Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Recent MoveOn Ad (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   
Author Topic: Recent MoveOn Ad
yossarian22c
Member
Member # 1779

 - posted      Profile for yossarian22c   Email yossarian22c       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JWatts:
Not one of you addressed the silliness of requiring a photo ID to

1) Buy alcohol
2) Buy cigarettes
3) Buy several over the counter drugs (Benadryl)
4) Drive a car
5) Rent a hotel room

and yet claim it's an excessive burden to meet the same requirement to Vote.

I don't see how this is relevant to the voting discussion. But I'll play ball.

1&2 are to verify age to prevent minors from getting drugs.
3 is the prevent the manufacture of meth.
4 is to make sure people are licensed (safe) drivers.
I don't think 5 is a government regulation, at least not in all states.

None of those of fundamental rights of citizens protected by the constitution so they are all bad comparisons.

Would you care to address how requiring ID would prevent massive in person voter fraud? Or should politicians just enact new regulations to inconvenience people on a whim? It is not really a whim, more like a cynical effort to suppress the vote to make themselves more likely to win an election.

Posts: 1121 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Needing an ID for 3) is a result of nonsense about the "War on Drugs." It is silly.
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by yossarian22c:
Would you care to address how requiring ID would prevent massive in person voter fraud?

Massive. Why is that word being thrown around? I'll tell you why, it clouds the issue, it misleads.

We know for a fact that 537 votes, or a little less than 0.01% of votes could be enough to swing an entire presidential election (Florida 2000). Trying to frame this as only applicable under something like "massive in person voter fraud" is inaccurate.

Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Two questions then:

How many people would need to be involve to fraudulently vote in person get 500 votes?

How big can a conspiracy get without being discovered?

I'm inclined to believe it trends towards the saying that 2 people can keep a secret if one of them is dead.

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
While in person voter fraud is rare, rounding up a few hundred illegal aliens and taking them to the polls would not be hard and could be done by one person.

The smart fraudster does it with mail-in and absentee ballots.

[ November 02, 2012, 12:47 PM: Message edited by: G3 ]

Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And what does mail-in and absentee ballots have to do with requiring IDs to vote in person?

And your first statement is hilarious.

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
velcro
Member
Member # 1216

 - posted      Profile for velcro   Email velcro   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
JWatts,

I do not intend to harass or offend you. I come to Ornery for honest discussions, and you have the intellect and reasoning to provide a good partner for discussion. But a discussion means interaction, specifically clarification of points and addressing weaknesses in reasoning. Without that interaction, we are all just talking past each other.

You said that the ad claims "Republicans are engaging in Voter Suppression. Which is an outright lie."

Kid Tokyo responded with a set of facts:
-A number of state have initiated "voter purges" and ID laws under the claimed goal of eliminating ineligible voters
-These efforts are spearheaded (as far as I know exclusively) by Republicans.
-The purges disproportionately affect Democrats.
-The evidence of voter fraud that is actually uncovered is very slim -- i.e., very small numbers of verifiable fraud.

And some basic reasoning:
-The small numbers found do not seem to justify the huge efforts being put into place, and the large numbers of voters potentially affected.
-Given a normal cost-benefit analysis, a more likely explanation for the purges is that it keeps democrats from voting.

If you accept these facts and reasoning, your premise is false.

That is the discussion so far. I would dearly love to hear you knock down the facts with sources, or to explain why the reasoning is faulty.

Cherry brought up some tangents, but this is the big question. Again, I am not trying to harass you, just to return, at least temporarily, to the central issue.

I trust you to respond in good faith, and with the respect I have attempted to show to you.

Posts: 2096 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
And what does mail-in and absentee ballots have to do with requiring IDs to vote in person?

We generally pass laws to discourage criminal activity. Why should voting be different?

quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
And your first statement is hilarious.

You think? How hard would it be? Drive down to the day labor location and load up a dozen illegal aliens, walk them through the process and slip them a $20 and then take them to the polls. Easy. Hit a few polling locations with you're trained, and now experienced, work force. Go back, get more that afternoon or tomorrow, do it until you think you did enough.

What do you think, are those guys going to run to the police and report you and themselves? You can't do a ton this way but, as you know, if it's close you could change the outcome.

Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
How do you think cutting early voting in, for example, Ohio was supposed to prevent voter fraud?
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by G3:
While in person voter fraud is rare, rounding up a few hundred illegal aliens and taking them to the polls would not be hard and could be done by one person.

The smart fraudster does it with mail-in and absentee ballots.

Yep. Because that kind of attention seeking is very attractive to illegal aliens!

Or you could just be Ohio Sec. of State Jon Husted and reject absentee ballots. Much easier and not even illegal! Or simply purge mostly African American voters from the registration roles. Worked in 2000!

Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by velcro:
Kid Tokyo responded with a set of facts:
-A number of state have initiated "voter purges" and ID laws under the claimed goal of eliminating ineligible voters
-These efforts are spearheaded (as far as I know exclusively) by Republicans.
-The purges disproportionately affect Democrats.
-The evidence of voter fraud that is actually uncovered is very slim -- i.e., very small numbers of verifiable fraud.

Eliminating voter fraud disproportionately affect Democrats? Want to think through that a bit? Why would that happen?


quote:
Originally posted by velcro:

And some basic reasoning:
-The small numbers found do not seem to justify the huge efforts being put into place, and the large numbers of voters potentially affected.
-Given a normal cost-benefit analysis, a more likely explanation for the purges is that it keeps democrats from voting.

Requiring ID is not a huge effort. Most people already have appropriate ID. The purges keep illegal voters from voting - that your perception is that most happen to be voting Democrat may tell us something altogether different.
Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
How do you think cutting early voting in, for example, Ohio was supposed to prevent voter fraud?

You know, I'm not aware of the detail on that one. Can you expand?
Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Eliminating voter fraud disproportionately affect Democrats? Want to think through that a bit? Why would that happen?
No, eliminating voter fraud at the polls disproportionately affects Democrats because,
-voter fraud at the polls is probably extremely rare and has never been shown to be a significant problem, and
-the countermeasures have been shown to disproportionately affect Democrats.

Now why do you think Republicans are so enthusiastic about "solving" this problem? [Wink]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by G3:
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
How do you think cutting early voting in, for example, Ohio was supposed to prevent voter fraud?

You know, I'm not aware of the detail on that one. Can you expand?
http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2012/09/post_39.html

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/10/21/1055031/ohio-secretary-of-state-says-restoring-early-voting-is-un-american/

Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
You think? How hard would it be? Drive down to the day labor location and load up a dozen illegal aliens, walk them through the process and slip them a $20 and then take them to the polls. Easy. Hit a few polling locations with your trained, and now experienced, work force. Go back, get more that afternoon or tomorrow, do it until you think you did enough.
So umm, when I show up to vote my name is checked against a list of registered voters for my district. How exactly do you beat that other than saying you are someone you are not? Then if that person DOES show up to vote a second time a flag gets raised.

What are people doing out there? Do they go to multiple polling locations with their own name and fill out provisional ballots? Do they use the identity of a registered voter and visit polling places other than that person’s district? Do they just go for +1 vote and vote absentee AND visit the polls in person?

Is my polling location unique in having a voter registry or is that ONLY related to my state? If you went and registered to vote you already proved who you were. Until multiple votes show up for the same name why would it even matter? Or am I again being dense and my voter ID card is only for the state?

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by G3:
quote:
Originally posted by yossarian22c:
Would you care to address how requiring ID would prevent massive in person voter fraud?

Massive. Why is that word being thrown around? I'll tell you why, it clouds the issue, it misleads.

We know for a fact that 537 votes, or a little less than 0.01% of votes could be enough to swing an entire presidential election (Florida 2000). Trying to frame this as only applicable under something like "massive in person voter fraud" is inaccurate.

And yet, a system that disenfranchises at least an order of magnitude more people to prevent those votes is just fine?

And even then, requiring photo ID here does absolutely nothing to prevent the issue being described, because once they're in the roles incorrectly, being able to prove their identity does nothing to clarify whether they're legally registered in the first place. (Especially considering that, for PA, at least, school and business photo IDs are considered acceptable as long as they're dated)

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
yossarian22c
Member
Member # 1779

 - posted      Profile for yossarian22c   Email yossarian22c       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by G3:
The smart fraudster does it with mail-in and absentee ballots.

Do you realize the point you just made? No one does in person voter fraud because its hard and rather ineffective. It is much easier to hack electronic voting machines or use absentee ballots. Somehow our crusading knights of election security missed those gaping holes in the validity of our elections. But rest easy because they worked really hard and spend millions of dollars to eliminate a non existent problem whose solution adds barriers (primarily for democratic voters) to legitimate voting.
Posts: 1121 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So much easier for the guy in charge to just reject absentee ballots. And, hey! It's Jon Husted again.

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2012/11/01/glitch-held-up-absentee-ballots.html

Lots of "glitches" in that office.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/10/22/election-officials-have-trouble-reading-the-calendar/?wprss=rss_election-2012

Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
What are people doing out there? Do they go to multiple polling locations with their own name and fill out provisional ballots?
On thing that is more commonly done is to request and send in an absentee ballot in someone else's name, so that when the voter shows up to vote, they're marked as already voted. Checking ID doesn't help there at all.

It's the most common type of fraud, especially at levels that could swing tight elections, but there's very little effort being made to tighten up rules there because the risk of disenfranchisement suddenly becomes a much bigger concern as soon as you look at a system that tends to favor GOP voters.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The purges keep illegal voters from voting - that your perception is that most happen to be voting Democrat may tell us something altogether different.
When purges routinely remove and order of magnitude more legitimate Democratic voters than they do illegal voters, there's a lot of room for concern. Knocking ~2500 voters of the roles when only ~100 of them were improperly registered (and most of those legitimately identified had never voted) as happened in FL does far more damage to the overall process.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
None of those of fundamental rights of citizens protected by the constitution so they are all bad comparisons.
Careful on that assertion- voting isn't an explicitly guaranteed right, either. The constitution only defines conditions that can't be used to deny the vote.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by G3:
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
How do you think cutting early voting in, for example, Ohio was supposed to prevent voter fraud?

You know, I'm not aware of the detail on that one. Can you expand?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/09/24/florida-early-voting-cuts-survive/

Or here.
quote:
In addition to cutting the number of mandatory early voting days, the new Florida law eliminates early voting on the Sunday before Election Day, a day when high percentages of minority voters headed to the polls in 2008. (That surge might be in part due to black church activism, known as “Souls to the Polls.”) The new law mandates two Saturdays and one Sunday for early voting, but not the Sunday before Election Day.

Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mynnion
Member
Member # 5287

 - posted      Profile for Mynnion   Email Mynnion   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Needing an ID for 3) is a result of nonsense about the "War on Drugs." It is silly.
Actually you would only need an ID for Benadryl if it contains pseudophedrin. I was curious about this and spoke to a pharmacist to see if they had seen any impact based on these laws. It turns out that there was a significant drop in bulk psuedophedrin sales and local meth arrests in the area where he worked.

Sounds silly but in this case it appears to be effective. Done derailing.

To the topic at hand. I am not sure that the idea of IDs to vote in itself is bad. It is the way that it has been implemented (in some cases in direct violation of Federal voting laws) that I have an issue with. To ensure that everyone has the opportunity to vote it would have to be completed over a long period of time.

Are we really sure however that the issue is about discouraging voting among likely Democrats and not an attempt by Big Brother to catalog us all for the mark of the beast? [Big Grin]

Posts: 1271 | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
velcro
Member
Member # 1216

 - posted      Profile for velcro   Email velcro   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Interesting phenomenon. Several intelligent and knowledgeable people are trying to convince G3 of an obvious fact, and he keeps refusing to agree.

Why are you wasting your time?

Posts: 2096 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Actually, G3 did already agree:
quote:
in person voter fraud is rare
quote:
The smart fraudster does it with mail-in and absentee ballots.
Basically, he accepts that additional regulations and requirements relating to in-person voting will have little or no effect on voter fraud.
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
Actually, G3 did already agree:
quote:
in person voter fraud is rare
quote:
The smart fraudster does it with mail-in and absentee ballots.
Basically, he accepts that additional regulations and requirements relating to in-person voting will have little or no effect on voter fraud.

Actually, I make the point and provide evidence that, while in person voting fraud is rare, it could still change election outcomes and that additional regulations and requirements relating to in-person voting could prevent such a fraudulent occurrence.
Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by yossarian22c:
quote:
Originally posted by G3:
The smart fraudster does it with mail-in and absentee ballots.

Do you realize the point you just made? No one does in person voter fraud because its hard and rather ineffective.
Yes, do you? No one doe sin person voter fraud? I suggest you google around and find out. It does indeed occur. I made the point that it's not the common, or even best way to do it, but that it would only take a few hundred in some cases to sway elections.


quote:
Originally posted by yossarian22c:
It is much easier to hack electronic voting machines or use absentee ballots. Somehow our crusading knights of election security missed those gaping holes in the validity of our elections. But rest easy because they worked really hard and spend millions of dollars to eliminate a non existent problem whose solution adds barriers (primarily for democratic voters) to legitimate voting.

Somehow they missed those gaping holes? Do you really think they just missed it?
Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by yossarian22c:
quote:
Originally posted by JWatts:
Not one of you addressed the silliness of requiring a photo ID to

1) Buy alcohol
2) Buy cigarettes
3) Buy several over the counter drugs (Benadryl)
4) Drive a car
5) Rent a hotel room

and yet claim it's an excessive burden to meet the same requirement to Vote.

I don't see how this is relevant to the voting discussion. But I'll play ball.

1&2 are to verify age to prevent minors from getting drugs.
3 is the prevent the manufacture of meth.
4 is to make sure people are licensed (safe) drivers.
I don't think 5 is a government regulation, at least not in all states.

None of those of fundamental rights of citizens protected by the constitution so they are all bad comparisons.

Actually all of those are considered under the Commerce clause and are rights. However, if you want to specifically stick to enumerated rights then, there is the obvious case of purchasing a firearm. You need to show a photo ID to purchase a firearm.
Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Actually, I make the point and provide evidence that, while in person voting fraud is rare, it could still change election outcomes and that additional regulations and requirements relating to in-person voting could prevent such a fraudulent occurrence.
What is this evidence of which you speak? It's certainly not in any of your posts. There is a little handwaving use of hypotheticals, but certainly not anything that could be considered as 'evidence'.

In fact you do make the argument that additional regulations and requirements relating to in-person voting will have little effect on voter-fraud in general because you admit that far more relevent and frequent types of fraud would be unaffected by voter id laws: "the smart fraudster does it with mail-in and absentee ballots."

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
quote:
Actually, I make the point and provide evidence that, while in person voting fraud is rare, it could still change election outcomes and that additional regulations and requirements relating to in-person voting could prevent such a fraudulent occurrence.
What is this evidence of which you speak? It's certainly not in any of your posts. There is a little handwaving use of hypotheticals, but certainly not anything that could be considered as 'evidence'.
Actually, it is. You may have to go back and find it, not really thinking I need to reproduce it over and over for you.

QUOTE]Originally posted by DonaldD:
In fact you do make the argument that additional regulations and requirements relating to in-person voting will have little effect on voter-fraud in general because you admit that far more relevent and frequent types of fraud would be unaffected by voter id laws: "the smart fraudster does it with mail-in and absentee ballots." [/QUOTE]Perhaps you should read and absorb the entire post rather than picking out parts.

Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"You need to show a photo ID to purchase a firearm."

Not everywhere, not for all types of firearms, not all the time.

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Funean
Member
Member # 2345

 - posted      Profile for Funean   Email Funean   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The old ways are best. No need for all the bother and bad press involved with requiring ID. If you want to suborn the voting process, just buy the darn things directly. My college roommate remembers fruit baskets from the mob every fall (Camden, 1970s). You knew how you were supposed to vote. Or, for the price of a postcard, you could just tell all the voters of a certain group believed to be likely to vote the wrong way to go to the polls two days late.
Posts: 5277 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidTokyo
Member
Member # 6601

 - posted      Profile for KidTokyo   Email KidTokyo       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
JW,

quote:
Not one of you addressed the silliness of requiring a photo ID to

1) Buy alcohol
2) Buy cigarettes
3) Buy several over the counter drugs (Benadryl)
4) Drive a car
5) Rent a hotel room

and yet claim it's an excessive burden to meet the same requirement to Vote.

First of all, except for #4 these are private transactions with private businesses, which generally speaking do not have your private information -- namely, your full legal name, address, social security number, age, etc. and a stored reproduction of your signature (some may have your signature if you pay with a credit card, but they do not store them and cannot use your handwriting for legal verification). A hotel may have some of this info, but only after you stay there once, and they do not share the information with all hotels everywhere (they can't by law).

The state government where you live does have these things, which is the whole point of them issuing an ID, so that people who aren't the government can know that the government vouches for you.

You carry an ID while driving because a cop needs it to access your driving record, and to know that you're a legal driver on the spot.

The place where you vote does have you signature right there on hand, along with your address. Which is why, traditionally, carrying an ID is completely redundant. Showing up to vote as someone else only works if you know that the person won't show up later...the most likely scenario is that you're pretending to be a dead person. Most municipalities, however, know when someone is deceased. Think about this for thirty seconds and you'll realize how extraordinarily rare this form of fraud would have to be. And, by all evidence, it is pretty rare.

To be clear, there is nothing wrong with requiring an ID to vote if the state that is requiring the ID makes reasonable accommodations for people to get them. You’ll notice that the ad features elderly folk. In many states, getting a photo ID requires going to the DMV, and the DMV may be a looooong way away from a nursing home or an outlying residence. There may not even be a direct bus line, or a bus stop within walking/wheelchair distance. So you are talking about old people living on social security who don't drive being maybe 40 miles from the nearest DMV, even if they are mere blocks from a polling place. It may in fact be prohibitively difficult for an oldster or a disabled person (and still very difficult for able-bodied but poor/overworked people without a drivers license and a car) to get to the DMV.

If the government makes it possible to get an ID nearby and allows a reasonable period of time to pass before the requirement to take full effect, then no problem (in principle, though I still argue its a wasteful, pointless effort).

But what you often have are Republican officials in orange alert terror-crisis mode saying we need to implement the law NOW to prevent "widespread fraud". Why? This wasn't a crisis until the year 2000 and now it's a threat to the nation and everyone needs an ID for whatever reason -- some reason having no relationship to actual evidence.

Isn't this the kind of "big government" heavy-handedness that Republicans decry?

[ November 02, 2012, 09:35 PM: Message edited by: KidTokyo ]

Posts: 2336 | Registered: Sep 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidTokyo
Member
Member # 6601

 - posted      Profile for KidTokyo   Email KidTokyo       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Actually all of those are considered under the Commerce clause and are rights.
The commerce clause gives congress regulatory authority. It does not grant rights to individuals in any sense.

quote:
However, if you want to specifically stick to enumerated rights then, there is the obvious case of purchasing a firearm.
There is no enumerated right to purchase a firearm, or anything, anywhere in the Constitution.

G3,

quote:
I made the point that it's not the common, or even best way to do it, but that it would only take a few hundred in some cases to sway elections.
"Hundreds" actually exceeds the known number of in-person cases. But even were that not the case, this number is dwarfed by the number of votes that are routinely thrown out due to mechanical ballot failures (and, later, computer glitches).
Posts: 2336 | Registered: Sep 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If most election fraud occurs through mail-in and absentee ballots, then the first thing to do is to ban mail-in and absentee ballots.

Anyone up for that? After all you can't buy firearms through the mail either, right? (or perhaps you can, I don't know)

On other news, from my non-American perspective, I consider it a travesty that America doesn't require a photo ID for people to vote.

I also consider it an even worse travesty that you start demanding a photo ID when the American government has *NOT* been issuing photo IDS on a universal basis, when "as many as 11 percent of eligible voters do not have government-issued photo ID."

Because a few hundred votes may swing election, people are trying to hide how that it's really the *21 million* votes that mT also swing elections that Republicans are interested in.

If you want a compromise solution, then the government should issue photo IDs to *every* adult, which they'd then be required to produce in order to vote.

Once e.g. 99.9% of legitimate voters have been provided with a photo ID, then you can change the election system as to require it.

But sure, whatever, it's election-fraud you care about, not to suppress the vote among 21 million people that lack photo ids.

Posts: 3318 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
velcro
Member
Member # 1216

 - posted      Profile for velcro   Email velcro   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
G3 an JWatts have been presented with clear, indisputable facts and arguments.

Given: In person voter fraud is not a significant problem.
Given: Voter ID laws have two effects: reduce in-person voter fraud, and make it more difficult for legal voters to vote.
Given: Lawmakers understand these givens.

Therefore: The most likely intention of Voter ID laws is to make it more difficult for legal voters to vote.
------------
Given: Conclusion above
Given: Voter ID laws are supported exclusively by Republicans
Given: The vast majority of those who will have difficulty voting are Democrats.

Therefore: The most likely intention of voter ID laws is to make it difficult for legal Democrat voters to vote.

"Most likely" means more likely than any other single intention.

G3 and JWatts have not provided any evidence to rebut the givens. It is pretty clear there is none.

JWatts was asked about a set of facts that completely negated his arguments. He ignored them completely, not even acknowledging their existence. Instead, his reply was "Not one of you addressed the silliness of requiring a photo ID to..."

I won't try to catalog what G3 does. People here already know.

[Comment removed by Mod]
If they were arguing that the world is not round, how much time would you waste trying to change their minds?

Why are you still talking to them?

[ November 03, 2012, 08:38 AM: Message edited by: OrneryMod ]

Posts: 2096 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"If most election fraud occurs through mail-in and absentee ballots, then the first thing to do is to ban mail-in and absentee ballots."

Even then, which is clearly a way to commit fraud without detection, how many cases (outside of Ohio) have been reported in recent federal elections? Does it justify disenfranchising 100s of 1000s of people from voting at all just to stop those irregularities?

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
"Even then, which is clearly a way to commit fraud without detection, how many cases (outside of Ohio) have been reported in recent federal elections?"
How do you report something that isn't detected?

That's the point where you make me lose sympathy for the "voter fraud is not a problem, because it's not reported" side.

Everyone that votes should have a photo ID for purposes of identification.
Which means that everyone that's elligible to vote, should be *given* a photo ID.

Make a photo ID mandatory to be possessed by everyone, unless they sign a statement which says that they relinquish their right to vote.

Posts: 3318 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"How do you report something that isn't detected?"

If someone sends in an absentee ballot under your name you won't be allowed to vote when you show up at the polling place on election day. That is a clear detection of the crime, but doesn't give any clue who the perpetrator is.

How does a photo id prevent fraud for acquiring or sending in an absentee ballot?

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
How does a photo id prevent fraud for acquiring or sending in an absentee ballot?
Hence why I said 'ban absentee ballots'?
Posts: 3318 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1