PDA

View Full Version : Ginsburg says push for voter ID laws predictable



Professor Peabody
07-30-2013, 05:38 PM
Jul 26, 3:18 AM EDT

Ginsburg says push for voter ID laws predictable

By MARK SHERMAN
Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg says she's not surprised that Southern states have pushed ahead with tough voter identification laws and other measures since the Supreme Court freed them from strict federal oversight of their elections.

Ginsburg said in an interview with The Associated Press that Texas' decision to implement its voter ID law hours after the court struck down a key provision of the Voting Rights Act last month was powerful evidence of an ongoing need to keep states with a history of voting discrimination from making changes in the way they hold elections without getting advance approval from Washington.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_VOTING_RIGHTS_GINSBURG?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

I can only assume this 80 yr old is still living in the 1960's. The Supreme Court has ruled that is reasonable in requiring voters to prove it by showing ID and doesn't violate the law in most every state that it's been challenged in. There are already restrictions on voting. You must be 18 years old, you must be a citizen and registered to vote, you can't vote more than once and you can't vote for someone else. If these restriction exist, why then is it wrong for states to require you prove you exceed those restrictions with an ID? If the restrictions are meaningless why then shouldn't folks vote 10 times or have my 5 year old kid or 12 years old cat vote?

BTW, there is no specific Constitutional right guaranteeing every citizen the right to vote.


The Fifteenth Amendment (Amendment XV)

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitut ion


Amendment XXIV

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.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxxiv

jillian
07-30-2013, 05:39 PM
ginzberg is right. your point?

Professor Peabody
07-30-2013, 05:46 PM
ginzberg is right. your point?

How is showing an ID to vote discriminatory? If you're going to say it disenfranchises the poor, they won't be able to avail themselves to the Expanded Medicaid (http://downloads.cms.gov/cmsgov/archived-downloads/SMDL/downloads/SMD06012.pdf) program without one.

Singularity
07-30-2013, 06:01 PM
The issue is less that it actively disenfranchises people,
and more that it places the burden of proof on people who
have committed no crime (and still wouldn't have the
burden to prove themselves innocent if they did) and just
mucks up the entire process of voting.

When you've got the trifecta of voter I.D., issuance of
provisional ballots to anyone with even a minor incidental
discrepancy (a frequent occurrence in states that have begun
to do this), and the endorsed presence of third-party poll
vigilantes with an agenda, there's a potential for big problems.

Either way, whether it actually helps the Republican (and this
is being pushed almost universally by Republicans) cause or
not, the fact is, at least some prominent Republicans in this
country believe that it will -- enough perhaps even to flip a
close election. Some of em have been dumb enough to say so.

Singularity
07-30-2013, 06:03 PM
How is showing an ID to vote discriminatory? If you're going to say it disenfranchises the poor, they won't be able to avail themselves to the Expanded Medicaid (http://downloads.cms.gov/cmsgov/archived-downloads/SMDL/downloads/SMD06012.pdf) program without one.

It can be made to be discriminatory. Statutes,
which do things like make a concealed carry license
acceptable ID, but not a (state-issued!) university
student ID or a social security card are clear
attempts to promote certain voters over others.

jillian
07-30-2013, 06:04 PM
How is showing an ID to vote discriminatory? If you're going to say it disenfranchises the poor, they won't be able to avail themselves to the Expanded Medicaid (http://downloads.cms.gov/cmsgov/archived-downloads/SMDL/downloads/SMD06012.pdf) program without one.

why do you think the head of the pennsylvania republican party said voter id laws would cause romney to win PA and why he claimed that it cost the president 5 points in his lead there?

i'm sure it was just because.... right? had nothing to do with disenfranchising democratic voters.

yup.. we can pretend that's true

and while we're on the subject, why do you think the red states passed those onerous laws the minute the court eviscerated the voting rights act?

also a coincidence, i'm sure.

jillian
07-30-2013, 06:05 PM
The issue is less that it actively disenfranchises people,
and more that it places the burden of proof on people who
have committed no crime (and still wouldn't have the
burden to prove themselves innocent if they did) and just
mucks up the entire process of voting.

When you've got the trifecta of voter I.D., issuance of
provisional ballots to anyone with even a minor incidental
discrepancy (a frequent occurrence in states that have begun
to do this), and the endorsed presence of third-party poll
vigilantes with an agenda, there's a potential for big problems.

Either way, whether it actually helps the Republican (and this
is being pushed almost universally by Republicans) cause or
not, the fact is, at least some prominent Republicans in this
country believe that it will -- enough perhaps even to flip a
close election. Some of em have been dumb enough to say so.

they believe it will because they know it will. that's why they do it.

Singularity
07-30-2013, 06:29 PM
they believe it will because they know it will. that's why they do it.
Don't be so sure (http://www.newrepublic.com/article/113957/pennsylvania-voter-id-gop-wrong).

Professor Peabody
07-30-2013, 06:39 PM
The issue is less that it actively disenfranchises people,
and more that it places the burden of proof on people who
have committed no crime (and still wouldn't have the
burden to prove themselves innocent if they did) and just
mucks up the entire process of voting.


As I have already said there is no specific right to vote in the Constitution. Folks applying for the Expanded Medicaid program are guilty of no crime, yet they must show ID. Folks wishing to drive a car must present a birth certificate or papers proving legal residence to get a drivers license. What it mucks up is the process of people voting more than once.



When you've got the trifecta of voter I.D., issuance of
provisional ballots to anyone with even a minor incidental
discrepancy (a frequent occurrence in states that have begun
to do this), and the endorsed presence of third-party poll
vigilantes with an agenda, there's a potential for big problems.


Problems like that exist today


In a report published last year, he estimated as many as 21 percent of absentee ballots requested nationwide never are counted. In the 2008 presidential election, 3.9 million of the 35.5 million ballots requested never reached voters. About 2.9 million that were received by voters never made it back to election offices. Another 800,000 were rejected for other reasons, such as signature problems and not being mailed in time.

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/local-govt-politics/copying-of-thousands-of-bad-palm-beach-county-abse/nSpnM/



Either way, whether it actually helps the Republican (and this
is being pushed almost universally by Republicans) cause or
not, the fact is, at least some prominent Republicans in this
country believe that it will -- enough perhaps even to flip a
close election. Some of em have been dumb enough to say so.

Is it the Republicans fault that Democrat voters are to lazy to produce the proper ID or does it help Republicans by cutting down those who vote more than once.

Peter1469
07-30-2013, 06:40 PM
Here in Virginia, if you don't have an ID you cast a provisional ballot, and then you have several days to prove you can legally vote. They probably take a receipt from an ABC store (liquor) because you can't buy liquor in VA without an ID.

I can't speak for other locations; but I can see no rational reason to be against the Virginia voter ID law.

Professor Peabody
07-30-2013, 06:42 PM
It can be made to be discriminatory. Statutes,
which do things like make a concealed carry license
acceptable ID, but not a (state-issued!) university
student ID or a social security card are clear
attempts to promote certain voters over others.

That's why the Federal Government needs to step in and make an acceptable national standard.

Professor Peabody
07-30-2013, 06:51 PM
why do you think the head of the pennsylvania republican party said voter id laws would cause romney to win PA and why he claimed that it cost the president 5 points in his lead there?

i'm sure it was just because.... right? had nothing to do with disenfranchising democratic voters.

yup.. we can pretend that's true

and while we're on the subject, why do you think the red states passed those onerous laws the minute the court eviscerated the voting rights act?

also a coincidence, i'm sure.

What they took away was the ability for a liberal puppet like Holder to harass any state that passes a voter ID that wasn't just a sham.

Chris
07-30-2013, 07:03 PM
If there is no specific Constitutional right guaranteeing every citizen the right to vote, then it should be left to each state, as amendment 10 states.

TX uses voter ID. Keeps the voting honest I figure.

Been reading The Battle for Athens and back in the day, pre-WW2, ballots were simply printed up and purchase for a small tax or handed out filled in for a bottle of moonshine.

Singularity
07-30-2013, 07:18 PM
As I have already said there is no specific right to vote in the Constitution.

It exists in effect through equal protection under the law,
the government must either let every adult citizen vote,
unless a person's rights are removed via due process of law,
or deny it to them all. Morally and ethically, this is the
worst argument you could possibly make.

I mean, come on. This exact line of manure was used to
justify literacy tests back in the bad old days.


... What it mucks up is the process of people voting more than once.
A virtually non-existent (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/voter-fraud-real-rare/story?id=17213376) problem. Election fraud
via in-person impersonation, the only guard that
voter ID laws really might possibly provide, just
doesn't happen to a degree that provides a real
warrant for the state to take action. The damage is minimal.


Problems like that exist today

So this is an argument to create additional problems with
in person voting and in so doing potentially disenfranchise
more people than voter fraud already does? Who do you
really think is going to be convinced by this blatantly flawed,
fast-and-loose, glazed-over critical thought?


Is it the Republicans fault that Democrat voters are to lazy to produce the proper ID

When you're enacting new policy and people don't want to
follow it, yes, the onus is generally on you to find out why
that is and try to find some way to resolve it -- thereby making
your policy more effective. At least, if your policy's stated
intention is an honest one, and that's evidently not the case.

Singularity
07-30-2013, 07:20 PM
That's why the Federal Government needs to step in and make an acceptable national standard.

That's not going to happen, for precisely the same reason
why the states concerned don't want the Federal Government
telling them what to do with their laws and requiring preclearance
for changes. Their agenda is to fix the system at the level that
is under their complete control. That's impossible to do nationally.

countryboy
07-30-2013, 07:28 PM
ginzberg is right. your point?
Who is ginzberg?

Common
07-30-2013, 07:48 PM
It can be made to be discriminatory. Statutes,
which do things like make a concealed carry license
acceptable ID, but not a (state-issued!) university
student ID or a social security card are clear
attempts to promote certain voters over others.

That is where the precise problem with it is and why its being used to reduce certain voters

Chris
07-30-2013, 07:52 PM
Who is ginzberg?

The justice what told Egypt our Constitution was a poor model to follow.

jillian
07-30-2013, 07:53 PM
Who is ginzberg?

if my hitting a z instead of an s on my keyboard confuses you that much, you have major cognttive difficulty.

Chris
07-30-2013, 07:54 PM
if my hitting a z instead of an s on my keyboard confuses you that much, you have major cognttive difficulty.

Holy cow was that ever a zinger of an insult! :-D

Peter1469
07-30-2013, 07:57 PM
Holy cow was that ever a zinger of an insult! :-D

That certainly doesn't amount to an insult on a political forum. It was an appropriate response to flame bait.

Chris
07-30-2013, 08:00 PM
That certainly doesn't amount to an insult on a political forum. It was an appropriate response to flame bait.

So you've reversed your position and it's ok to personally insult someone's intelligence.

Singularity
07-30-2013, 08:00 PM
That is where the precise problem with it is and why its being used to reduce certain voters

I ultimately think that the Republican faith in this ploy's
ability to shift elections by any really significant degree is
unfounded, but there's no doubt that reducing the impact
of certain voters is the intent in many cases. I'll use my
state, Kansas, as an example.

I carry my DL along with my Auto, Health, and Life policy
cards everywhere with me in my wallet. I have my
address and social security number memorized.
I keep a copy of my birth certificate ready to access
upon need. I know how to get an authenticated copy.

As a result, I have no trouble whatsoever complying
with the Kansas voter "reform" laws that have been
adopted since 2010. Yet, I'm not representative of my
peers. Ever since the laws were adopted, I've seen people
subjected to their consequences, every election.

It's clear that at best, those consequences were put in
place with a lack of foresight, and at worst a deliberate
attempt to mitigate opposition turnout. Time and time
again, I've seen people forced to wait longer, given
prov. ballots, treated with extra scrutiny... on and on.

Every election since 2010, I've just felt disgusted.
And don't even get me started on those True the Vote
fuckheads. The next time I'm questioned by somebody
who is "working" the poll but doesn't actually work for
the poll, I can't promise there won't be violence.

patrickt
07-30-2013, 08:04 PM
The issue is less that it actively disenfranchises people,
and more that it places the burden of proof on people who
have committed no crime (and still wouldn't have the
burden to prove themselves innocent if they did) and just
mucks up the entire process of voting.

When you've got the trifecta of voter I.D., issuance of
provisional ballots to anyone with even a minor incidental
discrepancy (a frequent occurrence in states that have begun
to do this), and the endorsed presence of third-party poll
vigilantes with an agenda, there's a potential for big problems.

Either way, whether it actually helps the Republican (and this
is being pushed almost universally by Republicans) cause or
not, the fact is, at least some prominent Republicans in this
country believe that it will -- enough perhaps even to flip a
close election. Some of em have been dumb enough to say so.

You forgot the most important point. It screws with election fraud.

Chris
07-30-2013, 08:06 PM
Right, prevents dead people voting and people voting twice or voting out of district and on and on.

patrickt
07-30-2013, 08:07 PM
why do you think the head of the pennsylvania republican party said voter id laws would cause romney to win PA and why he claimed that it cost the president 5 points in his lead there?

i'm sure it was just because.... right? had nothing to do with disenfranchising democratic voters.

yup.. we can pretend that's true

and while we're on the subject, why do you think the red states passed those onerous laws the minute the court eviscerated the voting rights act?

also a coincidence, i'm sure.

Assuming what you say is true, which I would never personally assume, it might have been because:

"A McClatchy poll released Thursday (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/07/25/197687/marist-poll-for-mcclatchy-on-voting.html) shows that 83% of those polled believe laws requiring voters to "show identification in order to vote" is a "good thing." Only 13% see it as a "bad thing."
Moreover, a full 72% of Democrats see voter ID as a "good thing."
In fact, 65% of those who see themselves as "very liberal" favor voter ID laws."
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/07/26/Poll-Media-Out-of-touch-on-voter-id-laws-83-percent-approve

Americans would prefer to reduce voter fraud, Jillian, not continue it unabated.

Now, why is it the racist on the left continue to insist that minorities can't get an ID?

Bumpkin
07-30-2013, 08:08 PM
Here's one problem that comes up in some places. The ID is required to have your current address on it. The poor are prone to moving around often. That means they are likely to have the wrong address on their drivers license. It's another expense each time they move.

Of course, the current address on the card isn't really necessary, but they demand it for some reason. If your are registered to vote, an ID with the wrong address should be okay. You could just tell them you moved.

Singularity
07-30-2013, 08:09 PM
You forgot the most important point. It screws with election fraud.

Show me any evidence that more than 100
confirmed cases of in-person voter fraud have
occurred in the last 10 years and I'll take
that point seriously.

jillian
07-30-2013, 08:10 PM
Assuming what you say is true, which I would never personally assume, it might have been because:

"A McClatchy poll released Thursday (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/07/25/197687/marist-poll-for-mcclatchy-on-voting.html) shows that 83% of those polled believe laws requiring voters to "show identification in order to vote" is a "good thing." Only 13% see it as a "bad thing."
Moreover, a full 72% of Democrats see voter ID as a "good thing."
In fact, 65% of those who see themselves as "very liberal" favor voter ID laws."
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/07/26/Poll-Media-Out-of-touch-on-voter-id-laws-83-percent-approve

Americans would prefer to reduce voter fraud, Jillian, not continue it unabated.

Now, why is it the racist on the left continue to insist that minorities can't get an ID?

and with all of the nonsense pretend voter fraud alleged by the right, there hasn't been any. and the only voter fraud there has been, has been on the right.

so the whole thing is a scam.

Chris
07-30-2013, 08:17 PM
Here's one problem that comes up in some places. The ID is required to have your current address on it. The poor are prone to moving around often. That means they are likely to have the wrong address on their drivers license. It's another expense each time they move.

Of course, the current address on the card isn't really necessary, but they demand it for some reason. If your are registered to vote, an ID with the wrong address should be okay. You could just tell them you moved.

Even if it were true, that "The poor are prone to moving around often," it doesn't follow that they cannot update their driver's license.

Please supply some evidence "The poor are prone to moving around often."

Chris
07-30-2013, 08:20 PM
and with all of the nonsense pretend voter fraud alleged by the right, there hasn't been any. and the only voter fraud there has been, has been on the right.

so the whole thing is a scam.


(A) with all of the nonsense pretend voter fraud alleged by the right, there hasn't been any. and (B) the only voter fraud there has been, has been on the right.

(B) contradicts (A) and both are unfounded as shown by:


Here are the facts:


To date, 46 states have prosecuted or convicted cases of voter fraud.
More than 24 million voter registrations are invalid, yet remain on the rolls nation-wide.
There are over 1.8 million dead voters still eligible on the rolls across the country.
More than 2.75 million Americans are registered to vote in more than one state.
True The Vote recently found 99 cases of potential felony interstate voter fraud.
Maryland affiliates of True The Vote uncovered cases of people registering and voting after their respective deaths.
This year, True The Vote uncovered more than 348,000 dead people on the rolls in 27 states.

California: 49,000
Florida: 30,000
Texas: 28,500
Michigan: 25,000
Illinois: 24,000


12 Indiana counties have more registered voters than residents.
The Ohio Secretary of State admitted that multiple Ohio counties have more registered voters than residents.
Federal records showed 160 counties in 19 states have over 100 percent voter registration....



@ How Widespread is Voter Fraud? | 2012 Facts & Figures (http://www.truethevote.org/news/how-widespread-is-voter-fraud-2012-facts-figures)

Singularity
07-30-2013, 08:21 PM
Even if it were true, that "The poor are prone to moving around often," it doesn't follow that they cannot update their driver's license.

Please supply some evidence "The poor are prone to moving around often."

You're missing the point entirely. The whole idea,
universal and unquestioned in an ideal world, is that
if anything, the state should be facilitating
voting, so as to make govt. more democratic. By no
means should it be placing a burden on voters,
whatever the cause or justification, unless the causes
for doing so clearly outweigh the consequences,
and that's just not at all the case for anyone who
is interested in an objective study of the situation.

When you're asking, "Why are the poor too lazy to
follow the law, so they can vote?" instead of, "Why
aren't the poor voting more?" your motivations on
the central issue of democracy are misguided. If
you are a public official whose job it is to know this
information before acting, I would say they are suspect.

Chris
07-30-2013, 08:22 PM
You're missing the point entirely. The whole idea,
universal and unquestioned in an ideal world, is that
if anything, the state should be facilitating
voting, so as to make govt. more democratic. By no
means should it be placing a burden on voters,
whatever the cause or justification, unless the causes
for doing so clearly outweigh the consequences,
and that's just not at all the case for anyone who
is interested in an objective study of the situation.

Serious? See post #31 above.

Bumpkin
07-30-2013, 08:24 PM
Even if it were true, that "The poor are prone to moving around often," it doesn't follow that they cannot update their driver's license.



it takes money to update a drivers license. And there is no real reason to have the current address on the ID. In fact, not all ID they accept actually has a current address on it.

Singularity
07-30-2013, 08:26 PM
Serious? See post #31 above.

True the Vote? Yawn (http://prospect.org/article/true-votes-true-agenda).
But okay, I'll humor you, because you seem
to have done at least a little research on
this subject... How many cases of confirmed in-person
voter fraud have occurred in the last 10 years?

Bumpkin
07-30-2013, 08:28 PM
True the Vote? Yawn (http://prospect.org/article/true-votes-true-agenda).
But okay, I'll humor you, because you
seem to have done at least a little research on
this subject... how many cases of confirmed in-person
voter fraud have occurred in the last 10 years?

I can't find the article now, but I read that some state actually had this investigated. It was clerical errors and not really someone posing as a dead person. They went through them one by one.

Bumpkin
07-30-2013, 08:30 PM
I found the article.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-case-of-zombie-voters-in-south-carolina/2013/07/24/86de3c64-f403-11e2-aa2e-4088616498b4_blog.html

Singularity
07-30-2013, 08:30 PM
I can't find the article now, but I read that some state actually had this investigated. It was clerical errors and not really someone posing as a dead person. They went through them one by one.

As I said, my attitude on TTV is this:
The next time I'm questioned by someone at the
polls, questioned on the basis of my right to vote,
by someone who does not work for the polling
authority, I can't guarantee there won't be violence.

countryboy
07-30-2013, 08:32 PM
That certainly doesn't amount to an insult on a political forum. It was an appropriate response to flame bait.
That's your idea of "flame bait"? Lol....

Peter1469
07-30-2013, 08:36 PM
So you've reversed your position and it's ok to personally insult someone's intelligence.

Try re-reading my post, and what I was responding to. Responding to flame bait is not a personal insult. You know that.

ptif219
07-30-2013, 09:11 PM
ginzberg is right. your point?

She is a nut case. She has also said we need a new constitution

mogur
07-30-2013, 09:37 PM
(B) contradicts (A) and both are unfounded as shown by:

[/LIST]Here are the facts:


To date, 46 states have prosecuted or convicted cases of voter fraud.
More than 24 million voter registrations are invalid, yet remain on the rolls nation-wide.
There are over 1.8 million dead voters still eligible on the rolls across the country.
More than 2.75 million Americans are registered to vote in more than one state.
True The Vote recently found 99 cases of potential felony interstate voter fraud.
Maryland affiliates of True The Vote uncovered cases of people registering and voting after their respective deaths.
This year, True The Vote uncovered more than 348,000 dead people on the rolls in 27 states.


California: 49,000
Florida: 30,000
Texas: 28,500
Michigan: 25,000
Illinois: 24,000

12 Indiana counties have more registered voters than residents.
The Ohio Secretary of State admitted that multiple Ohio counties have more registered voters than residents.
Federal records showed 160 counties in 19 states have over 100 percent voter registration....
That is unmitigated crap. Dead people on rolls does not translate to voter fraud.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnwasik/2012/11/06/voter-fraud-a-massive-anti-democratic-deception/

Scare tactics about 'possible' fraud is disingenuous. Voter REGISTRATION fraud is about minimum wage workers faking registrations for money. It does not translate to actual voter fraud because I doubt that either Donald Duck or dead people will actually show up and vote. (Yes, there will always be a handful of exceptions, but we are talking less than .0005% of the vote.)

This voter ID drive is a Republican effort to disenfranchise those most likely to vote Democratic. You can hoot and holler all you want about how states are entitled to put any encumbrances they choose in the way of legitimate voters, but I hope you are not so stupid to think that it is anything other than an attempt to institute barriers to those voters that don't generally vote Republican. In the days of the Dixiecrats, it was southern conservative Democrats that pulled this crap. Now it is ultra-conservative Republicans. The point is that it has always been conservatives that want to disenfranchise the segment of voters most opposed to their viewpoint, and it is simply not right. The constitution certainly didn't guarantee the right to vote for everyone, because the founders settled on a compromise between those that wanted to abolish slavery, and those that advocated it. And in those days, the progressives (like Jefferson) didn't even want to grant non-land holders the right to vote, out of fear that those voters would simply embellish the vote for their owners/employers. It is a little more complex about what various founders meant when they advocated certain positions than the modern simplistic views lead you to believe.

jillian
07-30-2013, 09:38 PM
some people seem not to understand that unless the dead people show up AT the polls, it doesn't really matter what's on the list.

and there is no proof of dead people voting....

Singularity
07-30-2013, 09:42 PM
some people seem not to understand that unless the dead people show up AT the polls, it doesn't really matter what's on the list.

and there is no proof of dead people voting....

The people who are driving this understand that just fine.
Let there be no aspersions about that; this is classic political
smoke and mirrors. The end motivation is just stupid, not
really a cause for alarm -- Voter ID will not flip elections.
That doesn't change the fact that this is what
its backers want it to do. They've openly admitted it.

jillian
07-30-2013, 09:43 PM
She is a nut case. She has also said we need a new constitution

a nutcase? hardly. disagreeing with rightwing extremists does not make her a 'nutcase'.

and that isn't what she said...

she said there are more modern constitutions that are much more specific in their protections of individual rights.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/01/justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-egypt_n_1248527.html

and she was right.

again... and?

Ransom
07-30-2013, 09:45 PM
As I said, my attitude on TTV is this:
The next time I'm questioned by someone at the
polls, questioned on the basis of my right to vote,
by someone who does not work for the polling
authority, I can't guarantee there won't be violence.

Why get violent, write the name of that someone down send it to Lois Lerner at the IRS and they'll get audited.

Singularity
07-30-2013, 09:49 PM
For the record, basically re-writing our Constitution to
eliminate the ambiguities of the past while preserving
our rights as they exist today really wouldn't be a bad
idea. But that's kind of like saying we need to re-write
the entire tax code. Good idea -- it'll never happen.

Chris
07-30-2013, 09:53 PM
True the Vote? Yawn (http://prospect.org/article/true-votes-true-agenda).
But okay, I'll humor you, because you seem
to have done at least a little research on
this subject... How many cases of confirmed in-person
voter fraud have occurred in the last 10 years?

Nice ad hom. The cases are documented.

Chris
07-30-2013, 09:55 PM
Try re-reading my post, and what I was responding to. Responding to flame bait is not a personal insult. You know that.

Elsewhere you have argued that very thing.

Chris
07-30-2013, 09:57 PM
That is unmitigated crap. Dead people on rolls does not translate to voter fraud.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnwasik/2012/11/06/voter-fraud-a-massive-anti-democratic-deception/

Scare tactics about 'possible' fraud is disingenuous. Voter REGISTRATION fraud is about minimum wage workers faking registrations for money. It does not translate to actual voter fraud because I doubt that either Donald Duck or dead people will actually show up and vote. (Yes, there will always be a handful of exceptions, but we are talking less than .0005% of the vote.)

This voter ID drive is a Republican effort to disenfranchise those most likely to vote Democratic. You can hoot and holler all you want about how states are entitled to put any encumbrances they choose in the way of legitimate voters, but I hope you are not so stupid to think that it is anything other than an attempt to institute barriers to those voters that don't generally vote Republican. In the days of the Dixiecrats, it was southern conservative Democrats that pulled this crap. Now it is ultra-conservative Republicans. The point is that it has always been conservatives that want to disenfranchise the segment of voters most opposed to their viewpoint, and it is simply not right. The constitution certainly didn't guarantee the right to vote for everyone, because the founders settled on a compromise between those that wanted to abolish slavery, and those that advocated it. And in those days, the progressives (like Jefferson) didn't even want to grant non-land holders the right to vote, out of fear that those voters would simply embellish the vote for their owners/employers. It is a little more complex about what various founders meant when they advocated certain positions than the modern simplistic views lead you to believe.

"That is unmitigated crap. Dead people on rolls does not translate to voter fraud."

Crap because you don't want address it.

Dead people voting is fraud.

roadmaster
07-30-2013, 09:59 PM
She is a nut case. She has also said we need a new constitution We don't need a new constitution just enforce our laws and unemployment will settle down.

Singularity
07-30-2013, 10:00 PM
Nice ad hom. The cases are documented.Documented where?

Chris
07-30-2013, 10:03 PM
some people seem not to understand that unless the dead people show up AT the polls, it doesn't really matter what's on the list.

and there is no proof of dead people voting....

Dead people on the rolls have a potential for fraud.

And it does happen despite your universal claim:

http://www.texaswatchdog.org/2008/10/dead-voters-still-registered-in-harris-county/

Chris
07-30-2013, 10:03 PM
Documented where?

Uh, follow the link provided.

Singularity
07-30-2013, 10:07 PM
Uh, follow the link provided.

Again... we're not talking about clerical mishaps or voter registration problems here...
How many cases of in-person voter fraud have occurred in the last 10 years?

roadmaster
07-30-2013, 10:18 PM
Uh, follow the link provided. It's not just dead people. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/02/top-staffer-for-florida-democratic-rep-resigns-amid-voting-fraud-probe/
Not saying only Dems do it.

Singularity
07-30-2013, 10:29 PM
It's not just dead people. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/02/top-staffer-for-florida-democratic-rep-resigns-amid-voting-fraud-probe/
Not saying only Dems do it.Once again, we're not talking about anything other than
the only thing Voter ID laws are able to actively protect
against: in-person voter fraud. If you want to justify
Voter ID, you have to show that there is at least a serious
threat of in-person voter fraud in a given jurisdiction.

You need to show in some way how there have been
confirmed cases of people showing up to the polls
posing as someone they are not in order to manipulate
the system to their favor in some way. This case you've
just linked is an example of voter fraud, but
ID law would have done nothing to stop him, and he
was caught by the status quo law anyway.

Are you able to meet this burden of proof, or not?

Agravan
07-30-2013, 11:54 PM
Once again, we're not talking about anything other than
the only thing Voter ID laws are able to actively protect
against: in-person voter fraud. If you want to justify
Voter ID, you have to show that there is at least a serious
threat of in-person voter fraud in a given jurisdiction.

You need to show in some way how there have been
confirmed cases of people showing up to the polls
posing as someone they are not in order to manipulate
the system to their favor in some way. This case you've
just linked is an example of voter fraud, but
ID law would have done nothing to stop him, and he
was caught by the status quo law anyway.

Are you able to meet this burden of proof, or not?
Did you even read the article linked by Chris?
It specifically states that people using deceased people's info voted IN-PERSON?

"Linda Kay Hill, a homemaker and Louisiana native, died Aug. 2, 2006, of a heart attack, her husband recalled, and is buried at Houston Memorial Gardens in Pearland. But Harris County voter records indicate she –- or someone using her identity –- cast a ballot in the November election that year. Linda Hill of Woodwick Street voted in person on Election Day, records show.
She is among the more than 4,000 people whose names are listed both on Harris County's voter rolls and also in a federal database of death records, a Texas Watchdog analysis (http://www.texaswatchdog.org/2008/10/dead-voters-still-registered-in-harris-county/#analysis)has found."

Professor Peabody
07-31-2013, 12:17 AM
It exists in effect through equal protection under the law,
the government must either let every adult citizen vote,
unless a person's rights are removed via due process of law,
or deny it to them all. Morally and ethically, this is the
worst argument you could possibly make.


I'll take that as a NO.



A virtually non-existent (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/voter-fraud-real-rare/story?id=17213376) problem. Election fraud
via in-person impersonation, the only guard that
voter ID laws really might possibly provide, just
doesn't happen to a degree that provides a real
warrant for the state to take action. The damage is minimal.

Circular argument, since you can't really tell who's voting how do you know. You say the damage is minimal, I can just as easly say it's rampant and maximum. Just a silly argument.



So this is an argument to create additional problems with
in person voting and in so doing potentially disenfranchise
more people than voter fraud already does? Who do you
really think is going to be convinced by this blatantly flawed,
fast-and-loose, glazed-over critical thought?

Please prove that or drop the argument as it will have no merit without proof.



When you're enacting new policy and people don't want to
follow it, yes, the onus is generally on you to find out why
that is and try to find some way to resolve it -- thereby making
your policy more effective. At least, if your policy's stated
intention is an honest one, and that's evidently not the case.


The bottom line is people have just as much right to know their legitimate vote won't be canceled out by a illegal vote the other way. Sorry you can't understand that.

roadmaster
07-31-2013, 12:30 AM
Once again, we're not talking about anything other than
the only thing Voter ID laws are able to actively protect
against: in-person voter fraud. If you want to justify
Voter ID, you have to show that there is at least a serious
threat of in-person voter fraud in a given jurisdiction.

You need to show in some way how there have been
confirmed cases of people showing up to the polls
posing as someone they are not in order to manipulate
the system to their favor in some way. This case you've
just linked is an example of voter fraud, but
ID law would have done nothing to stop him, and he
was caught by the status quo law anyway.

Are you able to meet this burden of proof, or not?
No I don't, people admit they voted twice and nothing is done including poll workers. No one that is not an American should be able to vote and voting twice is against he laws. Don't care if they say it's low and I highly doubt that.

Singularity
07-31-2013, 12:31 AM
Did you even read the article linked by @Chris (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=128)?
It specifically states that people using deceased people's info voted IN-PERSON?

"Linda Kay Hill, a homemaker and Louisiana native, died Aug. 2, 2006, of a heart attack, her husband recalled, and is buried at Houston Memorial Gardens in Pearland. But Harris County voter records indicate she –- or someone using her identity –- cast a ballot in the November election that year. Linda Hill of Woodwick Street voted in person on Election Day, records show.
She is among the more than 4,000 people whose names are listed both on Harris County's voter rolls and also in a federal database of death records, a Texas Watchdog analysis (http://www.texaswatchdog.org/2008/10/dead-voters-still-registered-in-harris-county/#analysis)has found."

Yes, I read the article. My point is that you see a few isolated
cases of in-person voter fraud, and the actual statistics, (which
I've linked in abundance, did you read those?) of the crime are
exceedingly low. The question none of you folks are ever able
to answer is, how does this outweigh the very real, established
problem of overreaching policy blocking (or at least
severely delaying and burdening) legitimate voters?

Either way -- and this is a question everyone involved in this
discussion really ought to consider -- if someone, as you seem to
be suggesting, is really going to the trouble of looking up dead
people and impersonating them so they can vote twice, or more...
what stops these same people from fabricating ID's?

I mean, it's not hard. Teenagers get fake IDs to buy booze all the time.

roadmaster
07-31-2013, 12:36 AM
Yes, I read the article. My point is that you see a few isolated
cases of in-person voter fraud, and the actual statistics, (which
I've linked in abundance, did you read those?) of the crime are
exceedingly low. The question none of you folks are ever able
to answer is, how does this outweigh the very real, established
problem of overreaching policy blocking (or at least
severely delaying and burdening) legitimate voters?

Does that also include the ones they throw away? They laughed at voting over 20 times and nothing was done. Why is it important to you not to make sure votes are counted the correct way?

Professor Peabody
07-31-2013, 12:41 AM
No I don't, people admit they voted twice and nothing is done including poll workers. No one that is not an American should be able to vote and voting twice is against he laws. Don't care if they say it's low and I highly doubt that.

Voter ID helps in that regard. If they show up at the polls without an ID they can still vote, they just need to sign a affidavit they qualify and produce proof later. The significance is this.........


A fourth degree felony is the lowest level of serious crime while the most serious felony is classified as first degree. The maximum allowable sentence for fourth degree felony is up to 1 year imprisonment or more.

http://www.ask.com/question/what-is-a-fourth-degree-felony

Voting more than once is a very minor crime and would likely result in a sentence of probation.


The most common penalty for perjury is a fine and/or jail, but the amount of the fine or jail time can depend on judicial discretion in sentencing. It’s possible for there to be a minimum sentence length as a penalty for perjury, perhaps one year, and a maximum length of sentencing at five to 10 years per charge.

http://www.wisegeek.org/what-is-the-penalty-for-perjury.htm

However, if they sign an affidavit to vote, it's under the penalty of perjury which is a vastly more serious crime in addition to the original voting more than once and would likely mean jail time.

Singularity
07-31-2013, 12:50 AM
A) I'll take that as a NO.

B) Circular argument, since you can't really tell who's voting how do you know. You say the damage is minimal, I can just as easly say it's rampant and maximum. Just a silly argument.

C) Please prove that or drop the argument as it will have no merit without proof.

D) [COLOR=#333333]The bottom line is people have just as much right to know their legitimate vote won't be canceled out by a illegal vote the other way. Sorry you can't understand that.


A) That doesn't even make any sense. Your capped NO must mean...
I have NO intention of delivering a substantive response.

B) Circular argument? There are few recorded cases of in-person
voter fraud... so there's few documented reasons to enact corrective
policy. Pretty straightforward, no?

C) Link: http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/01/23/1486311/long-voting-lines-drove-away-at-least-201k-florida-voters-study-finds/

D) I see, so you're going to just flat-out ignore the various entities
backing this policy that have confessed to having political motives.

As to this notion of security:
Your policy doesn't guarantee election security, it could be evaded.

It can't be justified if more people are illegitimately turned away
for lacking credentials, than are prevented from voting fraudulently.

It's likely a waste of public resources in its creation, implementation
and defense, both in the sense that it advances security over access,
an undemocratic state of affairs, and the cost involved in states
defending this policy against a wide variety of legal challenges.

Even if it was put into place with good intentions, there is already
hard evidence, from the mouths of its own defenders, that the
whole business is infested with craven political motivation.

You can arrogantly declare these simple, direct, and valid points
to not apply all you like, but that's on your reputation. Beyond that,
unless you come up with something more substantive for me to
work with and respond to, I've said what I need to say.

Professor Peabody
07-31-2013, 01:14 AM
A) That doesn't even make any sense. Your capped NO must mean...
I have NO intention of delivering a substantive response.

B) Circular argument? There are few recorded cases of in-person
voter fraud... so there's few documented reasons to enact corrective
policy. Pretty straightforward, no?

C) Link: http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/01/23/1486311/long-voting-lines-drove-away-at-least-201k-florida-voters-study-finds/

D) I see, so you're going to just flat-out ignore the various entities
backing this policy that have confessed to having political motives.

As to this notion of security:
Your policy doesn't guarantee election security, it could be evaded.

It can't be justified if more people are illegitimately turned away
for lacking credentials, than are prevented from voting fraudulently.

It's likely a waste of public resources in its creation, implementation
and defense, both in the sense that it advances security over access,
an undemocratic state of affairs, and the cost involved in states
defending this policy against a wide variety of legal challenges.

Even if it was put into place with good intentions, there is already
hard evidence, from the mouths of its own defenders, that the
whole business is infested with craven political motivation.

You can arrogantly declare these simple, direct, and valid points
to not apply all you like, but that's on your reputation. Beyond that,
unless you come up with something more substantive for me to
work with and respond to, I've said what I need to say.

There is no specific Constitutional right to vote. If you can't comply with the ID requirement then you obviously don't consider voting that high of a priority.. In case you haven't figured it out Stink Progress is a left wing kook blog and simply not a legitimate source. The rest I've already explained to you. But you're free to believe what you want, carry on! Of course I can understand why folks with warrants for various things like failure to pay child support wouldn't like the ID requirement.

Singularity
07-31-2013, 01:24 AM
Let it be noted that I've gone out of my way,
repeatedly, to press @Professor Peabody (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=265) to meet
me halfway and offer a substantive response to my
points. I'm off for the night.

Mainecoons
07-31-2013, 06:46 AM
Sorry, Stink Progress really isn't a credible source. Nor is the Department of InJustice these days.

BTW, I live part time in a country that many of you like to scorn but that found it necessary and practical some years back to require voter ID and set up a system where government provides same free of charge. That country is Mexico and every voter must have a government provided photo ID in order to vote. They've made it extremely simple and fast to obtain this and no one here thinks twice about it or advances these silly arguments about how it discriminates against anyone.

And this is a country where ID is rarely required for run of the mill transactions, as opposed to the U.S. where showing ID to do business is routine.

BTW, as a poll worker in NM, every election we had people coming in pretending to be others. Our precinct was manned by people who had lived there for quite some time and we caught these folks pretty often. The fact that no one reports these incidences does not mean they don't occur. They do and they can make the difference in very close elections.

The core problem is that voter rolls are almost universally out of date and full of errors. It was a joke in NM that election day was dubbed "Resurrection Day" because of all the dead people voting.

Not only is there a problem of fraudulent in person voting, there is probably a bigger issue of fraudulent absentee balloting, which voter ID would not address. But at least voter ID does address the problem of the bad voter databases that exist in most places. If an ID is required, someone can't show up and claim to be a deceased person who is still on the voter roll.

If the Mexicans can do it, so can the U.S. and it is needed there for the same reason it was needed here.

Chris
07-31-2013, 07:16 AM
Did you even read the article linked by Chris?
It specifically states that people using deceased people's info voted IN-PERSON?

"Linda Kay Hill, a homemaker and Louisiana native, died Aug. 2, 2006, of a heart attack, her husband recalled, and is buried at Houston Memorial Gardens in Pearland. But Harris County voter records indicate she –- or someone using her identity –- cast a ballot in the November election that year. Linda Hill of Woodwick Street voted in person on Election Day, records show.
She is among the more than 4,000 people whose names are listed both on Harris County's voter rolls and also in a federal database of death records, a Texas Watchdog analysis (http://www.texaswatchdog.org/2008/10/dead-voters-still-registered-in-harris-county/#analysis)has found."

Yea, I don't get that. Complete denial of facts. Actual cases, even the potential for fraud demands regulation with IDs. Provided you think voting important.

Chris
07-31-2013, 07:19 AM
Yes, I read the article. My point is that you see a few isolated
cases of in-person voter fraud, and the actual statistics, (which
I've linked in abundance, did you read those?) of the crime are
exceedingly low. The question none of you folks are ever able
to answer is, how does this outweigh the very real, established
problem of overreaching policy blocking (or at least
severely delaying and burdening) legitimate voters?

Either way -- and this is a question everyone involved in this
discussion really ought to consider -- if someone, as you seem to
be suggesting, is really going to the trouble of looking up dead
people and impersonating them so they can vote twice, or more...
what stops these same people from fabricating ID's?

I mean, it's not hard. Teenagers get fake IDs to buy booze all the time.

It wasn't an article, singularity, I gave you a link to links to all sorts of case. Granted, you have now admitted "a few isolated
cases of in-person voter fraud".



The question none of you folks are ever able
to answer is, how does this outweigh the very real, established
problem of overreaching policy blocking (or at least
severely delaying and burdening) legitimate voters?

What blocking? Documentation, please.

jillian
07-31-2013, 07:28 AM
It wasn't an article, singularity, I gave you a link to links to all sorts of case. Granted, you have now admitted "a few isolated
cases of in-person voter fraud".

true the vote is a fraud. everyone knows that.

now reality... from that bastion of liberal thought, Forbes:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnwasik/2012/11/06/voter-fraud-a-massive-anti-democratic-deception/

Who Created the Voter Fraud Myth

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/10/29/121029fa_fact_mayer

Mainecoons
07-31-2013, 07:35 AM
Your Forbes citation is an op ed with a sob story and damn little data. But I'm sure it makes you happy.

Your other reference confirms exactly what I said--the voter rolls are so inaccurate the best protection at the polls is voter ID.

And the Mexican experience shows that your sob story is just that. BTW, they vote in greater percentages than do Americans, even without absentee voting.

Imagine all you elitist being upstaged by a bunch of dumb Mexicans.

:grin:

patrickt
07-31-2013, 08:07 AM
I can only assume this 80 yr old is still living in the 1960's. The Supreme Court has ruled that is reasonable in requiring voters to prove it by showing ID and doesn't violate the law in most every state that it's been challenged in. There are already restrictions on voting. You must be 18 years old, you must be a citizen and registered to vote, you can't vote more than once and you can't vote for someone else. If these restriction exist, why then is it wrong for states to require you prove you exceed those restrictions with an ID? If the restrictions are meaningless why then shouldn't folks vote 10 times or have my 5 year old kid or 12 years old cat vote?

BTW, there is no specific Constitutional right guaranteeing every citizen the right to vote.

Other than the fact that most Supreme Court Justices don't get involved in politics publicly, Justice Ginzberg's comments are totally predictable. But, she's right. Trying to reduce election fraud is a fairly predictable occurrence that the voter fraud proponents, like Ginzberg, have to fight tooth and nail.

Chris
07-31-2013, 08:08 AM
true the vote is a fraud. everyone knows that.

now reality... from that bastion of liberal thought, Forbes:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnwasik/2012/11/06/voter-fraud-a-massive-anti-democratic-deception/

Who Created the Voter Fraud Myth

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/10/29/121029fa_fact_mayer

If find it really odd that you move from the truth of documented voting fraud, real or potential, to the "reality" of oped opinions.

One of which states: "But large-scale voter fraud is virtually non-existent today." Admitting it does still exist, contrary to your earlier claim it does not. And concludes: "If anything, voting should be as simple as going to an ATM." Right, requires an ID card, your credit/debit card.

That link has a link to Sen. Al Franken Voter Fraud Revelations Call For Ways To Reduce It (http://www.forbes.com/sites/billfrezza/2012/08/08/sen-al-franken-voter-fraud-revelations-call-for-ways-to-reduce-it/):


The latest revelations that illegal votes may have given Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) his 312-vote margin of victory in his 2008 Senate race—out of the nearly 3 million votes cast—gives one pause. The fact that 243 people have already been convicted or are awaiting trial on voter fraud underscores a persistent concern that, despite their small share of the vote, ineligible ballots can actually swing results.

Even if only small scale it matters. The more local the more it matters. Local country elections here have smaller margins that Senatorial elections.

"Who Created the Voter Fraud Myth" contradicts the fact it exists.

Cigar
07-31-2013, 08:12 AM
Can anyone furnish a link to all the State or National Voter Fraud Convictions, either from the State or The Federal Government ... let say ... over the last 4 decades.

:icon_thumright:

Chris
07-31-2013, 08:14 AM
http://i.snag.gy/Gb0yQ.jpg

Well, duh, that would be dumb, throwing away umbrella in a rainstorm. But wait, when the rainstorm stops, do you walk around with an umbrella up or fold it up and put it away?

Chris
07-31-2013, 08:15 AM
Can anyone furnish a link to all the State or National Voter Fraud Convictions, either from the State or The Federal Government ... let say ... over the last 4 decades.

:icon_thumright:

Many links have been provided to just some of it.

Bumpkin
07-31-2013, 08:24 AM
They don't just require ID. They require particular ID. The example I gave earlier is that if you use a drivers license, it has to have your current address on it. Yet not all ID they accept has to have your current address on it. They allow gun permits as ID but not student IDs issued by the states.

It's obvious they are targeting particular voters.

Bumpkin
07-31-2013, 08:28 AM
I forgot to mention that there is no ID used on mail-in ballots. That shows me they are not concerned with picture IDs. They are concerned with who is voting.

Chris
07-31-2013, 08:33 AM
They don't just require ID. They require particular ID. The example I gave earlier is that if you use a drivers license, it has to have your current address on it. Yet not all ID they accept has to have your current address on it. They allow gun permits as ID but not student IDs issued by the states.

It's obvious they are targeting particular voters.

No, it's not obvious. You state a few miscellaneous facts and leap to a conclusion with no logic between.

Still waiting for you to provide some sort of evidence to support your claim that "The poor are prone to moving around often."

Bumpkin
07-31-2013, 08:38 AM
No, it's not obvious. You state a few miscellaneous facts and leap to a conclusion with no logic between.



Perhaps you can tell me why some IDs need to have a current address and others do not. Can you come up with a plausible reason.

Mainecoons
07-31-2013, 08:41 AM
I forgot to mention that there is no ID used on mail-in ballots. That shows me they are not concerned with picture IDs. They are concerned with who is voting.

Supposedly, the correct voter is at the address the ballot is mailed to. Also, the voter is required to sign the ballot submission form, supposedly giving a means of verification.

However, this suffers from the same flaws as trying to rely on voter rolls, which are full of errors.

Thanks, you've confirmed why absentee balloting is a bad idea. With early-in-person voting giving an alternative to election day, there really is no reason why people can't and shouldn't show up to vote as required in Mexico and many if not most other places. If the voter shows up and provides an ID, you have a pretty fail safe system for assuring that the voter is who they say they are.

Very difficult for people to win close elections by sending fraudulent voters to the polls, however. You liberals don't like that with good reason.

:grin:

Chris
07-31-2013, 08:41 AM
I forgot to mention that there is no ID used on mail-in ballots. That shows me they are not concerned with picture IDs. They are concerned with who is voting.

Oh, but there is concern about this:


In Texas, electoral fraud occurring over the years involves political operatives engaged by candidates illegally aid those eligible to vote by mail, usually voters over 65 years of age or voters with a disability.[8][9]

@ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postal_voting

[8] refers to Charged with illegal vote harvesting, a political worker explains how voter fraud works (http://www.texaswatchdog.org/2010/05/illegal-vote-harvesting-south-texas-voter-fraud/1273422832.story): "Zaida Bueno, accused of illegal vote harvesting in the 2008 primary in Jim Wells County, is up-front about her deeds. Yes, she helped coach votes and collect mail-in ballots for a number of local elected officials over the past eight years."

[9] refers to Voter fraud persists in South Texas as enforcement efforts fail (http://www.texaswatchdog.org/2010/04/voter-fraud-persists-in-south-texas-as-enforcement-efforts-fail/1270496802.story): "Texas --- South Texas is rife with agents from local political camps who prosper by organizing mail-in ballot fraud, elections administrators and other observers in the region say, even after a state-level push to curb the wrongdoing...."

There's just no logic between your truthy facts and conclusions.

Mainecoons
07-31-2013, 08:42 AM
I forgot to mention that there is no ID used on mail-in ballots. That shows me they are not concerned with picture IDs. They are concerned with who is voting.

Supposedly, the correct voter is at the address the ballot is mailed to. Also, the voter is required to sign the ballot submission form, supposedly giving a means of verification.

However, this suffers from the same flaws as trying to rely on voter rolls, which are full of errors. And it is extremely time consuming to verify. Most poll work is by volunteers and they are always short handed. Consequently, there is very little verification done on absentee ballots.

Thanks, you've confirmed why absentee balloting is a bad idea. With early-in-person voting giving an alternative to election day, there really is no reason why people can't and shouldn't show up to vote as required in Mexico and many if not most other places. If the voter shows up and provides an ID, you have a pretty fail safe system for assuring that the voter is who they say they are.

Very difficult for people to win close elections by sending fraudulent voters to the polls, however. You liberals don't like that with good reason.

:grin:

Cigar
07-31-2013, 08:43 AM
Many links have been provided to just some of it.

Got it, that a no ... :icon_thumright:

Chris
07-31-2013, 08:43 AM
Perhaps you can tell me why some IDs need to have a current address and others do not. Can you come up with a plausible reason.

IOW, you were busted and now want to shift the burden of proof. Nice game.


Still waiting for you to provide some sort of evidence to support your claim that "The poor are prone to moving around often."

jillian
07-31-2013, 08:44 AM
Can anyone furnish a link to all the State or National Voter Fraud Convictions, either from the State or The Federal Government ... let say ... over the last 4 decades.

:icon_thumright:

lol... that ought to make things very quiet

Chris
07-31-2013, 08:44 AM
Got it, that a no ... :icon_thumright:

Links provided earlier. Did you read the thread? "Got it, that a no ."

Bumpkin
07-31-2013, 08:46 AM
Oh, but there is concern about this:



@ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postal_voting

[8] refers to Charged with illegal vote harvesting, a political worker explains how voter fraud works (http://www.texaswatchdog.org/2010/05/illegal-vote-harvesting-south-texas-voter-fraud/1273422832.story): "Zaida Bueno, accused of illegal vote harvesting in the 2008 primary in Jim Wells County, is up-front about her deeds. Yes, she helped coach votes and collect mail-in ballots for a number of local elected officials over the past eight years."

[9] refers to Voter fraud persists in South Texas as enforcement efforts fail (http://www.texaswatchdog.org/2010/04/voter-fraud-persists-in-south-texas-as-enforcement-efforts-fail/1270496802.story): "Texas --- South Texas is rife with agents from local political camps who prosper by organizing mail-in ballot fraud, elections administrators and other observers in the region say, even after a state-level push to curb the wrongdoing...."

There's just no logic between your truthy facts and conclusions.

I am familiar with that claim. My point is that they have not tried to stop mail-in ballots. Has Texas been trying to stop mail-in ballots? If not, why not?

What is to keep a person who owns several homes in Texas from voting from each of those addresses?

Chris
07-31-2013, 08:46 AM
lol... that ought to make things very quiet

Yea, it's such a great gotcha. We should call such nonsense the gotcha fallacy. Defined as thinking up something no one could possibly answer and then claiming Charlie Sheen-like Winning!

Chris
07-31-2013, 08:47 AM
I am familiar with that claim. My point is that they have not tried to stop mail-in ballots. Has Texas been trying to stop mail-in ballots? If not, why not?

What is to keep a person who owns several homes in Texas from voting from each of those addresses?

If you're familiar with such fraud why'd you make such an easy to shoot down claim?

Apparently you don't feel the need to read, from the link provided:


Mail-in voter fraud has prompted changes in election law, caused investigators from the AG’s office to comb South Texas and landed a number of people in court. Lawmakers have been urged to bolster the laws governing mail-in voting, but haven’t done so since 2003.

jillian
07-31-2013, 08:48 AM
IOW, you were busted and now want to shift the burden of proof. Nice game.


Still waiting for you to provide some sort of evidence to support your claim that "The poor are prone to moving around often."

the game is in pretending there is voter fraud.

now prove it....

patrickt
07-31-2013, 08:49 AM
Can anyone furnish a link to all the State or National Voter Fraud Convictions, either from the State or The Federal Government ... let say ... over the last 4 decades.

:icon_thumright:

Do your own research but I will commend you and the other liberals for designing a system of fraud that is almost foolproof. We'll do this really slow, Cigar, since we can't draw with crayons for you.

1. "I'm Arlo Swenson and I'm here to vote."
2. Here's your ballot Mr. Swenson.
3. Wait, Harvey, this Arlo Swenson died four years ago.
4. That man was a fraud and a criminal.
5. Who was he?
6. Oh, we don't know. We're not allowed to asked.
7. Can we cancel his vote?
8. No. We don't know how he voted.

Another successful liberal vote.

Cigar, your bragging about how safe it is to commit election fraud is getting old but you can find a few actual convictions of liberals if you care to look.

Bumpkin
07-31-2013, 08:49 AM
IOW, you were busted and now want to shift the burden of proof. Nice game.




Why are some IDs required to have current address while other IDs are not? It's a simple question. But you can't answer it.

In fact, the ID that requires current address is the one most likely to be used by the poor. The one that does not require current address is less likely to be used by the poor.

The fact that some IDs are not required to have a current address proves that they don't really need that.

Chris
07-31-2013, 08:50 AM
the game is in pretending there is voter fraud.

now prove it....

You earlier accepted the proof: "true the vote is a fraud. everyone knows that." :facepalm:

Bumpkin
07-31-2013, 08:50 AM
Do your own research but I will commend you and the other liberals for designing a system of fraud that is almost foolproof. We'll do this really slow, Cigar, since we can't draw with crayons for you.

1. "I'm Arlo Swenson and I'm here to vote."
2. Here's your ballot Mr. Swenson.
3. Wait, Harvey, this Arlo Swenson died four years ago.
4. That man was a fraud and a criminal.
5. Who was he?
6. Oh, we don't know. We're not allowed to asked.
7. Can we cancel his vote?
8. No. We don't know how he voted.

Another successful liberal vote.

Cigar, your bragging about how safe it is to commit election fraud is getting old but you can find a few actual convictions of liberals if you care to look.

Why are you pretending that only liberals would engage in voter fraud? That's silly. It's not true.

Chris
07-31-2013, 08:54 AM
Why are some IDs required to have current address while other IDs are not? It's a simple question. But you can't answer it.

In fact, the ID that requires current address is the one most likely to be used by the poor. The one that does not require current address is less likely to be used by the poor.

The fact that some IDs are not required to have a current address proves that they don't really need that.

No, I can't, largely because I'm not going to draw BS conclusions like yours.



In fact, the ID that requires current address is the one most likely to be used by the poor. The one that does not require current address is less likely to be used by the poor.

You like to use the word proof, so prove it, find some facts to support your SWAG.

Oh, and still waiting for you to provide some sort of evidence to support your claim that "The poor are prone to moving around often."



The fact that some IDs are not required to have a current address proves that they don't really need that.

No it doesn't. For some reason you think facts speak for themselves. Sorry, but they don't. No? Then prove it.

Chris
07-31-2013, 08:55 AM
Why are you pretending that only liberals would engage in voter fraud? That's silly. It's not true.

So now you admit to voter fraud.

I agree, it's not just libs, not just, to be correct, Dems.

Cigar
07-31-2013, 08:57 AM
Do your own research but I will commend you and the other liberals for designing a system of fraud that is almost foolproof. We'll do this really slow, Cigar, since we can't draw with crayons for you.

1. "I'm Arlo Swenson and I'm here to vote."
2. Here's your ballot Mr. Swenson.
3. Wait, Harvey, this Arlo Swenson died four years ago.
4. That man was a fraud and a criminal.
5. Who was he?
6. Oh, we don't know. We're not allowed to asked.
7. Can we cancel his vote?
8. No. We don't know how he voted.

Another successful liberal vote.

Cigar, your bragging about how safe it is to commit election fraud is getting old but you can find a few actual convictions of liberals if you care to look.



538 electoral votes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_votes) of the Electoral College (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_%28United_States%29)

270 electoral votes needed to win




Turnout

58.2% (voting eligible)[/URL]








Nominee
Barack Obama (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012#cite_not e-VEP12-1)
Mitt Romney (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney)


Party
Democratic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_%28United_States%29)
Republican (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_%28United_States%29)












Electoral vote
332
206


States carried
26 + DC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington,_D.C.)
24



Popular vote
65,899,660 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012#cite_not e-FEC-2)

60,932,152 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012#cite_not e-FEC-2)



Percentage
51.1% (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012#cite_not e-FEC-2)

47.2%[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012#cite_not e-docs.google.com-3"] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012#cite_not e-FEC-2)





Margin of Victory was 4,967,508

So ... how may of those $ Million were Dead Obama Voters? :laugh:

Chris
07-31-2013, 09:01 AM
And what, less than half eligible voters voters. That 51.1% becomes 25.55%. The country class is ruled by a minority ruling class.

nic34
07-31-2013, 09:04 AM
Used to be a student ID was acceptable in Texas.

Now it conveniently is not.

http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/07/06/512245/texas-voter-id-law-which-accepts-gun-licenses-but-not-student-ids-challenged-in-court/

nic34
07-31-2013, 09:05 AM
And what, less than half eligible voters voters. That 51.1% becomes 25.55%. The country class is ruled by a minority ruling class.


Huh?

Bumpkin
07-31-2013, 09:08 AM
No, I can't, largely because I'm not going to draw BS conclusions like yours

You like to use the word proof, so prove it, find some facts to support your SWAG.
.

Proof of what? That they require some IDs to have current address while other IDs are not required to have current address?

Look at the list of IDs that are acceptable. Drivers license needs current address. Do all of the acceptable IDs need current address? No. So why do they require current address on drivers license to use as ID to vote?

Chris
07-31-2013, 09:11 AM
Huh?

What's the question? If only half eligible voters vote then Obama was elected by only about 25% of the people. Simple math.

Mainecoons
07-31-2013, 09:12 AM
Need help with the math, Nicky?

Slightly over half the eligible voters, vote: 51.1%

Of those, just a fraction over half elected this president and the last one. Now pay attention, I know this is tough for you: 51.1 divided by 2 is 25.55. hence, just slightly over one quarter of the electorate is deciding elections. To make this more accurate and typical of these elections it is probably more accurate to round this up to like 26 percent.

Now, here's the hard part. A "minority" by definition is less than half. Twenty six percent is also less than half.

That wasn't so hard, was it?

:grin:

Chris
07-31-2013, 09:12 AM
Proof of what? That they require some IDs to have current address while other IDs are not required to have current address?

Look at the list of IDs that are acceptable. Drivers license needs current address. Do all of the acceptable IDs need current address? No. So why do they require current address on drivers license to use as ID to vote?

Not your cherry picked facts but proof of your illogical conclusions. Think they're logical? Provide the logic.

jillian
07-31-2013, 09:13 AM
Not your cherry picked facts but proof of your illogical conclusions. Think they're logical? Provide the logic.

He did. You are ignoring the logical responses in favor of a partisan position, as usual.

where are the prosecutions for voter fraud?

jillian
07-31-2013, 09:14 AM
What's the question? If only half eligible voters vote then Obama was elected by only about 25% of the people. Simple math.

the point?

nic34
07-31-2013, 09:15 AM
the game is in pretending there is voter fraud.

now prove it....

Still waiting for the list of convictions cigar and I asked about yesterday too.....

Chris
07-31-2013, 09:17 AM
He did. You are ignoring the logical responses in favor of a partisan position, as usual.

where are the prosecutions for voter fraud?

Cite his proof then. All you will find is cherry picked fact followed by jumping conclusion.

Your question has been answered. Take off the blinders.

Chris
07-31-2013, 09:17 AM
Still waiting for the list of convictions cigar and I asked about yesterday too.....

Already provided.

Mainecoons
07-31-2013, 09:20 AM
You should repeat it for them. They are slow readers and learners.

Very good pro/con discussion here:

http://debatewise.org/debates/3043-voter-identification-laws/

According to this, over 100 countries required voter ID. Hardly a novel idea.

Singularity
07-31-2013, 09:35 AM
Already provided.Sorry, but that's simply not true. You've provided data about
voter fraud, but you have not provided data that shows any
substantial record of in-person voter fraud, which is
the only form of fraud a solid system of Voter ID is
capable of protecting against.

You've been pressed about this again and again and you
keep copping out with "I've presented that before" or "the
potential is there." Sorry, but that's not good enough
unless your singular goal here is just to look good for
the people who already agree with you.

Want to prove me wrong? Then answer this question, simply
and directly: How many confirmed cases of in-person voter
fraud have occurred in the last 10 years? I have sources
which say that less than a fraction of a percent (http://www.politifact.com/georgia/statements/2012/sep/19/naacp/-person-voter-fraud-very-rare-phenomenon/) of election
tampering cases are of this nature. What's your number?

Your answer needs to be: "The amount of cases in the last
10 years is x. (Source)" No more evasion.

Singularity
07-31-2013, 09:39 AM
You should repeat it for them. They are slow readers and learners.

Very good pro/con discussion here:

http://debatewise.org/debates/3043-voter-identification-laws/

According to this, over 100 countries required voter ID. Hardly a novel idea.Now see this: One of the few cases I can recall where
the right wing will enthusiastically embrace something
that is done abroad that is generally not done here,
simply because those countries are doing it.

Singularity
07-31-2013, 09:42 AM
This business is getting so goofy, I'm really inclined to
think that the average 'winger actually believes that there
are Democratic Party men behind every nook and corner
who engage in behavior just like this:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9eL-4F8lFc

Chris
07-31-2013, 09:44 AM
Sorry, but that's simply not true. You've provided data about
voter fraud, but you have not provided data that shows any
substantial record of in-person voter fraud, which is
the only form of fraud a solid system of Voter ID is
capable of protecting against.

You've been pressed about this again and again and you
keep copping out with "I've presented that before" or "the
potential is there." Sorry, but that's not good enough
unless your singular goal here is just to look good for
the people who already agree with you.

Want to prove me wrong? Then answer this question, simply
and directly: How many confirmed cases of in-person voter
fraud have occurred in the last 10 years? I have sources
which say that less than a fraction of a percent (http://www.politifact.com/georgia/statements/2012/sep/19/naacp/-person-voter-fraud-very-rare-phenomenon/) of election
tampering cases are of this nature. What's your number?

Your answer needs to be: "The amount of cases in the last
10 years is x. (Source)" No more evasion.


Sorry, but that's simply not true. You've provided data about
voter fraud, but you have not provided data that shows any
substantial record of in-person voter fraud, which is
the only form of fraud a solid system of Voter ID is
capable of protecting against.

Blatant special pleading.



I have sources
which say that less than a fraction of a percent of election
tampering cases are of this nature.

So then you admit there is fraud. Thank you.

nic34
07-31-2013, 09:48 AM
Already provided.

Where? I don't spend 24/7 in this place.

Singularity
07-31-2013, 09:48 AM
So then you admit there is fraud. Thank you.Yes, there are several isolated cases that occur per year.
Are there any other isolated cases of anything, other than perhaps
acts of terrorism, that have provoked this kind of policy response in
this country? Can you think of any? Don't you think that means
there is at least a chance of a more political motive?

I mean, I've made my point and you keep ignoring it, so right now I'm
just going to try to find some modicum of middle ground with you. Don't
think there's much chance of that, but stranger things have happened.

Chris
07-31-2013, 09:48 AM
...

@ How Widespread is Voter Fraud? | 2012 Facts & Figures (http://www.truethevote.org/news/how-widespread-is-voter-fraud-2012-facts-figures)

Bump. This is an extensive list of voter fraud. Note, it's not exhaustive, cigar's gotcha request for all would be impossible to meet. There have been numerous other specific cases reported throughout this thread. Arguments about degree aside, there is voter fraud and it needs to be addressed.

Chris
07-31-2013, 09:53 AM
Yes, there are several isolated cases that occur per year.
Are there any other isolated cases of anything, other than perhaps
acts of terrorism, that have provoked this kind of policy response in
this country? Can you think of any? Don't you think that means
there is at least a chance of a more political motive?

I mean, I've made my point and you keep ignoring it, so right now I'm
just going to try to find some modicum of middle ground with you. Don't
think there's much chance of that, but stranger things have happened.

Degree of voter fraud aside, elections are important enough to try and put a stop to it.


Don't you think that means
there is at least a chance of a more political motive?

I've already posted there is. Why would there be fraud if it weren't politically motivated? And, yes, no doubt, some of the suggested and enacted remedies may well be political just as denial of fraud and resistance to remedying it no doubt is in cases also politically motivated. It's politics. Tell us something obvious!

nic34
07-31-2013, 09:53 AM
There is no evidence of widespread voter fraud shown. Registrations are not votes. Agree, that the voter "rolls" need to be addressed but none of the laws being passed in states does THAT.

If the problem is VOTERS committing FRAUD, then provide a list of accused persons and/or CONVICTIONS.

Singularity
07-31-2013, 09:54 AM
Note, it's not exhaustive, cigar's gotcha request for all would be impossible to meet. It would be impossible to meet because in-person voter fraud, the only manner
of fraud that Voter ID systems are practically able to combat, is so blatantly
uncommon as recorded by all legitimate authorities that not even True the Vote
and Free Republic -- the two sources you've consistently relied on -- are able
to find enough data to make any kind of argument. So like you, they play
fast and loose with the applicable definition of "fraud." It's not working.

Chris
07-31-2013, 09:55 AM
There is no evidence of widespread voter fraud shown. Registrations are not votes. Agree, that the voter "rolls" need to be addressed but none of the laws being passed in states does THAT.

If the problem is VOTERS committing FRAUD, then provide a list of accused persons and/or CONVICTIONS.

Another example of special pleading. Let's all redefine what voter fraud is so we can all be right.

I posted cases above of individual convictions.

Chris
07-31-2013, 09:56 AM
It would be impossible to meet because in-person voter fraud, the only manner
of fraud that Voter ID systems are practically able to combat, is so blatantly
uncommon as recorded by all legitimate authorities that not even True the Vote
and Free Republic -- the two sources you've consistently relied on -- are able
to find enough data to make any kind of argument. So like you, they play
fast and loose with the applicable definition of "fraud." It's not working.

You're attacking the messenger again in order to avoid the facts voter fraud exists. Sure they do, they special plead, so do you, so does nic just above.

Bumpkin
07-31-2013, 10:03 AM
What's the question? If only half eligible voters vote then Obama was elected by only about 25% of the people. Simple math.

Well, that would be true of anyone who was elected. Why are you focusing on Obama?

Singularity
07-31-2013, 10:04 AM
You're attacking the messenger again in order to avoid the facts voter fraud existsAttacking the messenger? Sir, you've done that multiple times over the course of this thread.


Sure they do, they special plead, so do you, so does nic just above.If what we're asking for is "special pleading" and thus facially invalid, please
show how Voter ID systems protect against any form of fraud other than the
aforementioned and defined extremely rare in-person form of it.

Bumpkin
07-31-2013, 10:05 AM
Not your cherry picked facts but proof of your illogical conclusions. Think they're logical? Provide the logic.

It is true that some accepted ID is required to have a current address and some accepted ID is not required to have a current address. What brilliant conclusion do you draw from that fact?

Bumpkin
07-31-2013, 10:09 AM
the point?

He seems to be making the point that Obama wasn't elected by a majority of the population.

He is doesn't make that same point about others who are elected.

I wonder what it could possibly mean that he finds it noteworthy that Obama wasn't elected by a majority of the population while not finding it noteworthy that no one was elected by a majority of the population.

jillian
07-31-2013, 10:11 AM
He seems to be making the point that Obama wasn't elected by a majority of the population.

He is doesn't make that same point about others who are elected.

I wonder what it could possibly mean that he finds it noteworthy that Obama wasn't elected by a majority of the population while not finding it noteworthy that no one was elected by a majority of the population.

bush wasn't even elected by a majority of voters.

it's obfuscation. if people choose not to vote, then they get no voice. it's really that simple.... and has nothing to do with the topic under discussion.

Bumpkin
07-31-2013, 10:11 AM
Now see this: One of the few cases I can recall where
the right wing will enthusiastically embrace something
that is done abroad that is generally not done here,
simply because those countries are doing it.

Totally off topic, but were you ever in the Navy?

Bumpkin
07-31-2013, 10:12 AM
Blatant special pleading.
.

Burp!!!

Chris
07-31-2013, 10:12 AM
Well, that would be true of anyone who was elected. Why are you focusing on Obama?

Context, bumpkin, cigar posted the results of Obama beating what's his name. Pay attention.

Singularity
07-31-2013, 10:13 AM
Sorry, but that's simply not true. You've provided data about
voter fraud, but you have not provided data that shows any
substantial record of in-person voter fraud, which is
the only form of fraud a solid system of Voter ID is
capable of protecting against.

You've been pressed about this again and again and you
keep copping out with "I've presented that before" or "the
potential is there." Sorry, but that's not good enough
unless your singular goal here is just to look good for
the people who already agree with you.

Want to prove me wrong? Then answer this question, simply
and directly: How many confirmed cases of in-person voter
fraud have occurred in the last 10 years? I have sources
which say that less than a fraction of a percent (http://www.politifact.com/georgia/statements/2012/sep/19/naacp/-person-voter-fraud-very-rare-phenomenon/) of election
tampering cases are of this nature. What's your number?

Your answer needs to be: "The amount of cases in the last
10 years is x. (Source)" No more evasion.

Bumping this post for the benefit of @Chris (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=128)
and all others before retiring from this discussion, until
and unless he decides to address my question.
I won't say anything more; I'll leave it up to each
person's judgment as to the question's legitimacy.

Singularity
07-31-2013, 10:14 AM
Totally off topic, but were you ever in the Navy?I have friends in the Navy who have poisoned me with their sailor influence.

Cigar
07-31-2013, 10:14 AM
Used to be a student ID was acceptable in Texas.

Now it conveniently is not.

http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/07/06/512245/texas-voter-id-law-which-accepts-gun-licenses-but-not-student-ids-challenged-in-court/

But a Gun ID is just fine. :laugh:

patrickt
07-31-2013, 10:15 AM
Sadly, the party that depends on election fraud to stay in power will do whatever is necessary to defend election fraud. Right now, that involves suing the states that wish to reduce election fraud. Shrill squealing and attempts at distractions and false definitions notwithstanding election fraud is seen as a right by the Democrats.

Chris
07-31-2013, 10:15 AM
Attacking the messenger? Sir, you've done that multiple times over the course of this thread.

If what we're asking for is "special pleading" and thus facially invalid, please
show how Voter ID systems protect against any form of fraud other than the
aforementioned and defined extremely rare in-person form of it.




Attacking the messenger?

Yes, the source of the list of fraud.


Sir, you've done that multiple times over the course of this thread.

Then point out a specific instance.


If what we're asking for is "special pleading"

Not asking for special pleading, pointing it out as fallacious. Anyone can define away a problem.


show how Voter ID systems protect against any form of fraud

Done by several posters earlier on. Not going to repeat myself when you can read the thread.

Chris
07-31-2013, 10:16 AM
It is true that some accepted ID is required to have a current address and some accepted ID is not required to have a current address. What brilliant conclusion do you draw from that fact?

None. Facts don't speak for themselves.

nic34
07-31-2013, 10:16 AM
Bumping this post for the benefit of @Chris (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=128)
and all others before retiring from this discussion, until
and unless he decides to address my question.
I won't say anything more; I'll leave it up to each
person's judgment as to the question's legitimacy.

Agreed.

Chris
07-31-2013, 10:16 AM
He seems to be making the point that Obama wasn't elected by a majority of the population.

He is doesn't make that same point about others who are elected.

I wonder what it could possibly mean that he finds it noteworthy that Obama wasn't elected by a majority of the population while not finding it noteworthy that no one was elected by a majority of the population.


He is doesn't make that same point about others who are elected.

Why do you incessantly make up lies like that?

Bumpkin
07-31-2013, 10:17 AM
Attacking the messenger? Sir, you've done that multiple times over the course of this thread.

If what we're asking for is "special pleading" and thus facially invalid, please
show how Voter ID systems protect against any form of fraud other than the
aforementioned and defined extremely rare in-person form of it.

I think he's taking a course in which he studies logical fallacies. That means we will have to put up with his plopping terms into the forum until he goes on to something else. He's not always right in his identification, but he thinks it makes him seem smart.

Chris
07-31-2013, 10:18 AM
bush wasn't even elected by a majority of voters.

it's obfuscation. if people choose not to vote, then they get no voice. it's really that simple.... and has nothing to do with the topic under discussion.

Agree, Bush was elected by a smaller minority.

Ever think people might not vote because they don't believe in it, don't trust either party?

The power of non-voters:

http://i.snag.gy/eq09e.jpg

Bumpkin
07-31-2013, 10:18 AM
bush wasn't even elected by a majority of voters.

it's obfuscation. if people choose not to vote, then they get no voice. it's really that simple.... and has nothing to do with the topic under discussion.

But it is fun for him to point out that Obama wasn't elected by a majority of the population. I wonder why it's only fun to point out that truth about Obama.

jillian
07-31-2013, 10:19 AM
None. Facts don't speak for themselves.


res ipsa loquitur
(rayz ip-sah loh-quit-her) n. Latin for "the thing speaks for itself," a doctrine of law that one is presumed to be negligent if he/she/it had exclusive control of whatever caused the injury even though there is no specific evidence of an act of negligence, and without negligence the accident would not have happened. Examples: a) a load of bricks on the roof of a building being constructed by Highrise Construction Co. falls and injures Paul Pedestrian below, and Highrise is liable for Pedestrian's injury even though no one saw the load fall. b) While under anesthetic, Isabel Patient's nerve in her arm is damaged although it was not part of the surgical procedure, and she is unaware of which of a dozen medical people in the room caused the damage. Under res ipsa loquitur all those connected with the operation are liable for negligence. Lawyers often shorten the doctrine to "res ips," and find it a handy shorthand for a complex doctrine.

http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1823

Bumpkin
07-31-2013, 10:20 AM
Context, bumpkin, cigar posted the results of Obama beating what's his name. Pay attention.

So you concede that no one has been elected by a majority of the population but that it's only important to certain people when that person elected was Obama?

Chris
07-31-2013, 10:20 AM
Burp!!!

The best argument you've made since you got here.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I34uF3fJ_zM

jillian
07-31-2013, 10:20 AM
But it is fun for him to point out that Obama wasn't elected by a majority of the population. I wonder why it's only fun to point out that truth about Obama.

he'll tell you you're going off topic, engaging in ad homs and deflecting if you point out what occurred in other situations.

Chris
07-31-2013, 10:21 AM
So you concede that no one has been elected by a majority of the population but that it's only important to certain people when that person elected was Obama?

Never said otherwise, bumpkin. You made it up. You do that a lot.

Bumpkin
07-31-2013, 10:21 AM
I have friends in the Navy who have poisoned me with their sailor influence.

I've got a good eye.

I was poisoned a bit myself.

Chris
07-31-2013, 10:21 AM
he'll tell you you're going off topic, engaging in ad homs and deflecting if you point out what occurred in other situations.

Making things up seems to be catchy.

Chris
07-31-2013, 10:23 AM
Bumping this post for the benefit of @Chris (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=128)
and all others before retiring from this discussion, until
and unless he decides to address my question.
I won't say anything more; I'll leave it up to each
person's judgment as to the question's legitimacy.

Already addressed. Bye :wave:

Bumpkin
07-31-2013, 10:23 AM
None. Facts don't speak for themselves.

You draw conclusions when it suits you. When the facts don't suit you, you declare that facts don't speak for themselves.

Try to do some brainstorming. What possible reasons can you think of for requiring current address on some forms of ID but no on others forms of ID?

patrickt
07-31-2013, 10:25 AM
Jillian and Bumpkin bounce back and forth between majority of the voters and majority of the population and neither have landed on a majority of the eligible voters but that's not a concept they support. I haven't seen such cute tag-team efforts since I quit going to wrestling matches at age 12.

jillian
07-31-2013, 10:27 AM
Jillian and Bumpkin bounce back and forth between majority of the voters and majority of the population and neither have landed on a majority of the eligible voters but that's not a concept they support. I haven't seen such cute tag-team efforts since I quit going to wrestling matches at age 12.

you're not making any sense....

what's the matter, hon... getting your butt kicked upsets you?

Bumpkin
07-31-2013, 10:28 AM
Jillian and Bumpkin bounce back and forth between majority of the voters and majority of the population and neither have landed on a majority of the eligible voters but that's not a concept they support. I haven't seen such cute tag-team efforts since I quit going to wrestling matches at age 12.

I doubt anyone has been elected by the eligible majority of the voters. I don't think you have contradictory proof.

But hey, it's cute that you engage in tag team tactics while commenting on tag team tactics. What's cuter is your lack of self-awareness.

Bumpkin
07-31-2013, 10:29 AM
Sorry, but that's simply not true. You've provided data about
voter fraud, but you have not provided data that shows any
substantial record of in-person voter fraud, which is
the only form of fraud a solid system of Voter ID is
capable of protecting against.

You've been pressed about this again and again and you
keep copping out with "I've presented that before" or "the
potential is there." Sorry, but that's not good enough
unless your singular goal here is just to look good for
the people who already agree with you.

Want to prove me wrong? Then answer this question, simply
and directly: How many confirmed cases of in-person voter
fraud have occurred in the last 10 years? I have sources
which say that less than a fraction of a percent (http://www.politifact.com/georgia/statements/2012/sep/19/naacp/-person-voter-fraud-very-rare-phenomenon/) of election
tampering cases are of this nature. What's your number?

Your answer needs to be: "The amount of cases in the last
10 years is x. (Source)" No more evasion.

Yep

Cigar
07-31-2013, 10:35 AM
Jillian and Bumpkin bounce back and forth between majority of the voters and majority of the population and neither have landed on a majority of the eligible voters but that's not a concept they support. I haven't seen such cute tag-team efforts since I quit going to wrestling matches at age 12.


http://juventiknows.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Barack-Obama-feet-up-smiling.jpg

Whatever ... :laugh:

Chris
07-31-2013, 10:36 AM
You draw conclusions when it suits you. When the facts don't suit you, you declare that facts don't speak for themselves.

Try to do some brainstorming. What possible reasons can you think of for requiring current address on some forms of ID but no on others forms of ID?

You miss my point. Facts don't speak for themselves. They do not automagically imply anything. You must supply the inferential logic. Think syllogism--no, not asking for syllogistic form, just asking you to state your logic, your presumptions such that assuming those presumptions, given certain facts, such and such a conclusion is true. Not just give facts and jump to conclusion. Mainly you're missing your presumptions. What is this, English 101?

Chris
07-31-2013, 10:37 AM
http://juventiknows.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Barack-Obama-feet-up-smiling.jpg

Whatever ... :laugh:

No kidding whatever.

Cigar
07-31-2013, 10:39 AM
No kidding whatever.

He can't beat the GOP again ... :grin:

Bumpkin
07-31-2013, 12:04 PM
You miss my point. Facts don't speak for themselves. They do not automagically imply anything. You must supply the inferential logic. Think syllogism--no, not asking for syllogistic form, just asking you to state your logic, your presumptions such that assuming those presumptions, given certain facts, such and such a conclusion is true. Not just give facts and jump to conclusion. Mainly you're missing your presumptions. What is this, English 101?

I doubt you could pass English 101 unless they drastically lowered the standards.

Tell me why it makes sense to require one person's ID to have a current address and not require a current address on another person's ID.

Chris
07-31-2013, 12:27 PM
I doubt you could pass English 101 unless they drastically lowered the standards.

Tell me why it makes sense to require one person's ID to have a current address and not require a current address on another person's ID.

Another wonderful insult. Where do you come up with these. They're just brilliant!!

Bumpkin
07-31-2013, 12:30 PM
Another wonderful insult. Where do you come up with these. They're just brilliant!!
Tell me why it makes sense to require one person's ID to have a current address and not require a current address on another person's ID.

Can you help us understand why current address is required on one form of accepted ID and not on another? You have made no attempt to explain it.

Don't feel bad. I have not met one conservative who can explain that.

Cigar
07-31-2013, 12:31 PM
I'm all for ID's ... just like Social Security Cards ... have the Government send them out to everyone who has a number. :grin:

Chris
07-31-2013, 12:35 PM
Tell me why it makes sense to require one person's ID to have a current address and not require a current address on another person's ID.

Can you help us understand why current address is required on one form of accepted ID and not on another? You have made no attempt to explain it.

Don't feel bad. I have not met one conservative who can explain that.

I don't see any particular need to explain it, to do so would be to engage in pure conjecture as you do.

But provide some examples of what is otherwise just an invented hypothetical.

Your personal experience is just that, anecdotal, unshared, not fact.

Cigar
07-31-2013, 12:38 PM
I wonder what the GOP is going to do to get more Votes after every eligible Vote get's IDs?

They still have the same message ... :laugh:

jillian
07-31-2013, 01:09 PM
I don't see any particular need to explain it, to do so would be to engage in pure conjecture as you do.

But provide some examples of what is otherwise just an invented hypothetical.

Your personal experience is just that, anecdotal, unshared, not fact.

^^^^^^

chris' standard answer when he has no answer... that's it's just 'opinion'...

which is, of course, only his opinion.

Bumpkin
07-31-2013, 01:23 PM
I don't see any particular need to explain it, to do so would be to engage in pure conjecture as you do.

But provide some examples of what is otherwise just an invented hypothetical.

Your personal experience is just that, anecdotal, unshared, not fact.

What hypothetical? I haven't presented a hypothetical.

Are you saying that a current address is not required on a drivers license used for ID at the polls?

Bumpkin
07-31-2013, 01:30 PM
I looked up Texas and found that I am wrong about the current address requirement on the drivers license. It was a requirement at one time when I was doing research about this.

That's a good thing.

I need to check some other states.

Chris
07-31-2013, 02:16 PM
^^^^^^

chris' standard answer when he has no answer... that's it's just 'opinion'...

which is, of course, only his opinion.

Right, and so is yours, just an opinion. Hoist your petard much?

Chris
07-31-2013, 02:17 PM
What hypothetical? I haven't presented a hypothetical.

Are you saying that a current address is not required on a drivers license used for ID at the polls?

Your imaginary musings.

Still waiting on you to provide some actual examples.

Actually, given your track record on providing requested links, facts, evidence, no, actually, I'm not waiting.

Professor Peabody
07-31-2013, 05:13 PM
Let it be noted that I've gone out of my way,
repeatedly, to press @Professor Peabody (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=265) to meet
me halfway and offer a substantive response to my
points. I'm off for the night.

It's difficult to debate someone who won't listen so I checked out for the night.

Professor Peabody
07-31-2013, 05:20 PM
Sorry, but that's simply not true. You've provided data about
voter fraud, but you have not provided data that shows any
substantial record of in-person voter fraud, which is
the only form of fraud a solid system of Voter ID is
capable of protecting against.

You've been pressed about this again and again and you
keep copping out with "I've presented that before" or "the
potential is there." Sorry, but that's not good enough
unless your singular goal here is just to look good for
the people who already agree with you.

Want to prove me wrong? Then answer this question, simply
and directly: How many confirmed cases of in-person voter
fraud have occurred in the last 10 years? I have sources
which say that less than a fraction of a percent (http://www.politifact.com/georgia/statements/2012/sep/19/naacp/-person-voter-fraud-very-rare-phenomenon/) of election
tampering cases are of this nature. What's your number?

Your answer needs to be: "The amount of cases in the last
10 years is x. (Source)" No more evasion.

How can anyone provide data about voter fraud when you don't need an ID to vote and can't tell who the hell voted in the first place? Fidel Castro could have come here and voted in Florida and we'd never know it.

Please show us the specific article in the Constitution or any of the amendments that guarantees each and every citizen the right to vote, like the right to keep and bear arms? If you can't do that then every argument you have is simply rhetorical and just plain hot gas.

mogur
07-31-2013, 09:56 PM
How can anyone provide data about voter fraud when you don't need an ID to vote and can't tell who the hell voted in the first place? Fidel Castro could have come here and voted in Florida and we'd never know it.

Please show us the specific article in the Constitution or any of the amendments that guarantees each and every citizen the right to vote, like the right to keep and bear arms? If you can't do that then every argument you have is simply rhetorical and just plain hot gas.

The constitution does not provide for a guarantee of a vote for every citizen because in order to pass the constitution, they needed the southern colonies to sign on. That is what caused the definition of a black person to be 3/5ths of a person. Jefferson had slaves, he screwed some of them and had children by them, but at the same time, he knew that it wasn't right to deny the right to vote for anyone of any race. The right for a well-armed militia was accepted by everyone, and therefore the second amendment. It wasn't until the progressive president, Lincoln, emancipated blacks that they finally achieved equal voting rights. From that point on, the conservatives (both democrats and republicans) have tried to restrict minority voting, through poll taxes, voter id laws, and Jim Crow laws. Anything else that makes it more difficult for minorities to vote than the majority, is their call to arms. Well, guess what conservatives? You are in attrition mode and are desperately clinging to what you think the constitution stands for, only because you have a failed idea about the actual circumstances of our founding.

The founders were mostly deists, not strictly Christian, and most wanted separation of church and state. The pilgrims were the ones you are thinking of, not the revolutionaries a hundred and sixty years later that wanted not only freedom of religion, but freedom from religion, as well.

zelmo1234
07-31-2013, 10:06 PM
It can be made to be discriminatory. Statutes,
which do things like make a concealed carry license
acceptable ID, but not a (state-issued!) university
student ID or a social security card are clear
attempts to promote certain voters over others.

now I could be totally wrong on this because I only have my son old University card to go by.

But On his card it does not have his home address and or any information that would make him a resident of this state. Now in his case he lived and went to school in MI but his collage was full of students form Canada? could they have used there ID's to vote in our election.

And SS cards have No picture ID on them?

And concealed Carry permit in MI not only has all of my information but my finger print as well, so all of the information is there. And it is a state issued ID just like a drivers license?

So that is my take but I cold be wrong on the University ID Now!

mogur
07-31-2013, 10:29 PM
If the US government decided that voter fraud was rampant, they might decide that a universal federal id would prevent most voter frauds. Screw carry permits, screw college id cards, screw SSI cards, screw state driver's licenses, screw anything but a valid federal id. Would conservatives, much less libertarians, even consider that? Of course not, it is not about voter fraud (at .0005% of the votes), it is about denying the right to vote of (mostly) liberal minorities. Fear and paranoia of election stealing is the call to arms of conservatives today. Yes, when Bush got elected, I heard the same gnashing of teeth from liberals. But it wasn't real then and it isn't real now. It simply is real important to conservatives now because they lost. There is no voter fraud when they get their man elected. None, nada, no way. This is just partisan politics. It cuts both ways, but it is whining nonetheless.

Professor Peabody
08-01-2013, 02:18 AM
it is about denying the right to vote of (mostly) liberal minorities.

How exactly does it prevent liberal minorities from voting?

Chris
08-01-2013, 05:53 AM
The constitution does not provide for a guarantee of a vote for every citizen because in order to pass the constitution, they needed the southern colonies to sign on. That is what caused the definition of a black person to be 3/5ths of a person. Jefferson had slaves, he screwed some of them and had children by them, but at the same time, he knew that it wasn't right to deny the right to vote for anyone of any race. The right for a well-armed militia was accepted by everyone, and therefore the second amendment. It wasn't until the progressive president, Lincoln, emancipated blacks that they finally achieved equal voting rights. From that point on, the conservatives (both democrats and republicans) have tried to restrict minority voting, through poll taxes, voter id laws, and Jim Crow laws. Anything else that makes it more difficult for minorities to vote than the majority, is their call to arms. Well, guess what conservatives? You are in attrition mode and are desperately clinging to what you think the constitution stands for, only because you have a failed idea about the actual circumstances of our founding.

The founders were mostly deists, not strictly Christian, and most wanted separation of church and state. The pilgrims were the ones you are thinking of, not the revolutionaries a hundred and sixty years later that wanted not only freedom of religion, but freedom from religion, as well.

The compromise determined how votes would be counted, their relative weights, but it didn't guarantee a right to vote.

Later amendments state voting eligibility cannot be discriminated by race, sex, etc, but still don't guarantee the right.

Politifact finds true: U.S. Constitution is not explicit on the right to vote, Wisconsin Rep. Mark Pocan says (http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2013/may/30/mark-pocan/us-constitution-not-explicit-right-vote-wisconsin-/): "While the right to vote is inherent throughout our founding document, and there are amendments prohibiting discrimination, nothing in the Constitution explicitly guarantees our right to vote. We, as Americans, possess no affirmative right to vote." You can go here to sign petition for Right to Vote Amendment (http://www.fairvote.org/right-to-vote-amendment#.Ufo87o2858E).

Thus, by amendment 10, it's left to the states.

Peter1469
08-01-2013, 06:49 AM
How exactly does it prevent liberal minorities from voting?


It doesn't. They just claim that it does to help cover up voter fraud.

Professor Peabody
08-01-2013, 07:40 PM
It doesn't. They just claim that it does to help cover up voter fraud.

I recall one race when Coleman was ahead in the recount and SURPRISE they just happened to find an uncounted box of ballots enough to put the clown Franken ahead.

jillian
08-01-2013, 09:25 PM
I recall one race when Coleman was ahead in the recount and SURPRISE they just happened to find an uncounted box of ballots enough to put the clown Franken ahead.

riiiiiiiiiiiiight

countryboy
08-01-2013, 10:07 PM
How exactly does it prevent liberal minorities from voting?

Because they're too stoopid to get an ID? http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-confused005.gif

Shouldn't liberal minorities be offended that their supposed "fellow travelers" feel that way about them? http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-confused005.gif

Chris
08-02-2013, 09:17 AM
I recall one race when Coleman was ahead in the recount and SURPRISE they just happened to find an uncounted box of ballots enough to put the clown Franken ahead.


riiiiiiiiiiiiight

No, leeeeeeft.

It's well documentrd: http://www.akdart.com/franken.html, http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/12/05/669749/-MN-Sen-Recount-finished-Kind-of, http://www.suitablyflip.com/suitably_flip/elections/

From the last: "It's now Franken by 280? That's a 14,000% reversal of Coleman's lead just this morning."

peoshi
08-02-2013, 02:37 PM
Again... we're not talking about clerical mishaps or voter registration problems here...
How many cases of in-person voter fraud have occurred in the last 10 years?

Sorry...you don't get convicted for "clerical mishaps" or "voter registration problems", you get convicted for fraud.


Numerous convictions for associates of ACORN here: all but one within the last 10 yrs.


http://www.scribd.com/doc/103185404/Table-of-ACORN-Voter-Fraud-Convictions-excerpted-from-Subversion-Inc-by-Matthew-Vadum-WND-Books-2011

Professor Peabody
08-02-2013, 11:15 PM
Again... we're not talking about clerical mishaps or voter registration problems here...
How many cases of in-person voter fraud have occurred in the last 10 years?

Circular argument. If folks don't have to present ID to vote how would you know how many cases of in-person voter fraud there really was? Comical argument really!

Mainecoons
08-03-2013, 07:01 AM
Liberal but honest Pew has the numbers:

http://www.abc4.com/media/lib/5/f/b/a/fba47cd6-01dd-45f3-819f-b32127f561e0/Pew_Upgrading_Voter_Registration.pdf


Research commissioned by the Pew Center on the States highlights the extent of the
challenge:1
n Approximately 24 million—one of
every eight—active voter registrations
in the United States are no longer
valid or are significantly inaccurate.
n More than 1.8 million deceased
individuals are listed as active voters.
n Approximately 2.75 million people
have active registrations in more than
one state.

These numbers make it easy to fraudulently win close elections as Frankel did in Minnesota. The Democrats are masters at analyzing the voter rolls, identifying the dead people and sending surrogates in to vote for them. One surrogate can vote all day, going to different precincts, claiming to be different dead or moved people, and vote many times. One hundred people can easily vote 600 times or more between them and never be detected. We used to laugh about election day being really Resurrection Day but it was no joke, really. Many local campaigns were decided by a few hundred votes.

This is the primary reason why IDs at the polls are needed. Having been intimately involved in the electoral process at the campaign manager level, I can assure you that the resources do not exist to remove all this error from the voting rolls. Much poll work is volunteer and around elections.

However, if the voter shows up at the polls and has a photo ID, you know you have the same person who is on that list. Exactly why it is done this way in "backwards" Mexico. No voting without the free ID easily obtained from the government or a driver's license, no absentee voting. Show up with a valid ID and vote.

Over 100 countries world wide require voter ID. For very good reason. And Democrats fight it tooth and nail, also for very good reason. Honest polls are the enemy of the party of basically untraceable ballot fraud.

Peter1469
08-03-2013, 10:15 AM
Here is a website (http://www.blackboxvoting.org/) that investigates voter fraud in the US and elsewhere.

lynn
08-03-2013, 09:21 PM
Here in Arizona, I received by voter ID card when I was renewing my car registration when they asked me if I wanted to register to vote. I assume this would prevent fraud but what I found amusing is the part where you check whether you are a Republican, Democrat, or an Independent. I checked independent for two reasons, one if I checked one or the other of Rep or Dem then that would given me a good idea of who was going to win but by checking independent I would be considered the "wild card" of all registered voters.

Singularity
08-03-2013, 10:43 PM
Circular argument. If folks don't have to present ID to vote how would you know how many cases of in-person voter fraud there really was? Comical argument really!
It's not so much an argument as it is a question,
a question you and your peers in this thread are
continually unable to answer, and so you cry about
"logic." Fortunately, in the real world, that kind of
behavior doesn't exactly make your case, as
Pennsylvania's state government (http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/ApplewhiteStipulation.pdf) grudgingly
had to admit last year. For the record, you can
answer the question whenever you like. If your
case for Voter ID is anything like as strong as you
say it is, there is no reason this should be difficult.

But, hey, while you're at it, here's another question:
How many elections in the last ten years have resulted
in Republican court challenges centered on the
argument that voter fraud contributed to their
candidate's illegitimate defeat? How many of those
challenges were successful in any respect?

peoshi
08-03-2013, 10:57 PM
It's not so much an argument as it is a question,

Then answer it...if people do not have to present ID, then how would you know how many cases there actually are?

For the record, you can do so any time you like.

Singularity
08-03-2013, 11:01 PM
then how would you know how many cases there actually are?And you folks want to talk about logic?
Ever hear about the concept of "burden of proof" sir or ma'am?

As in, the person who is advocating new policy or new action
is logically burdened to establish the case for such action.

The defender of the status quo can rely on the presumption
that no such action is needed, barring demonstrative evidence.

peoshi
08-03-2013, 11:10 PM
And you folks want to talk about logic?
Ever hear about the concept of "burden of proof" sir or ma'am?
As in, the person who is advocating new policy or new action
is logically burdened to establish the case for such action.
The defender of the status quo can rely on the presumption
that no such action is needed, barring demonstrative evidence.

What's to prove? There is already proof, the fact that you willfully ignore it does not mean it does not exist.

The fact is you have no idea how prevalent it is in either party, and neither does anyone else, so why would you be opposed to something that will at least attempt to curtail it?

And please don't trot out the disenfranchised voter bullshit...that ship has sailed!:rollseyes:

Singularity
08-03-2013, 11:19 PM
The fact is you have no idea how prevalent it is, and neither does anyone elsehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ignorance



And please don't trot out the disenfranchised voter bullshit...It's already been trotted out all over this thread in the words of Republicans nationwide.
Again, however: I'm under no obligation to prove that we don't need voter ID.
Any evidence that I have presented that we don't need new action, or that
the action in question is unfounded on the basis of what multiple people behind
it have said, just puts nails in the coffin (http://www.brennancenter.org/publication/voting-law-changes-2012#summ).

peoshi
08-03-2013, 11:42 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ignorance

It's already been trotted out all over this thread in the words of Republicans nationwide.
Again, however: I'm under no obligation to prove that we don't need voter ID.
Any evidence that I have presented that we don't need new action, or that
the action in question is unfounded on the basis of what multiple people behind
it have said, just puts nails in the coffin (http://www.brennancenter.org/publication/voting-law-changes-2012#summ).

What evidence? You haven't presented anything but your opinion.

Why are you opposed to Voter ID? Will it affect you?

"Some states require voters to show government-issued photo identification, often of a type that as many as one in ten voters do not have." in other words, they have no idea.


"no single analysis has assessed the overall impact of such moves." ​in other words, they have no idea.


Is this what you call "evidence" or "nails in the coffin"?:laugh:

And as far as your little "appeal to ignorance" snipe...it has already been proven that voter fraud exists, the disenfranchised voter nonsense is mere speculation.

Singularity
08-03-2013, 11:48 PM
What evidence? You haven't presented anything but your opinion.

Again, burden of proof's on you. I just gave you a massive professional,
peer-reviewed database on the course of this legislation nationwide.
I didn't have to do that.

If you want to pretend like it somehow doesn't apply without actually
reading it or the other information I've presented in this thread,
there's nothing more I can do.

Professor Peabody
08-03-2013, 11:56 PM
Again, burden of proof's on you. I just gave you a massive professional,
peer-reviewed database on the course of this legislation nationwide.
I didn't have to do that.

If you want to pretend like it somehow doesn't apply without actually
reading it or the other information I've presented in this thread,
there's nothing more I can do.[/COLOR]

You continue with the circular argument. Without requiring ID there is no way to "prove" voter fraud is happening. So how about this, we just want to protect the integrity of the voting system. Because even one fraudulent vote cancels out a legitimate one and every citizen has the right to have their vote count.

Singularity
08-04-2013, 12:06 AM
You continue with the circular argument. Without requiring ID there is no way to "prove" voter fraud is happening. So how about this, we just want to protect the integrity of the voting system. Because even one fraudulent vote cancels out a legitimate one and every citizen has the right to have their vote count.

And I have evidence that the bulk of the efforts to "protect the integrity
of the system" thus far have been counter-productive at best and nakedly
political, by the open admission of some of the people behind the efforts,
at worst. You want to implement a carefully implemented, national voter
ID system that's done universally and fairly through, say, tax returns or
the selective service system or social security?

Sounds like a plan, we might actually find a way to make it easier to vote
and shore up poll security. But don't defend what's already been
attempted as part of a truly prolific partisan campaign and act like
the only reason anyone's got any reason to object
is because of their own politics.

I mean, we've been through an election with this crap now.
We saw what it did. The courts did too, and if you'll read the paper I
presented, you'll see what that has provoked in concert with a general
trend of voter pushback.

This is my last word on this, until and unless you give me something
new and substantive that proposes to show how the policy you are
defending addresses and solves a clear problem in such a way that
the costs are outweighed if not eliminated.

If you want to try to rise to the occasion there, I suggest you look at this
update (http://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/election-2013-voting-laws-roundup) to the Brennan Center's paper, which shows how several states
are passing expansive voting reform to help people at the polls.
This is the direction we need to be focusing legislation.

peoshi
08-04-2013, 12:10 AM
Again, burden of proof's on you. I just gave you a massive professional,
peer-reviewed database on the course of this legislation nationwide.
I didn't have to do that.
[/COLOR]

Yeah, and you probably shouldn't have since your peer-reviewed database had no actual evidence to back up their assertions,nor did any of your other information.


You did not answer my question... why are you opposed to voter ID?

Your "peer-reviewed database" speculated that as many as one in ten do not have ID,I must have missed the part where it said they could not get them.

And again, I've already proven that voter fraud exists, so exactly what "burden of proof" is on me? And again, why are you opposed to voter ID?



" act like
the only reason anyone's got any reason to object
is because of their own politics. "

Then what is your reason for objecting to voter ID?

Singularity
08-04-2013, 12:21 AM
Yeah, and you probably shouldn't have since your peer-reviewed database had no actual evidence to back up their assertionsYou have not read that 37-page report with extensive citations
and analysis one bit in this time. Come on.


why are you opposed to voter ID?

I'm not opposed to the central idea of voter ID. If you
had read the thread, you'd know that.

I'm opposed to the myriad of state initiatives that, however
well-intentioned some of them may be, are harmful to voter
engagement and facilitation -- which should be any govt.'s priority.

I strongly suspect, based on previously presented evidence,
that much of these "reform" efforts are political schemes.

I support expansive and forward-thinking voter reform that
could well be coupled with a progressive national security
system pegged to existing U.S. government day-to-day business.

peoshi
08-04-2013, 12:32 AM
The Brennan Center for Justice, of course, is funded (http://www.mrc.org/bmi/articles/2011/SorosBacked_Voting_Study_Promoted_By_SorosFunded_M edia.html) by liberal billionaire George Soros. (As a bonus, the center boasts (http://www.brennancenter.org/content/pages/board_of_advisors) Words with Friends enthusiast Alec Baldwin as an advisory-board member.) And its report doesn’t withstand even the most cursory scrutiny.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/285771/if-fraudulent-vote-falls-woods-christian-schneider


peer-reviewed database?:smiley_ROFLMAO:

Singularity
08-04-2013, 12:44 AM
@peoshi,
If you want to play the Kill the Messenger game,

WPRI -- your source on NRO -- is tied to the Wisconsin State Policy Network,
a member of the American Legislative Exchange Council. The whole mess
has received tens of millions of dollars in funding from organizations under
the Koch umbrella and its contemporaries. If you want to learn more about
ALEC, here's a good opportunity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azSUHpAb_E4

All research has to be paid for by somebody. That alone doesn't allow anyone
involved, unless they want to be a partisan buffoon choosing to believe only
what they want to believe, to simply write off what thorough, peer-reviewed,
well-sourced and cited research finds.

peoshi
08-04-2013, 12:53 AM
@peoshi,
If you want to play the Kill the Messenger game,

WPRI -- your source on NRO -- is tied to the Wisconsin State Policy Network,
a member of the American Legislative Exchange Council. The whole mess
has received tens of millions of dollars in funding from organizations under
the Koch umbrella and its contemporaries. If you want to learn more about
ALEC, here's a good opportunity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azSUHpAb_E4

All research has to be paid for by somebody. That alone doesn't allow anyone
involved, unless they want to be a partisan buffoon choosing to believe only
what they want to believe, to simply write off what through, peer-reviewed,
well-sourced and cited research finds.

Similarly, mere statistics are a terrible way to determine whether vote fraud is occurring. Since the Brennan Center report deals with Wisconsin specifically, I’ll explain why in excruciating detail.
For one, under the previous (http://www.wpri.org/blog/?p=309) Wisconsin law — which didn’t require voters to demonstrate who they were — vote fraud was virtually impossible to prove. If someone wanted to vote more than once, all they needed to do was know a name on the voter list, then use that name. That name could belong to a legitimate voter who didn’t show up to vote, or to a voter who doesn’t actually exist. Laws relaxing voter-registration requirements may have allowed groups like ACORN to stuff the rolls with names of fictitious people, which could then have been used to cast votes without any identification. Once that vote is cast, it is impossible to track down who came in and voted using that name.
In 2008, the Milwaukee Police Department issued a report (http://media2.620wtmj.com/breakingnews/ElectionResults_2004_VoterFraudInvestigation_MPD-SIU-A2474926.pdf) detailing vote fraud that occurred during the 2004 presidential election. The police task force that issued the study said they believed 16 workers from the John Kerry campaign and third-party groups “committed felony crimes” that went unprosecuted.
The MPD found one property where 128 individuals were registered to vote — all of whom signed up for the 2004 election. Twenty-nine voters were registered at a county office building that featured no residential living. The MPD report found instances of double-voting, unopened absentee ballots appearing after the election, and deceased people voting. None of these are counted in the Brennan Center report, which has an extremely narrow definition of “fraud” — people voting who know they are ineligible to vote (felons, for instance).

The MPD task force also questioned the validity of several homeless shelters — one featured 162 registered voters, another boasted 136. As pointed out by the report, many of these homeless individuals were registered at multiple locations — and since identification wasn’t necessary to vote, anyone could have used these people’s names to vote. According to the police report, “this vote portability and the abject poverty that defines homelessness, make these unfortunate individuals vulnerable to become the tools of voter fraud by those who would exploit the homeless.”

The public gets this — polls routinely show widespread support for a photo-ID requirement to vote, which would at least end the practice of name-poaching. There may be very little vote fraud; there may be a great deal. In the absence of a photo-ID requirement, we just didn’t know. We do, however, know that the bogus Brennan Center report is hardly dispositive.

Singularity
08-04-2013, 01:00 AM
As per usual, the articles that support the Voter ID legislation that's already
been passed rely on a lot of "lookie here, there might have been fraud here, maybe."
They have no idea. There are no documented cases of in-person voter fraud by
any significant or even noted measure in the last ten years. I think I've waited
long enough to come to this obvious conclusion -- long enough for any actual
evidence to be supplied that in-person voter fraud is a serious concern.

You can ignore the fact that it's on you to prove the need for these restrictive
reforms all you like. As the Brennan report and the update I also supplied shows,
it didn't help Republicans win in 2012, (per my earlier TNR links) it won't help
you win in the future, it's alienating people who might otherwise vote for you,
and a steady trend of judicial and electoral reversals is building nationwide against
these nakedly political campaigns for "security."

peoshi
08-04-2013, 01:34 AM
As per usual, the articles that support the Voter ID legislation that's already
been passed rely on a lot of "lookie here, there might have been fraud here, maybe."
They have no idea. There are no documented cases of in-person voter fraud by
any significant or even noted measure in the last ten years. I think I've waited
long enough to come to this obvious conclusion -- long enough for any actual
evidence to be supplied that in-person voter fraud is a serious concern.

You can ignore the fact that it's on you to prove the need for these restrictive
reforms all you like. As the Brennan report and the update I also supplied shows,
it didn't help Republicans win in 2012, (per my earlier TNR links) it won't help
you win in the future, it's alienating people who might otherwise vote for you,
and a steady trend of judicial and electoral reversals is building nationwide against
these nakedly political campaigns for "security."

I'm independent, and I'm not running for office so I really don't give a rats ass who I alienate!

Now quit tap-dancing around the question...why are you opposed to voter ID?

There are few documented cases because it is nearly impossible to prove, and if you bothered to read the reason why is self-explanatory.

Getting an ID is not a restrictive reform unless you plan on committing fraud to begin with, so why are you opposed to it?

You don't really expect anyone to believe that you're concerned with law-abiding citizens being denied the right to vote,do you?

Peter1469
08-04-2013, 09:40 AM
Requiring an ID to vote is not restrictive in the 21st century.

Chris
08-04-2013, 09:50 AM
And you folks want to talk about logic?
Ever hear about the concept of "burden of proof" sir or ma'am?

As in, the person who is advocating new policy or new action
is logically burdened to establish the case for such action.

The defender of the status quo can rely on the presumption
that no such action is needed, barring demonstrative evidence.

Oh, come on, voter fraud has been amply demonstrated by several members here. Personal incredulity is not a counterargument but a logical fallacy.

Singularity
08-04-2013, 10:03 AM
I'm independent, and I'm not running for office so I really don't give a rats ass who I alienate!
An independent who turns first to National Review and ALEC for information...?


Now quit tap-dancing around the question...why are you opposed to voter ID?
I answered the question. I'm not opposed to voter ID.

We need federal voter reform that is carefully implemented
and places as little of a burden on voters as possible.

There's no reason to not do it this way. The people behind
the current "reform" efforts know this, and some have admitted
openly that the primary motive behind it is politics.



There are few documented cases because it is nearly impossible
to prove, and if you bothered to read the reason why is self-explanatory.

Getting an ID is not a restrictive reform unless you plan on
committing fraud to begin with, so why are you opposed to it?

You don't really expect anyone to believe that you're concerned
with law-abiding citizens being denied the right to vote,do you?Nice turn of phrase. "Law-abiding." When it's your party making the
laws, however recklessly they do this being of no immediate concern,
they get to define which voters are law-abiding, don't they?

Either way, because you still haven't read the Brennan report, you
apparently don't know that Voter ID is not the only effort that
Republicans are pushing that is aimed at voter suppression.

Singularity
08-04-2013, 10:05 AM
Oh, come on, voter fraud has been amply demonstrated by several members here.Still not answered by anybody...

How many documented cases of in-person voter fraud
have occurred in the last 10 years?

Also...

How many elections have prompted a defeated Republican candidate
to sue on the grounds that voter fraud enabled his opponent to win?
How many of those suits were successful?

Chris
08-04-2013, 10:09 AM
I recall one race when Coleman was ahead in the recount and SURPRISE they just happened to find an uncounted box of ballots enough to put the clown Franken ahead.


Still not answered by anybody...

How many documented cases of in-person voter fraud
have occurred in the last 10 years?

Also...

How many elections have prompted a defeated Republican candidate
to sue on the grounds that voter fraud enabled his opponent to win?
How many of those suits were successful?

Your little gotcha question doesn't need to be answered, voter fraud has been demonstrated.

Singularity
08-04-2013, 10:14 AM
Your little gotcha question doesn't need to be answeredI wish I had the conscience to just behave like that anytime somebody
presses a question I can't answer. It would really save me a lot of time,
I wouldn't have to find and read things like the Brennan report, or books
like It's Even Worse Than It Looks (http://www.amazon.com/Even-Worse-Than-Looks-Constitutional/dp/0465031331/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1375629311&sr=8-1&keywords=It's+Worse+than+it+looks) (highly recommended for anyone
who wishes to get a better understanding of the current Republican
national political climate, written by someone who works for a key GOP-
affiliated think tank). I could just defy the principles of argumentation,
stick my pinkie up in the air, and be on my merry way.

Yeah, that would be nice...

Chris
08-04-2013, 10:20 AM
I wish I had the conscience to just behave like that anytime somebody
presses a question I can't answer. It would really save me a lot of time,
I wouldn't have to find and read things like the Brennan report, or books
like It's Even Worse Than It Looks (http://www.amazon.com/Even-Worse-Than-Looks-Constitutional/dp/0465031331/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1375629311&sr=8-1&keywords=It's+Worse+than+it+looks) (highly recommended for anyone
who wishes to get a better understanding of the current Republican
national political climate, written by someone who works for a key GOP-
affiliated think tank). I could just defy the principles of argumentation,
stick my pinkie up in the air, and be on my merry way.

Yeah, that would be nice...

You're question is pure and simple a BS gotcha. 1000s, 10000s, more cases could be demonstrated, you'd still come back with but you haven't answered how many. Defy principles of argumentation? You're the one who just cherry picked out of my response "voter fraud has been demonstrated".

Singularity
08-04-2013, 10:22 AM
Requiring an ID to vote is not restrictive in the 21st century.

It can be if your requirement is implemented shortly before an election yet
requires compliance for that election. Or if your "reform" permits some forms of
state ID, but not others. Or if your reform requires more than one form of
ID or information, with any mistakes being punished by the issuance of a
second-tier "provisional ballot." Or if the state government is simultaneously,
unilaterally purging people it thinks are dead or otherwise being used to
vote illegally, except they're not (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/06/02/florida-suspends-gov-scotts-voter-purge-tactics).

I'll support a carefully implemented, omnibus federal reform effort
that is designed to expand our voter base and provide them certifiable
IDs free of charge or complication beyond checking their mail or filing
their taxes. We can do this. The only reason to not do this is because
at the state level, the process can be leveraged politically to a much
greater level (to what actual end isn't clear, as some of my sources show,
but that's not really important).

Peter1469
08-04-2013, 10:26 AM
It can be if your requirement is implemented shortly before an election yet
requires compliance for that election. Or if your "reform" permits some forms of
state ID, but not others. Or if your reform requires more than one form of
ID or information, with any mistakes being punished by the issuance of a
second-tier "provisional ballot." Or if the state government is simultaneously,
unilaterally purging people it thinks are dead or otherwise being used to
vote illegally, except they're not (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/06/02/florida-suspends-gov-scotts-voter-purge-tactics).

I'll support a carefully implemented, omnibus federal reform effort
that is designed to expand our voter base and provide them certifiable
IDs free of charge or complication beyond checking their mail or filing
their taxes. We can do this. The only reason to not do this is because
at the state level, the process can be leveraged politically to a much
greater level (to what actual end isn't clear, as some of my sources show,
but that's not really important).

I will amend my statement: requiring ID, without playing games, is not restrictive in the 21st century. This is really a non-issue. Or, I should say, it is a red-herring used by those who promote voter fraud.

Singularity
08-04-2013, 10:27 AM
You're question is pure and simple a BS gotcha. 1000s, 10000s, more cases could be demonstratedYet they haven't been, and no matter how up-in-arms you get about it, you
can't get around that simple fact. By the grudging admission of most people
who've argued for the current slate of voter ID reforms in this thread, there
are virtually no documented cases of in-person voter reform, the only
crime that voter ID is realistically capable of combating.

Singularity
08-04-2013, 10:30 AM
This is really a non-issue. Or, I should say, it is a red-herring
used by those who promote voter fraud.I'll accept 1,000 cases of fraud if it means that
no legitimate voter is turned away from the polls
on the grounds that they can't prove who they are,
and supply evidence to defend their natural rights.
That they can't establish a presumption of innocence,
something every criminal defendant in this country
is entitled to without question.

You want to accuse me of promoting criminality? Then
put up or shut up. Show me cases of in-person voter fraud
that clearly show a need for immediate restrictive voter
reform. That's your burden or proof.

Chris
08-04-2013, 10:48 AM
Yet they haven't been, and no matter how up-in-arms you get about it, you
can't get around that simple fact. By the grudging admission of most people
who've argued for the current slate of voter ID reforms in this thread, there
are virtually no documented cases of in-person voter reform, the only
crime that voter ID is realistically capable of combating.

Yes, they have been demonstrated.

Listen, this is boring, I'll leave you to your denial.

Singularity
08-04-2013, 11:00 AM
Yes, they have been demonstrated.

Listen, this is boring, I'll leave you to your denial.

If you have enough comfort in your stance to do that, then
I wish you the best, and I mean that sincerely.

Mainecoons
08-04-2013, 04:45 PM
That was explained to you, Singularity. And from someone who has direct experience with it, both working polls and running campaigns. Continue with your denial and silly pretense that asking someone to show some ID to vote is onerous but asking them the same to rent a DVD is reasonable.

It is basically an untraceable crime. Any campaign could do the same thing I witnessed. I wouldn't be surprised if there are a few Republican campaigns playing the voter roll error game too.

Adelaide
08-04-2013, 04:50 PM
So long as government issued ID is easily accessible (low cost, a general ID card versus a driver's license or passport) then ID laws are fine by me. There should also be easy ways to get these ID cards. In the absence of that, a social security card or birth certificate accompanied by a piece of mail should be enough.

patrickt
08-04-2013, 04:54 PM
What's entirely predictable is the liberal administration fighting in the courts to maintain election fraud.

Mainecoons
08-04-2013, 04:54 PM
And every place that has proposed this has done so. The Democrats here don't want this for one reason and one reason only--they use ballot fraud to win close elections.

Mexico is a country of over 120 million people. The government issues voters ID and they must show it at the polls. You have to go to the polls to vote. More Mexicans vote, percentage wise, than many other countries. It is absolute garbage (gosh I hope that isn't rude) to suggest that anyone who wants to vote legally wouldn't be able to do so with voter ID.

Peter1469
08-04-2013, 05:01 PM
And every place that has proposed this has done so. The Democrats here don't want this for one reason and one reason only--they use ballot fraud to win close elections.

Mexico is a country of over 120 million people. The government issues voters ID and they must show it at the polls. You have to go to the polls to vote. More Mexicans vote, percentage wise, than many other countries. It is absolute garbage (gosh I hope that isn't rude) to suggest that anyone who wants to vote legally wouldn't be able to do so with voter ID.

Right. Nobody actually believes it. It is just an attempt to allow voter fraud.

Mainecoons
08-04-2013, 06:04 PM
You know, I think some of our extreme liberals actually buy this hokum argument.

Singularity
08-04-2013, 06:09 PM
So long as government issued ID is easily accessible (low cost, a general ID card versus a driver's license or passport) then ID laws are fine by me. There should also be easy ways to get these ID cards. In the absence of that, a social security card or birth certificate accompanied by a piece of mail should be enough.Unfortunately, that's not how they're going about it.
I've got zero problem with a national system of voter ID that
is carefully implemented with a goal to facilitate and expand
participation instead of distrust and restrict.

The problems inherent in doing things like "no social
security cards" or "no registration on election day" are clear,
yet they're pushed anyway by politicians who know their
voters have no problem with these measures, who believe
that enough opposition voters may be either suppressed
or inconvenienced enough to decide to stay home.

Key Republican officials nationwide have admitted
to this. It's outrageous how much willful ignorance is infested
behind the cause of the current wave of voter ID "reforms."
No government should ever pass policy with any
inclination to decrease turnout in mind, yet this is being
done left and right and the supporters are blithely
dismissing legitimate concerns about it.

Mainecoons
08-04-2013, 06:15 PM
Unfortunately, that's not how they're going about it.

Prove it. Credible sources please, not Stink Progress.

Thanks.

Singularity
08-04-2013, 06:15 PM
... they use ballot fraud to win close elections
Remind me again the number of Republican candidates at any level
of political competition in this country who have been defeated and
subsequently filed suit alleging their opponent won via voter fraud?

Oh, wait, you guys, despite your iron clad conviction that this indeed
happens, have never been able to answer that question.

Mainecoons
08-04-2013, 06:16 PM
Heck, I had three on my watch in a small state. How about Frankel, eh?

You see, that's why you guys love this game of using voter roll errors and multiple registrations to cheat. It is virtually untraceable. I see you ignored the citation about just how big the voter roll problem is. Of course you would, it blows a huge hole in your argument.

And easily killed by voter ID.

:grin:

Singularity
08-04-2013, 06:30 PM
Prove it.

It's all over the thread, sir, but I'll help you out
* People have been purged from voter rolls (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/government-elections-politics/justice-dept-sues-to-end-florida-voter-roll-purge/) on specious information
with a clear highlight of bias; more than 100,000 names set to be
purged from the rolls had to be whittled down to 2,000 after state
and federal investigators determined that the info Fla. governor
Rick Scott was using was woefully out of date

* Early voting has been cut back (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/government-elections-politics/court-rules-floridas-early-voting-restrictions-are-discriminatory/) in Florida and elsewhere for
no clearly defined reason other than cobbled together excuses
about "cost" or "administrative difficulty."

* In addition to passing a new, restrictive voter ID law (http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/26/north-carolina-first-in-voter-suppression/?_r=0), North
Carolina recently curtailed early voting by a full week, ended
a program to encourage high school seniors to register to vote
in advance of their 18th birthday and ended same-day
voter registration. The state also prevented a voter from
presenting a sworn statement of authenticity in lieu of an ID.

* Ohio is one of several states that saw early voting restrictions
overturned in court (http://www.policymic.com/articles/16009/voter-suppression-laws-overturned-in-battleground-states-a-win-for-the-american-people-and-obama) prior to the election.

It goes on... many fear it will get worse with the removal of
section 5 protections from the VRA for previously bad-behaving
jurisdictions. But sure, it's about fraud, right?

:retard:

Mainecoons
08-04-2013, 06:36 PM
Purged from voter rolls just further illustrates the problem with voter rolls. Thanks for butressing my argument.

Item #2: Bad, highly biased source. You may as well cite Stink Progress. NC is one state of 50. Better sources point out the law is even handed BUT the $10 ID requirement is a problem. See below.

Item #3: Proves Ohio didn't do it right and affirms that the courts will require voter ID to be done right or they'll toss it.

All you came up with is one state that wants to charge $10 for an ID. I agree with you that this shouldn't be allowed and other sources indicate it will likely be tossed by courts, again affirming that the courts will protect legitimate voter rights.

Yes, it is all about fraud. Thank you for acknowledging that.

Mainecoons
08-04-2013, 06:39 PM
BTW, that is exactly what makes the Mexican system so brilliant. The voter registers at the same time they get their free photo voter ID card. Hence, you really don't even need voter rolls.

Singularity
08-04-2013, 06:47 PM
Purged from voter rolls just further illustrates the problem with voter rolls. Thanks for butressing my argument.

Item #2: Bad, highly biased source. You may as well cite Stink Progress. NC is one state of 50. Better sources point out the law is even handed BUT the $10 ID requirement is a problem. See below.

Item #3: Proves Ohio didn't do it right and affirms that the courts will require voter ID to be done right or they'll toss it.

All you came up with is one state that wants to charge $10 for an ID. I agree with you that this shouldn't be allowed and other sources indicate it will likely be tossed by courts, again affirming that the courts will protect legitimate voter rights.

Yes, it is all about fraud. Thank you for acknowledging that.

1. So the fact that one of the nation's key advocates for voter ID
was found to be correct about the amount of "illegitimate" voters in
his state by a margin of 1 in 50 doesn't bother you. Okay.

2. That one honestly surprised me. You consider PBS to be biased
to a degree that renders everything they say on an issue like this
to be illegitimate? I read a lot of right-wing content, and while I've seen
people bag on PBS, I haven't seen this kind of denunciation anywhere.

3. So, you agree with me that restricting early voting is bad. All righty.

What I just presented is supplementary to what's been presented through the entire thread.

I'll repost the questions no conservative in this thread has yet answered:

How many documented cases of in-person voter fraud have occurred in the last ten years?

and

How many Republican candidates have lost their election in the last 10 years and gone
on to file a suit alleging voter fraud? How many suits were successful?

Singularity
08-04-2013, 06:51 PM
BTW, that is exactly what makes the Mexican system so brilliant. The voter registers at the same time they get their free photo voter ID card. Hence, you really don't even need voter rolls.
I wouldn't have any problem with such a reform,
as long as people were given enough time to adjust
(and voter registration organizations would also have
the ability to go down their rolls and get people in the system).

I'm not really worried about voter fraud, but there's a
variety of other reasons we could use a new, integrated federal photo
ID system with key information electronically fixed to the same card.

Chris
08-04-2013, 07:30 PM
1. So the fact that one of the nation's key advocates for voter ID
was found to be correct about the amount of "illegitimate" voters in
his state by a margin of 1 in 50 doesn't bother you. Okay.

2. That one honestly surprised me. You consider PBS to be biased
to a degree that renders everything they say on an issue like this
to be illegitimate? I read a lot of right-wing content, and while I've seen
people bag on PBS, I haven't seen this kind of denunciation anywhere.

3. So, you agree with me that restricting early voting is bad. All righty.

What I just presented is supplementary to what's been presented through the entire thread.

I'll repost the questions no conservative in this thread has yet answered:

How many documented cases of in-person voter fraud have occurred in the last ten years?

and

How many Republican candidates have lost their election in the last 10 years and gone
on to file a suit alleging voter fraud? How many suits were successful?



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GM7OS19Bt3s

Mainecoons
08-04-2013, 08:53 PM
Yep, I could explain to him for the next five how using all those errors in the voter rolls makes fake voting in close contests highly attractive, but he'll never get it. Takes too much experience and common sense, I guess.

Broken record.

Singularity
08-04-2013, 08:57 PM
Takes too much experience and common sense, I guess.

3444

Mainecoons
08-04-2013, 09:00 PM
Are you doing cartoons now? Consult with Cigar, he's a master of irrelevancy in that department.

Sorry, can't help you. You just don't understand how voting works well enough to get what I'm trying to teach you.

Nothing personal.

Singularity
08-04-2013, 09:02 PM
Sorry, can't help you. You just don't understand
how voting works well enough to get what I'm
trying to teach you.Why are you still posting, then?

Mainecoons
08-04-2013, 09:02 PM
:rofl:

nic34
08-05-2013, 11:44 AM
Why are you still posting, then?

Because Coonzie always gets the last word.......

Chris
08-05-2013, 11:48 AM
Because Coonzie always gets the last word.......

^oops^

Professor Peabody
01-16-2014, 09:29 PM
Let it be noted that I've gone out of my way, repeatedly, to press @Professor Peabody (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=265) to meet me halfway and offer a substantive response to my points. I'm off for the night.

Let it be noted I don't live to do what jokers want me to do, I'll get to ya when I get to ya. You can jump in a lake and soak your head till then. Thanks for your time.