. Sorry, I was saying that to AZD. I was still under the impression AZD only wanted one 12-14 hour period for people to do all voting.

I saw what you stated (the "Election weekend" idea), I like it. There might be reasons that I'm not familiar with that would be problematic, but I think it may settle a lot of problems.

Gotcha.

Quote: endermike

Glad to hear you are finally on board with early voting (multiple election days).

Didn't say I was, don't see where he said he is. As he said below, Election DAY. I'd accept the idea of a full 24 hours but think it is overkill and 16-18 hours is plenty. At 16 hours virtually any shift worker can stop by before or after working.

Quote: RonC

Voting should be an "event"--it starts at a certain time or date and ends at a certain time or date. During that time, the polls should remain open either a long (16 hour day) day or all 24 hours a day from open to close. All precincts need to be open and manned for the same hours. Any waits longer than an hour are a local issue and need to be handled from the locals on up--in other words, you fix it this time or we'll step in and make you fix it next time.

I did say it--I am not "against" having the polls open for more than one day. I have said we could have "Election Weekend" or a short period of days with all polls open across the country for the same days (mandated and funded, of course, so something in the budget may need to be cut or reduced to pay for it...no additional taxation allowed!!). I think the right number is somewhere between one and four (inclusive); not a week, two weeks or a month!

Quote: AZDuffman

Didn't say I was, don't see where he said he is. As he said below, Election DAY. I'd accept the idea of a full 24 hours but think it is overkill and 16-18 hours is plenty. At 16 hours virtually any shift worker can stop by before or after working.

I was formulating a response to AZD, but RonC spoke for himself so I will leave it be.

Quote: RonC

I did say it--I am not "against" having the polls open for more than one day. I have said we could have "Election Weekend" or a short period of days with all polls open across the country for the same days (mandated and funded, of course, so something in the budget may need to be cut or reduced to pay for it...no additional taxation allowed!!). I think the right number is somewhere between one and four (inclusive); not a week, two weeks or a month!

AZD, why do you keep saying "election day?" Did you find it in the constitution? Did you ignore my post where I offered you $20 to find it in the constitution?

Quote: endermike

I thought this might be a consequence of citing the constitution. If you can find the phrase "election day" in the US constitution I will pay $20 to you as well Answers in Genesis (suffice to say, an organization I would not like to support).

My reply will again have three parts:
1) An excellent article on the legality of early voting: http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/10/11/the-rights-war-on-early-voting-false-constituti/190566
2) You would think if it wasn't constitutional fewer than 30 some states would offer it.
3) Article 1 section 4 (aka why states get to run elections)

AZD, you have some strong arguments, but when you keep bringing up things which are demonstrably wrong you taint all your arguments with that same brush of incorrectness. Saying "election day" over and over again does not make it correct. It only makes you repeatedly wrong.

Quote: endermike

AZD, why do you keep saying "election day?" Did you find it in the constitution?

I did not find it but I did not re-read the entire Constitution for it. But I keep saying "Election Day" because until about 10 years ago people seemed to be able to find the time to vote on one day, not the dozens of excuses why they cannot make it on a prescribed day today.

And I do say excuses. Somehow 200 years ago when you had to take your horse to town to vote. Somehow 100 years ago when 12 hour days were the norm people found time to vote on Election Day. Somehow 50 years ago when we didn't have all the conveniences of today people found time to vote on Election Day. Now all of the sudden people need days or weeks to vote? It is nonsense and laziness that they cannot make it on Election Day. If they really wanted to do it they could do it, just like getting an ID to vote.

Quote: AZDuffman

I did not find it but I did not re-read the entire Constitution for it.

I'm glad, if you did there is something wrong with your copy. Here is a nice searchable one, use ctrl+f

Quote: AZDuffman

Somehow 200 years ago when you had to take your horse to town to vote. Somehow 100 years ago when 12 hour days were the norm people found time to vote on Election Day. Somehow 50 years ago when we didn't have all the conveniences of today people found time to vote on Election Day.

Somehow 200 years ago only white landowners were able to vote. Somehow about 100 years ago women were not allowed to vote. Somehow 50 years ago poll taxes existed. Yay progress!

Quote: AZDuffman

Now all of the sudden people need days or weeks to vote?

Probably not weeks, but they need more than 1 day.

Quote: AZDuffman

I did not find it but I did not re-read the entire Constitution for it. But I keep saying "Election Day" because until about 10 years ago people seemed to be able to find the time to vote on one day, not the dozens of excuses why they cannot make it on a prescribed day today.

And I do say excuses. Somehow 200 years ago when you had to take your horse to town to vote. Somehow 100 years ago when 12 hour days were the norm people found time to vote on Election Day. Somehow 50 years ago when we didn't have all the conveniences of today people found time to vote on Election Day. Now all of the sudden people need days or weeks to vote? It is nonsense and laziness that they cannot make it on Election Day. If they really wanted to do it they could do it, just like getting an ID to vote.

I do agree with AZ on this--one day should be enough--but I am willing to compromise on IDs and extended time.

It is interesting that we find obstacles to voting that don't really exist...why don't we find time taking care of the few that really do exist?

Quote: AZDuffman

I did not find it but I did not re-read the entire Constitution for it. But I keep saying "Election Day" because until about 10 years ago people seemed to be able to find the time to vote on one day, not the dozens of excuses why they cannot make it on a prescribed day today.

And I do say excuses. Somehow 200 years ago when you had to take your horse to town to vote. Somehow 100 years ago when 12 hour days were the norm people found time to vote on Election Day. Somehow 50 years ago when we didn't have all the conveniences of today people found time to vote on Election Day. Now all of the sudden people need days or weeks to vote? It is nonsense and laziness that they cannot make it on Election Day. If they really wanted to do it they could do it, just like getting an ID to vote.

200 years ago Jets did not exist. Last Presidential election, I spent it in Vegas baby. As a Florida resident, I contacted the party I belong to, Republican, and they kindly sent me an absentee ballot so I could vote for Obama. As a Florida resident thousands of miles from my polling location on election day, why not make it easy for me to vote. I want to participate, and I want to have fun.
I work in corporate travel, on any given day a great number of people are thousands of miles from home. 200 years ago, it was a big planet, you tended to stay close to home. Today, its a small world, wanna be on the otherside of the planet tomorrow, buy a ticket today and you can be there tomorrow.
I love early voting and I love absentee ballots.

Quote: terapined

200 years ago Jets did not exist. Last Presidential election, I spent it in Vegas baby. As a Florida resident, I contacted the party I belong to, Republican, and they kindly sent me an absentee ballot so I could vote for Obama. As a Florida resident thousands of miles from my polling location on election day, why not make it easy for me to vote. I want to participate, and I want to have fun.
I work in corporate travel, on any given day a great number of people are thousands of miles from home. 200 years ago, it was a big planet, you tended to stay close to home. Today, its a small world, wanna be on the otherside of the planet tomorrow, buy a ticket today and you can be there tomorrow.
I love early voting and I love absentee ballots.

There was no need for "early voting" in your case--you were going to be absent on election day and you were allowed to vote as an absentee. Your comment supports absentee voting, which should have fairly "liberal" rules for being allowed (easy to get a ballot and vote if you are properly registered) but not so much for early voting--and definitely not for long periods of early voting.

Quote: RonC

There was no need for "early voting" in your case--you were going to be absent on election day and you were allowed to vote as an absentee. Your comment supports absentee voting, which should have fairly "liberal" rules for being allowed (easy to get a ballot and vote if you are properly registered) but not so much for early voting--and definitely not for long periods of early voting.

Glad you explained that, I am still wondering why the GOP is sending out the ballots instead of the Bureau of Elections.

Quote: endermike

Somehow 200 years ago only white landowners were able to vote.

Has nothing to do with anything, people still found time to vote on Election Day.

Quote:

Somehow about 100 years ago women were not allowed to vote.

Has nothing to do with anything, people still found time to vote on Election Day.

Quote:

Somehow 50 years ago poll taxes existed. Yay progress!

Has nothing to do with anything, people still found time to vote on Election Day.

Quote:

Probably not weeks, but they need more than 1 day.

Not if they really want to vote.

And the phrase "election day" as you use it has nothing to do with election law.

My point was what has been common in elections at one time has changed over time. Or do you disagree with those facts because they are not part of your "personal experience?" Or do you think that what was standard in the 19X0s should be the same standard forever?

Quote: endermike

And the phrase "election day" as you use it has nothing to do with election law.

My point was what has been common in elections at one time has changed over time. Or do you disagree with those facts because they are not part of your "personal experience?" Or do you think that what was standard in the 19X0s should be the same standard forever?

I think that Election DAY should be the same standard forever. Period.

Quote: AZDuffman

I think that Election DAY should be the same standard forever. Period.

So you think an idea which doesn't have a basis in the constitution should be the standard. Further, you think that election laws should not change or be amended. I'm kinda confident that isn't what you really believe.

Quote: endermike

So you think an idea which doesn't have a basis in the constitution should be the standard. Further, you think that election laws should not change or be amended. I'm kinda confident that isn't what you really believe.

I believe it should be Election DAY should be the same standard forever. PERIOD.

Quote: RonC

There was no need for "early voting" in your case--you were going to be absent on election day and you were allowed to vote as an absentee. Your comment supports absentee voting, which should have fairly "liberal" rules for being allowed (easy to get a ballot and vote if you are properly registered) but not so much for early voting--and definitely not for long periods of early voting.

What if a corporate traveller is told Sunday that he has to fly to China Monday , the day before election day. Last minute travel to China is actually a common occurance . I work in corporate travel and China is the number 1 destination overall for the corporate travellers I take care of. With early voting, they can get that out of the way because many have no idea if they will or will not be home on election day.

Quote: terapined

What if a corporate traveller is told Sunday that he has to fly to China Monday , the day before election day. Last minute travel to China is actually a common occurance . I work in corporate travel and China is the number 1 destination overall for the corporate travellers I take care of. With early voting, they can get that out of the way because many have no idea if they will or will not be home on election day.

This can already be done via absentee ballot for those in this situation.

Otherwise my answer is "tough, plan better next cycle."

Quote: AZDuffman

This can already be done via absentee ballot for those in this situation.

Otherwise my answer is "tough, plan better next cycle."

Wow, your answer is "tough"
I appreciate the honesty but actually surprised by your answer.
I have compassion for my busy corporate travellers. Believe me, they all hate having to travel to China. They also hate not knowing untill the last minute when they have to go. These are hard working American Citizens, I say lets make it easy for my road warriors to vote. They contribute alot to make this economy succeed by giving up family time at home. Lets not take their vote away as well just because their job makes it impossible to plan ahead in many instances.

Quote: terapined

Wow, your answer is "tough"
I appreciate the honesty but actually surprised by your answer.
I have compassion for my busy corporate travellers. Believe me, they all hate having to travel to China. They also hate not knowing untill the last minute when they have to go. These are hard working American Citizens, I say lets make it easy for my road warriors to vote. They contribute alot to make this economy succeed by giving up family time at home. Lets not take their vote away as well just because their job makes it impossible to plan ahead in many instances.

Sorry if it sounds "rough" but sometimes "tough" is what is needed.

I have been a road warrior myself. Not to China, but enough that missing a vote was a possibility. In the case above, the person knows they have to travel often so should either request the absentee ballot or take the chance of not voting.

It is not as if they are in the Senate voting on a major bill. Will the results change if they don't make it to vote? No. Will their life change if they can't make it? No. Sorry, but that is reality.

IMHO in the USA we need to change this attitude of "every vote is precious and better that there is the chance of fraud than one person be 'disenfranchised'" to "here are the rules. You need to register x days before the election, the election is on the first tuesday after the first monday in November. You know that. And you need to show up with positive ID. If you want to vote absentee you need to have vote in person at least once or else show up at the county elections bureau to positively ID yourself. The polls are open from X to Y on Election Day. Those are the rules, if you don't like them then don't vote."

The "election rules" I stated above were common until recently (except ID, which everyone has or can easily get) and every straightforward. I think where people get upset is I come out and say the right to vote comes with responsibility to do certain things to exercise that right.