ID needed to vote?
Poll
 | 26 votes (81.25%) | ||
| | 6 votes (18.75%) |
32 members have voted
Quote: rdw4potusPeople under 18 can satisfy the
So you, for some reason, want to protect these
coddled 18 year olds from the trauma of getting
an ID. The horror of joining the adult world.
And the rest of us should pay for it with rampant
voter fraud, most of it on the Left, to protect
these delicate babies that are still in mommies
womb, almost. And this makes some kind of
sense to you.
Ever think of nominating people that don't need
voter fraud to get elected? I'm just sayin..
Quote: EvenBobrampant
voter fraud, most of it on the Left, to protect
these delicate babies that are still in mommies
womb, almost.
Rampant? Where? When? Only the right says that, never with any non-partisan sources in support. It's the ultimate strawman.
Quote: rdw4potusRampant? Where? When? .
You don't see on the news about hundreds of dead
Dem's being registered in Fl and Chicago recently?
Of course you don't, they don't cover that on the
channels that are still bashing Bush 24/7.
So you're against voter ID, not because you promote
voter fraud, but because you want to protect some
lame-o kid that lives at home and is too stupid to get
an ID? Really? Thats the story you're going with?
Quote: EvenBob
So you're against voter ID, not because you promote
voter fraud, but because you want to protect some
lame-o kid that lives at home and is too stupid to get
an ID? Really? Thats the story you're going with?
It's a sad day when I agree with Bob. We cannot protect everyone and while this person is at the DMV getting their ID they can register to vote while they are there!
Quote: EvenBobYou don't see on the news about hundreds of dead
Dem's being registered in Fl and Chicago recently?
Of course you don't, they don't cover that on the
channels that are still bashing Bush 24/7.
So you're against voter ID, not because you promote
voter fraud, but because you want to protect some
lame-o kid that lives at home and is too stupid to get
an ID? Really? Thats the story you're going with?
No, I missed that news. Kind of makes me wonder if one and only one news agency reported on it...
And yes, I have a problem with laws that disproportionately affect dopey kids and the elderly (who no longer have non-expired drivers licenses).
Quote: rdw4potusRampant? Where? When?
http://www.examiner.com/article/voter-fraud-targeted-by-alabama-leaders
http://www.rottenacorn.com/activityMap.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124182750646102435.html
“The tired old refrain we keep hearing from the Left is that voter
fraud is a myth, but in fact it is fairly common crime,” said Matthew Vadum,
author of the explosive new book http://superstore.wnd.com/books/WND-Books/Subversion-Inc-AutographedHardcover
Quote: buzzpaff" It's a sad day when I agree with Bob." I am seeking dispensation from the Pope for you.
Not sure what you mean, that is a common figure of speech used to describe this - Bob and I have some very different ideologies. I doubt anyone including Bob would say otherwise.
Quote: rdw4potusAnd yes, I have a problem with laws that disproportionately affect dopey kids and the elderly (who no longer have non-expired drivers licenses).
These conservatives really love the nanny state, though they say otherwise. Okay, they love the nanny state when they like the rules.
Quote: EvenBobhttp://www.examiner.com/article/voter-fraud-targeted-by-alabama-leaders
http://www.rottenacorn.com/activityMap.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124182750646102435.html
“The tired old refrain we keep hearing from the Left is that voter
fraud is a myth, but in fact it is fairly common crime,” said Matthew Vadum,
author of the explosive new book http://superstore.wnd.com/books/WND-Books/Subversion-Inc-AutographedHardcover
I don't know where to start...first, those don't meet the non-partisan requirement. I guess the WSJ might (though, I doubt you'd say the NY Times would), but...second, that article is about fraudulent registrations, not fraudulent votes. It really does suck that Acorn was paid for turning in lists of fraudulently registered voters. But that's very different from actually voting fraudulently in an election. So...please show a recent article from a non-partisan source about actual fraudulent votes in a national election.
Quote: rdw4potusis about fraudulent registrations, not fraudulent votes..
Sigh. The term 'voter fraud' is an umbrella
term that covers all voter irregularities. It
literally means 'illegal interference with the
process of an election'. And its always Dem's
who defend it, and Dem's who are accused
of it. Kind of like the 5 year old who is dead
set against locking down the cookie jar. The
kid has all kinds of good reasons
not to, and him stealing cookies is never one
of them.
Quote: EvenBobSigh. The term 'voter fraud' is an umbrella
term that covers all voter irregularities. It
literally means 'illegal interference with the
process of an election'. And its always Dem's
who defend it, and Dem's who are accused
of it. Kind of like the 5 year old who is dead
set against locking down the cookie jar. The
kid has all kinds of good reasons
not to, and him stealing cookies is never one
of them.
sigh. But voter ID laws only pertain to showing ID at the polling place on election day. So why talk about anything else?
Quote: rdw4potussigh. But voter ID laws only pertain to showing ID at the polling place on election day. So why talk about anything else?
Becauase its all connected! Why bother to register dead
people or register people illegally if ID is required at the
voting booth. ID law gets rid of all of this in one fell
swoop.
Quote: rdw4potusVoter ID laws only pertain to showing ID at the polling place on election day.
In that case, there is no problem with requiring government-issued photo ID at voter registration, or does that pose a problem, too?
Quote: ahiromuWhere's the "White male landowner" voting choice? In seriousness, people who are net takers shouldn't have a say. I know I'm in the deep minority with this opinion, but whatever.
I think you don't go far enough. Why not tie voting power to your average income?
So here's an interesting fact, republican states take a lot more in federal money than democratic states on average. Using your plan, the following 18 states are the only states that should be allowed to vote as they either break even or pay more in taxes than they receive. Notice how most of them are democratic? It's weird how republicans are the biggest whiners about government welfare yet the largest recipients.
(D) Rhode Island $1.00
(D) Florida $0.97
(R) Texas $0.94
(D) Oregon $0.93
(D) Michigan $0.92
(D) Washington $0.88
(D) Wisconsin $0.86
(D) Massachusetts $0.82
(R) Colorado $0.81
(D) New York $0.79
(D) California $0.78
(D) Delaware $0.77
(D) Illinois $0.75
(D) Minnesota $0.72
(T) New Hampshire $0.71
(D) Connecticut $0.69
(D) Nevada $0.65
(D) New Jersey $0.61
taxfoundation.org
Quote: AZDuffman
Voter ID has overwhelming support, abour 70-75%. The only ones against them are liberals who see some imaginary guy in a white sheet around every corner.
That's because it is always posed to people as "Do you think we should have voter ID laws to prevent voter fraud?". People are going to say yes to that because it sounds like the right thing to do. It feels good to stop fraud right?
However consider if the question was phrased, "Do you think we should have voter ID laws that might have prevented the 10 known cases of in person voter fraud in the last 12 years but may prevent 13 million Americans from voting?" It might get a lot less than 70% approval.
*edit*
13 million based on these sources:
Studies on Americans without photo ID
Number of people who voted in 2008
Quote: SanchoPanzaIn that case, there is no problem with requiring government-issued photo ID at voter registration, or does that pose a problem, too?
I have a lot less of a problem with this because this will not turn away people on election day. It would be a problem to make everyone re-register though because it would again result in the unaware losing their vote on election day.
Also before I'd sign off on this, I would want to know what effect it would have on new voter registration. For example when I registered to vote I believe I did it at school. Anything that would require a process where each person would have to goto an office like the DMV to register might be too discouraging for a significant portion of the population.
Quote: kulinbut may prevent 13 million Americans from voting?"
So you think there are 13 million people
who have no ID and want to vote? What
if they all wanted to vote for Romney,
whats your stance then?
Thats what I thought.."It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
Quote: kulinmight be too discouraging for a significant portion of the population.
I know, we should go door to door on election day
and get the votes, so people won't be bothered or
hassled. Take an interpreter in case they want to
vote for Obama and can't speak English. Let their
kids and dog vote too, its the American way.
Quote: EvenBobQuote: kulinbut may prevent 13 million Americans from voting?"
So you think there are 13 million people
who have no ID and want to vote? What
if they all wanted to vote for Romney,
whats your stance then?
Thats what I thought..
Nice straw man argument there.
(Edit just sorting out the quotations)
Quote: kulinFor example when I registered to vote I believe I did it at school.
Security-conscious schools now require and issue legally valid photo ID.
Quote: kulinThat's because it is always posed to people as "Do you think we should have voter ID laws to prevent voter fraud?". People are going to say yes to that because it sounds like the right thing to do. It feels good to stop fraud right?
However consider if the question was phrased, "Do you think we should have voter ID laws that might have prevented the 10 known cases of in person voter fraud in the last 12 years but may prevent 13 million Americans from voting?" It might get a lot less than 70% approval.
Perhaps we should be asking if no ID at the polls keeps us from finding any fraud? As has been pointed out any number of times, states try to purge their registered votong rolls and the Feds say it is some how disenfranchinsing. Disenfranchising dead people, maybe.
And again, the 13 million number is bogus when you consider if they ever held a job they have ID. If they get any government benefits they will need ID. If they smoke the may be asked for......
Ah, forget it. Lets just not even register people and let anyone who shows up anywhere vote, just as if they are entering a free raffle at a shopping mall. Because we can't expect "minorities" to do to the simplest thing, like get an ID to vote as that would be disenfranchising and racist.
Quote: pacomartinIt is roughly 37 minutes from Newark Airport Train station to World Trade Center via trains (Cost $10.25 each way). You must reserve a visitor pass online. There is no charge for the pass, although they request a voluntary $10 contribution. They will not let you in without a pass! Your ID must match the pass, as there is a cursory baggage search and a metal detector (belt, metal including coins, leave shoes on).
Quote: EvenBobWhy bother to register dead
people or register people illegally if ID is required at the
voting booth.
Well, Acorn did it because they were paid per registration...
About 80% of people on this thread agree that ID should be required. Isn't that enough for people to just be satisfied with? Just make State IDs free of charge and we're good.
80% is a pretty high number for politics, so just be happy with it, someone mention Hitler, and let's end this one.
Quote: FinsRuleI'm confused why there is an argument.
About 80% of people on this thread agree that ID should be required. Isn't that enough for people to just be satisfied with? Just make State IDs free of charge and we're good.
80% is a pretty high number for politics, so just be happy with it, someone mention Hitler, and let's end this one.
FWIW, free IDs would end this part of the argument for me. Given that all voters would then be carrying ID, I think the argument against same-day registration gets a lot weaker, but that's a fight for a different day.
I'm sure there is someone out there who truly can't afford an ID--fine, give it to them for free. The idea that most people can't afford a modest fee is just plain silly. Sure, they can afford cigarettes, beer, and lottery tickets but they want to vote without an ID.
On second though--GIVE THEM OUT FOR FREE TO ANYONE WHO QUALIFIES AND HAS AN INCOME BELOW DOUBLE THE POVERTY LEVEL. Allow same day registration for anyone with an ID.
There. Problem solved. If they can get out once or twice a year to vote, they can get out once in every 4-5 or more years to renew their ID.
Show the proper ID and you can vote.
Why is this even an argument????
Quote: RonCI think the arguments against this based on the cost or inconvenience of getting an ID are ridiculous for th emost part. I am sure there are SOME areas where getting an ID is a hassle and we should work around those things as best we can but I bet >90% or more of Americans have an ID locaton close and that they would get there and get an ID if there was something in it for them. We're fighting for people who are too freaking lazy or cheap to get a picture ID to be able to vote.
I'm sure there is someone out there who truly can't afford an ID--fine, give it to them for free. The idea that most people can't afford a modest fee is just plain silly. Sure, they can afford cigarettes, beer, and lottery tickets but they want to vote without an ID.
On second though--GIVE THEM OUT FOR FREE TO ANYONE WHO QUALIFIES AND HAS AN INCOME BELOW DOUBLE THE POVERTY LEVEL. Allow same day registration for anyone with an ID.
There. Problem solved. If they can get out once or twice a year to vote, they can get out once in every 4-5 or more years to renew their ID.
Show the proper ID and you can vote.
Why is this even an argument????
Your "second thought" is pretty much my exact position on this issue:-)
As for the rest of what you said, >90% isn't good enough. Cheapness/thriftiness doesn't matter when the financial "burden" creates a violation of the constitution (the 24th amendment). Nobody at all has ever said that most people can't afford a modest fee, but I agree that it'd be an idea that's just plain silly.
Quote: rdw4potusYour "second thought" is pretty much my exact position on this issue:-)
As for the rest of what you said, >90% isn't good enough. Cheapness/thriftiness doesn't matter when the financial "burden" creates a violation of the constitution (the 24th amendment). Nobody at all has ever said that most people can't afford a modest fee, but I agree that it'd be an idea that's just plain silly.
******
Section 1
The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
Section 2
The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
*******
Okay--let's take it a step further. Enact legislation that gives every citizen the ability to take a federal tax credit (once every 5 years or so) of $100 from their taxes to cover the cost of obtaining a government ID. Those who pay no taxes would get a tax refund for simply for filing the form--and, best of all, we'll mail them the tax form and a return envelope for free. For those who spend more than $100 getting the ID, they can get the $100 tax credit increased up to the level of expenses for obtaing the ID, subject to audit of the expenses.
I don't want a single legal voter disenfranchised. I want every single ineligible voter stopped. Just as not allowing a legal voter to vote is unfair, so is allowing the one who is not so to vote. You can't have it both ways.
Quote: RonCQuote: rdw4potusYour "second thought" is pretty much my exact position on this issue:-)
As for the rest of what you said, >90% isn't good enough. Cheapness/thriftiness doesn't matter when the financial "burden" creates a violation of the constitution (the 24th amendment). Nobody at all has ever said that most people can't afford a modest fee, but I agree that it'd be an idea that's just plain silly.
******
Section 1
The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
Section 2
The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
*******
Okay--let's take it a step further. Enact legislation that gives every citizen the ability to take a federal tax credit (once every 5 years or so) of $100 from their taxes to cover the cost of obtaining a government ID. Those who pay no taxes would get a tax refund for simply for filing the form--and, best of all, we'll mail them the tax form and a return envelope for free. For those who spend more than $100 getting the ID, they can get the $100 tax credit increased up to the level of expenses for obtaing the ID, subject to audit of the expenses.
I don't want a single legal voter disenfranchised. I want every single ineligible voter stopped. Just as not allowing a legal voter to vote is unfair, so is allowing the one who is not so to vote. You can't have it both ways.
I agree you can't have it both ways. But I think that very very very few ineligible people actually vote. Register, yes. Vote, no. And that flaw in the system can be mostly corrected without voter ID laws (by not paying "community organizers" to register voters), so any voter ID law must be very carefully crafted so as to not do more harm than good.
I like your proposed solution. What would you do for people who want to register early? I think I'd like it if they needed to have, but not show, ID. That way, they could register online or in a GOTV drive by writing in their ID #, which would be checked later at the actual polling place on election day.
Quote: AZDuffman
Ah, forget it. Lets just not even register people and let anyone who shows up anywhere vote,
Thats what happened in the old days, and why
we have voting laws now. A guy would show
up and he'd get a shot of whiskey and a cigar
and vote for that candidate. Then he'd find another
polling place and do it all again. All day long.
Women couldn't vote, no women allowed at
polling places.
Those were the days, buy the votes for your guy
right there on election day.
Quote: AZDuffmanBecause we can't expect "minorities" to do to the simplest thing, like get an ID to vote as that would be disenfranchising and racist.
No but your statement might be.
Quote: AZDuffmanBecause we can't expect "minorities" to do to the simplest thing, like get an ID to vote as that would be disenfranchising and racist.
Yet they never have a minutes trouble figuring
out how to get food stamps, welfare, an Obama
phone, disability benefits, low income housing,
etc. And all without an ID. Right....
Its not minorities that have no ID, its illegals.
Thats who this is really about. Its not about some
white kid who lives with his parents, like RDW tried
to imply. Its about illegals who can't get ID and
want to vote for Dem's, because Dem's make it
easier to live here. And there are a heck of a lot
more illegals that come over the border than just
what people think of first. There are 10's of thousands
from Russia and the Eastern block countries that
come here every year. They have just as much trouble
getting ID's as anybody else.
Quote: RonCI think the arguments against this based on the cost or inconvenience of getting an ID are ridiculous for th emost part. I am sure there are SOME areas where getting an ID is a hassle and we should work around those things as best we can but I bet >90% or more of Americans have an ID locaton close and that they would get there and get an ID if there was something in it for them. We're fighting for people who are too freaking lazy or cheap to get a picture ID to be able to vote.
I agree that the cost argument is basically there just to give some legal cover.
For me the bigger issue is the second part of your statement. 90% is not enough coverage when we are talking about the right to vote in a democracy. You accuse these people of being lazy, and while anyone who doesn't do what you do will look lazy to you, I'd ask you instead to try and empathize. Imagine a father who just worked a 10 hour shift on some assembly line who gets to his polling station just after work and gets turned around because he didn't realize that this year, for the first time in all of history, he had to bring a government ID. Is it lazy that he cannot go home and come back in time with the ID? Or if there is enough time and he goes home to pick up his ID, is it lazy that after working for 10 hours he decides to spend the rest of the evening with his family rather than go back?
Quote: RonCI don't want a single legal voter disenfranchised. I want every single ineligible voter stopped. Just as not allowing a legal voter to vote is unfair, so is allowing the one who is not so to vote. You can't have it both ways.
Its about scale. Everyone needs to understand that in person voting is not where any significant amount of fraud happens. Considering all the ways that something can go wrong at an in person polling station, fraud is so far down the list that it is like making contingency plans for meteor strikes. There have been 10 cases in 12 years. That is less than 1 case a year. If even one person loses their vote at in person voting this year, that is a bigger problem than voter fraud.
Now if you want to talk about overall reforms to help tackle other kinds of fraud, we might find a lot to agree on. The point is that my values are that unless there is an actual problem and we can verify that the solution will be a net benefit, it is not a good solution.
Quote: EvenBobIts not about some
white kid who lives with his parents, like RDW tried
to imply.
Just out of curiosity, what about that story made you assume that the kid is white? That's certainly not something I meant to imply.
Quote: rdw4potusJust out of curiosity, what about that story made you assume that the kid is white? .
Why do you assume the kid isn't white?
Quote: EvenBobWhy do you assume the kid isn't white?
I don't. But I wrote the story, and I was careful not to establish his race. So I'm confused why your critique identifies him as white. I guess I'll just assume it's because your argument is weak:-)
Quote: EvenBob
Its not minorities that have no ID, its illegals.
Thats who this is really about.
Hypothetically, of course, if the illegals were allowed to vote, who do you think they would vote for? Of course its the Dems, and thats why the Dems don't want ID's checked. Anyone who says otherwise is fooling themselves. Bob nailed it!
Quote: SOOPOOHypothetically, of course, if the illegals were allowed to vote, who do you think they would vote for? Of course its the Dems, and thats why the Dems don't want ID's checked. Anyone who says otherwise is fooling themselves. Bob nailed it!
That must be why Arizona and Texas are such democratic strongholds.
Quote: rdw4potusI don't. But I wrote the story, and I was careful not to establish his race.
So he's not white, or he is white, do you
even know? 19 black kids were shot and
killed in Chicago this weekend, was he
from one of those families? Very confusing.
Quote: EvenBobSo he's not white, or he is white, do you
even know?
I don't know. He's like Schrodinger's kid. You don't know his race until you meet him. And that's pretty much OK, since his race has no bearing whatsoever on this discussion.
Quote: EvenBob19 black kids were shot and
killed in Chicago this weekend
Were there additional white, asian, and hispanic kids shot and killed in Chicago this weekend? Or were all of the kids shot and killed in Chicago black?
Quote: kulinI agree that the cost argument is basically there just to give some legal cover.
For me the bigger issue is the second part of your statement. 90% is not enough coverage when we are talking about the right to vote in a democracy. You accuse these people of being lazy, and while anyone who doesn't do what you do will look lazy to you, I'd ask you instead to try and empathize. Imagine a father who just worked a 10 hour shift on some assembly line who gets to his polling station just after work and gets turned around because he didn't realize that this year, for the first time in all of history, he had to bring a government ID. Is it lazy that he cannot go home and come back in time with the ID? Or if there is enough time and he goes home to pick up his ID, is it lazy that after working for 10 hours he decides to spend the rest of the evening with his family rather than go back?
Its about scale. Everyone needs to understand that in person voting is not where any significant amount of fraud happens. Considering all the ways that something can go wrong at an in person polling station, fraud is so far down the list that it is like making contingency plans for meteor strikes. There have been 10 cases in 12 years. That is less than 1 case a year. If even one person loses their vote at in person voting this year, that is a bigger problem than voter fraud.
Now if you want to talk about overall reforms to help tackle other kinds of fraud, we might find a lot to agree on. The point is that my values are that unless there is an actual problem and we can verify that the solution will be a net benefit, it is not a good solution.
Here's an example that needs to be investigated further:
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/09/10/maryland-democrat-exits-congressional-race-due-to-allegations-of-voter-fraud/
There is more voter fraud than some think but not as much as others believe...
Why allow any?
Quote: rdw4potusWere there additional white, asian, and hispanic kids shot and killed in Chicago
The ones I saw being reported on were all black.
But in your world I'm sure half were black, half
were white, half were latino, half were Chinese,
half were Native American, half were Puerto
Rican, half were Hawaiian, and the other half
were of an undisclosed heritage. I'm sure I left
out half of them, use your imagination..
While blacks make up about 33 percent of the city's population, they accounted for nearly 78 percent of the homicide victims through the first six months of 2012.
By comparison, just 11 homicide victims in the first six months of the year were white, and 44 were Hispanic, according to police data."
http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/12217-chicago%E2%80%99s-murders-for-2012-likely-to-exceed-2011
Quote: RonC
Here's an example that needs to be investigated further:
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/09/10/maryland-democrat-exits-congressional-race-due-to-allegations-of-voter-fraud/
There is more voter fraud than some think but not as much as others believe...
Why allow any?
Did she go to both polling places to vote? Would an ID have prevented this?
I don't doubt that there is a significant amount of voter fraud in other areas such as absentee ballots, but ID laws wouldn't help with those cases. Do you understand that the point I am making is that ID laws on in person voting are not reducing fraud as much as they are just disqualifying legitimate votes? This particular problem doesn't exist as stated and the enacted solution does not address the real problem.
*edit*
I fully believe that if the other easier avenues to voter fraud were tightened up, then a lack of ID laws for in person voting could potentially be the next targeted area but we are not actually there. If people were serious about voter fraud, they would want to take a comprehensive approach, not targeting one specific area which coincidentally happens to also contain a demographic who will typically not vote for their candidate.
Quote: RonC
While blacks make up about 33 percent of the city's population, they accounted for nearly 78 percent of the homicide victims through the first six months of 2012.
A racist stat. I'm sure half were black, half were white, and the other
half were Latino. That makes sense.
