Voter fraud isn't real

[decedent]

MORE THAN A BILLION VOTES: 31 CASES OF VOTER FRAUD (http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/10/16/1583223/-MORE-THAN-A-BILLION-VOTES-31-CASES-OF-VOTER-FRAUD)

Donald Trump continues to rage at the totally unsupported claim that this presidential election is “rigged.” He persistently warns his true believers that there will be massive voter fraud that will cheat him of his victory on November 8th. Not that actual evidence matters to Mr. Mendacity, but let us not forget the massive study by Professor Justin Levitt at Loyola University of the actual incidences of voter fraud from 2000 to 2014. According to Levitt, there were only 31 cases of voter impersonation fraud during those years. There were more than a billion votes cast. Actual voter fraud is almost unheard of in the United States.

Source: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/10/16/1583223/-MORE-THAN-A-BILLION-VOTES-31-CASES-OF-VOTER-FRAUD


What's 31/1000000000?

[FindersKeepers]

There's a reason why folks should never cite KOS.

That site is totally nuts.

Georgia, alone, since 2000, had 80 known cases of voter fraud and more than 300 cases of election fraud.

Here's an interactive map:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/map_of_the_week/2012/09/voter_id_laws_a_state_by_state_map_reveals_how_muc h_voter_fraud_there_is_in_the_united_states_almost _none_.html

In Missouri a few years ago -- a case of voter fraud actually resulted in the loser being elected. Small election, but, it happens.

These are only the "confirmed" cases. Voter fraud is an incredibly hard crime to catch because so very, very many people are voting.

I'm very suspicious of those who do not want safeguards against cheaters at the polls.

[Common Sense]

There's a reason why folks should never cite KOS.

That site is totally nuts.

Georgia, alone, since 2000, had 80 known cases of voter fraud and more than 300 cases of election fraud.

Here's an interactive map:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/map_of_the_week/2012/09/voter_id_laws_a_state_by_state_map_reveals_how_muc h_voter_fraud_there_is_in_the_united_states_almost _none_.html

In Missouri a few years ago -- a case of voter fraud actually resulted in the loser being elected. Small election, but, it happens.

These are only the "confirmed" cases. Voter fraud is an incredibly hard crime to catch because so very, very many people are voting.

I'm very suspicious of those who do not want safeguards against cheaters at the polls.

From your own link..."analysis of 2,068 alleged election-fraud cases since 2000 shows that while fraud has occurred, the rate is infinitesimal."

[decedent]

There's a reason why folks should never cite KOS.

That site is totally nuts.

Georgia, alone, since 2000, had 80 known cases of voter fraud and more than 300 cases of election fraud.

Here's an interactive map:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/map_of_the_week/2012/09/voter_id_laws_a_state_by_state_map_reveals_how_muc h_voter_fraud_there_is_in_the_united_states_almost _none_.html

In Missouri a few years ago -- a case of voter fraud actually resulted in the loser being elected. Small election, but, it happens.

These are only the "confirmed" cases. Voter fraud is an incredibly hard crime to catch because so very, very many people are voting.

I'm very suspicious of those who do not want safeguards against cheaters at the polls.

What's 300/1000000000?

Trump said that voter fraud was "very very common," so I guess that's the answer.

[MMC]

There's a reason why folks should never cite KOS.

That site is totally nuts.

Georgia, alone, since 2000, had 80 known cases of voter fraud and more than 300 cases of election fraud.

Here's an interactive map:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/map_of_the_week/2012/09/voter_id_laws_a_state_by_state_map_reveals_how_muc h_voter_fraud_there_is_in_the_united_states_almost _none_.html

In Missouri a few years ago -- a case of voter fraud actually resulted in the loser being elected. Small election, but, it happens.

These are only the "confirmed" cases. Voter fraud is an incredibly hard crime to catch because so very, very many people are voting.

I'm very suspicious of those who do not want safeguards against cheaters at the polls.




Yeah, and they never cover their own history to much.


In New York City, for example, the Tammany Hall machine was rigging elections all the way back to the Boss Tweed era of the 1850’s. In the 1896 election, New York businessmen like Diamond Jim Brady had to keep their support for William McKinley secret, because they knew Tammany Hall would destroy anyone in the city who supported a Republican Presidential candidate.

In the aftermath of the Civil War, Southern Democrats used poll taxes, grandfather clauses, and other legal maneuvers (not to mention illegal maneuvers involving the Ku Klux Klan) to keep blacks from getting to the polls. Republicans fought back with the Fourteenth Amendment, which among other things makes race-based voting restrictions illegal.

For over half a century, Democrat Machine politics have dominated politics in Chicago. Mayor Richard Daley Sr. is widely credited with helping JFK win a razor-thin Presidential election by mobilizing thousands of dead and non-existant Chicago residents to vote Democrat, and things haven’t changed much since then. In 1982 the US Attorney in Chicago estimated that the party machine manufactured at least 100,000 extra votes in an attempt to defeat Republican gubernatorial candidate James Thompson. Sixty-three people were convicted of election fraud.

After the 1996 Congressional Elections Bob Dornan, a California Repub., lost his seat to a Dem. by only 984 votes. There is evidence to suggest that the number of votes cast by illegal aliens was greater than Dornan’s margin of defeat. Dornan could only conclusively prove that 547 of the votes had come from non-citizens, so the result was allowed to stand.

In 2004 Dem. Christine Gregoire won Washington’s gubernatorial race on a controversial re-count marked by various irregularities. Her defeated Repub. opponent was unable to prove in court that the irregularities had made the difference in the final count.

Also in 2004, Dem Al Franken won a Senate seat in Minnesota on an equally controversial re-count in which twenty-five different pro-Franken precincts mysteriously produced more ballots than registered voters. All the extra ballots counted in the final total.

Washington and Minnesota weren’t the only blue states with interesting vote-counting practices in 2004. In Wisconsin, Dem John Kerry won the state’s electoral votes and hoped that no one would notice that the ballots outnumbered the legal voters to the tune of more than 4,500 votes. The left wing group ACORN was heavily involved in the process. In Milwaukee, the police department conducted an investigation and reported that eighteen poll officials had felony records, and that eight of the eighteen had been sponsored by ACORN.

Speaking of the devil, eighteen foot soldiers for ACORN were convicted of, or confessed to, election fraud in calendar year 2010. Republicans, with the help of a few embarrassed Democrats, cut off federal funding for the group, which promptly re-named and re-organized itself to escape from its tarnished reputation.

It may sound one-sided to say that the Republicans are fighting voter fraud while the Dems are fighting to facilitate it, but the facts really are just about that one-sided.....snip~

http://historyhalf.com/history-of-voter-fraud/

[FindersKeepers]

From your own link..."analysis of 2,068 alleged election-fraud cases since 2000 shows that while fraud has occurred, the rate is infinitesimal."

Thank you for verifying that KOS is incorrect.

[del]

Thank you for verifying that KOS is incorrect.

nothing of the sort has been verified.

you're welcome

[MMC]

nothing of the sort has been verified.

you're welcome

Looks like it was. That sound you heard was thy bubble being popped.

[FindersKeepers]

What's 300/1000000000?

Trump said that voter fraud was "very very common," so I guess that's the answer.

The short answer is, of course, that KOS was wrong.

Now that we've established that -- we need to address the fact that the cases recorded are ONLY the ones where there were convictions.

If you heard the NYC election commissioner last week, you'd have heard him say that vote fraud is rampant -- that people actually take busloads of people around to vote multiple times.

You'll also realize that without voting safeguards in place, these people will never be caught. How are the people manning the polls supposed to catch fraudulent voters if they can't even compare their likenesses to a photo ID? There is virtually no way to ensure that the people are who they claim to be.

That's okay with you?

Would it likewise be okay to just ask parents of school kids to verbally affirm that their children had their vaccines? I mean, instead of making them show their immunization records? I mean -- have you ever heard of parents cheating on that? No? Then, no worries, right?

Those who stand against vote integrity are quite the odd ducks.

[hanger4]

Those who stand against vote integrity are quite the odd ducks.

In their heart of heart's the left knows voter ID is the right thing to do. They believe it's a wedge issue and just won't let go.

[Beevee]

In their heart of heart's the left knows voter ID is the right thing to do. They believe it's a wedge issue and just won't let go.

Would you then consider it as a tit for tat in exchange for something that Republicans won't do?

[hanger4]

Would you then consider it as a tit for tat in exchange for something that Republicans won't do?

Explain

[exploited]

Let's do some very basic statistical analysis, just based on what we know of: 300/100,000,000 votes are fraudulent. That is 0.0003%.

Some have pointed out that there is certainly more voter fraud than we know about. I think that is a fair point. The question is, how much more?

If we assume 10x more, that would be 3000/100,000,000, or 0.003%.

If we assume 100x more, that would be 30,000/100,000,000, or 0.03%.

If we assume 1000x more, that would be 300,000/100,000,000, or 0.3%.

Therefore, we would have to assume that voter fraud is happening 3000x more than we know about in order to bring it up to the statistically significant 1%. Is there anyone here willing to make that contention?

[FindersKeepers]

In their heart of heart's the left knows voter ID is the right thing to do. They believe it's a wedge issue and just won't let go.


This is one of those issues that just amazes me.

They claim protecting the vote is "disenfranchisement," but what planet are they living on? If we have some citizens here in the US who, in this day and age, do not have documentation showing they are citizens, we need to get on the ball and help them remedy that problem.

Perhaps there ARE a few -- but only a VERY few -- in the position of not having documentation, but that means they also cannot drive, they cannot work (because they can't verify who they are to pay the IRS) and they very likely live on the fringes of society, in a cardboard box under a bridge or in a nursing home or state hospital.

The Left is trying to convince me that these people are dying to get out there and vote. They are barely functioning members of society -- but they're being disenfranchised? Oh get real.

Every election season -- the Left digs up one or two of these people and tells us how they can't vote -- how life circumstances are making it too difficult for them to get the proper identification. The Left then uses those fringe examples in an attempt to paint all poor people, all minorities, all elderly. It borders on the unbelievable, yet the lemmings believe it.

If the Left had a lick of compassion, instead of trying to subvert the vote, they'd make it a point between elections to help citizens get their identifications in order.

But they won't. They prefer to point fingers at those who would protect the integrity of our vote.

Simply amazing.

[DGUtley]

I believe that we should have an ID - to- Vote requirement. I don't get the complaint and don't buy that it's a racial thingy. I understood the argument from the left to be that it was the nature of the 'ID' that was the problem. Am I wrong? I mean, seriously, you don’t need a photo ID to vote, but you do need one to buy alcohol and cigarettes. You need one to open a bank account, or to apply for a job to fill that bank account. You also need an ID to file for unemployment, and to apply for welfare, and Medicaid, and food stamps. You need a photo ID to apply for Social Security. And to buy a home, and apply for a mortgage, or to rent a home. You need a photo ID to drive a car, you need one to buy a new car, to buy a used car, heck, you even need one to rent a car. You need a photo ID to get on an airplane, and you need one to get married, and you need one to check into a hotel room for your honeymoon. You need a photo ID to buy a gun, and to apply for a hunting license and a fishing license, and even to adopt a pet. You need a photo ID to pick up a prescription, you need one to buy certain kinds of cold medicine, and you need one to donate blood. You need a photo ID to enter a casino, and you need one to buy lottery tickets. You need one to buy a video game that’s rated M for Mature, and you need one to see a movie rated NC-17. You need a photo ID to buy a cell phone and apply for a coverage plan. and, in perhaps the greatest irony of the entire Voter ID debate, you need a photo ID to hold a rally or protest, such as a rally or protest against requiring a photo ID to vote. In Ohio, you need an ID to get a library book or get in a federal courthouse.

Ok, can't we come together on what reasonable form of ID? How about the same ID that's used above?

[Cigar]

No amount of IDs is going to change The Demographics :laugh:

Look, it was a good run while it lasted, but now it's over ... done ... finished!

[DGUtley]

No amount of IDs is going to change The Demographics :laugh: Look, it was a good run while it lasted, but now it's over ... done ... finished!

Ok, so why the fight? Why can't we come together on the use of a reasonable form of voter ID? It has zero to do with demographics for me. It's about adherence to the law.

[Cigar]

Ok, so why the fight? Why can't we come together on the use of a reasonable form of voter ID? It has zero to do with demographics for me. It's about adherence to the law.


Like Social Security Numbers :laugh:

[DGUtley]

Like Social Security Numbers :laugh:

How is that an id? I can use your card and I'm reasonably confident that you don't look like a farm kid from Sebring, Ohio. Just guessing, though.

[Cigar]

How is that an id? I can use your card and I'm reasonably confident that you don't look like a farm kid from Sebring, Ohio. Just guessing, though.


Maybe we should get Tattoos :laugh: with Count Down Counters

[Subdermal]

Let's do some very basic statistical analysis, just based on what we know of: 300/100,000,000 votes are fraudulent. That is 0.0003%.

Even a casual look at the statistics and evidence refutes your ridiculous claim.


Some have pointed out that there is certainly more voter fraud than we know about. I think that is a fair point. The question is, how much more?

If we assume 10x more, that would be 3000/100,000,000, or 0.003%.

If we assume 100x more, that would be 30,000/100,000,000, or 0.03%.

If we assume 1000x more, that would be 300,000/100,000,000, or 0.3%.

Therefore, we would have to assume that voter fraud is happening 3000x more than we know about in order to bring it up to the statistically significant 1%. Is there anyone here willing to make that contention?

:facepalm:

Your willful ignorance and cover making for crime is inexcusable.

This isn't a popular vote question. It is a targeted fraud scheme intended to turn key districts in key States. Are you so daft as to feign ignorance regarding how Electoral Colleges work?

1/8th of voter registrations contain inaccuracies apparently. There is no way to confirm veracity of those who same day register. Scott Foval and the NYC Election Commissioner have both admitted that Dems bus lemmings around to vote in different districts. You're blindly covering up the issue, because you don't want to face the issue. I've posted the long and detailed case multiple times now, and not one of you clowns ever even attempts to address it.

Tell me, @exploited (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1808): if this is meaningless, why do Dem operatives risk jail to engage in it?

"I don't know, why don't you ask them" is proof of your loss in this debate, I'll preemptively rule.

[Subdermal]

This is one of those issues that just amazes me.

They claim protecting the vote is "disenfranchisement," but what planet are they living on? If we have some citizens here in the US who, in this day and age, do not have documentation showing they are citizens, we need to get on the ball and help them remedy that problem.

Perhaps there ARE a few -- but only a VERY few -- in the position of not having documentation, but that means they also cannot drive, they cannot work (because they can't verify who they are to pay the IRS) and they very likely live on the fringes of society, in a cardboard box under a bridge or in a nursing home or state hospital.

The Left is trying to convince me that these people are dying to get out there and vote. They are barely functioning members of society -- but they're being disenfranchised? Oh get real.

Every election season -- the Left digs up one or two of these people and tells us how they can't vote -- how life circumstances are making it too difficult for them to get the proper identification. The Left then uses those fringe examples in an attempt to paint all poor people, all minorities, all elderly. It borders on the unbelievable, yet the lemmings believe it.

If the Left had a lick of compassion, instead of trying to subvert the vote, they'd make it a point between elections to help citizens get their identifications in order.

But they won't. They prefer to point fingers at those who would protect the integrity of our vote.

Simply amazing.

It isn't amazing at all. These are evil people. Their ideology is evil, and has always been evil. They manifest this evil by lying constantly and granting cover to criminals.

[exploited]

Even a casual look at the statistics and evidence refutes your ridiculous claim.



:facepalm:

Your willful ignorance and cover making for crime is inexcusable.

This isn't a popular vote question. It is a targeted fraud scheme intended to turn key districts in key States. Are you so daft as to feign ignorance regarding how Electoral Colleges work?

1/8th of voter registrations contain inaccuracies apparently. There is no way to confirm veracity of those who same day register. Scott Foval and the NYC Election Commissioner have both admitted that Dems bus lemmings around to vote in different districts. You're blindly covering up the issue, because you don't want to face the issue. I've posted the long and detailed case multiple times now, and not one of you clowns ever even attempts to address it.

Tell me, @exploited (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1808): if this is meaningless, why do Dem operatives risk jail to engage in it?

"I don't know, why don't you ask them" is proof of your loss in this debate, I'll preemptively rule.

As it happens, I support voter ID laws. It is a reasonable expectation and every other modern country does it. Voter IDs should be funded by the taxpayer and given out at no additional charge to citizens.

That said, do I think voter fraud is particularly damaging at this time? Nope. Not at all. While you have spewed much in your post, it is, as per usual, totally lacking any substance. You simply are not capable of making a rational argument.

[FindersKeepers]

As it happens, I support voter ID laws. It is a reasonable expectation and every other modern country does it. Voter IDs should be funded by the taxpayer and given out at no additional charge to citizens.



I agree with that.

Every citizen deserves to have identification that allows him/her to take full advantage of services offered here.

[Cigar]

As it happens, I support voter ID laws. It is a reasonable expectation and every other modern country does it. Voter IDs should be funded by the taxpayer and given out at no additional charge to citizens.

That said, do I think voter fraud is particularly damaging at this time? Nope. Not at all. While you have spewed much in your post, it is, as per usual, totally lacking any substance. You simply are not capable of making a rational argument.


I Joke around but I agree that something should simply confirm who you are, after all, that's all a Voting official needs to know. Then they can look you up to see if you're in the correct place to Vote. NOT if you can Vote or not, because EVERYONE who is eligible should be able to Vote.

[exploited]

I agree with that.

Every citizen deserves to have identification that allows him/her to take full advantage of services offered here.

You will find that most opposition to voter ID laws comes from who it is advocated by (Republicans), and how (the assertion of widespread voter fraud, not backed up by any credible research). Not only that, but the programs Republicans design tend to have the effect of disenfranchising blacks and poors in urban areas.

When it is advocated for properly - as part of an effort to provide greater transparency and security, while modernizing the American voting system - there is far less opposition. These laws should empower citizens, not remove their privileges.

In addition to this reform, political districts must be set by open source algorithm, and ballot design must be made uniform. Also, electronic voting machines must be eliminated entirely, and a national wait time standard set.

All of these reforms will benefit all Americans, and disenfranchise none. It is just a matter of working together and being honest about what is needed moving forward.

[DGUtley]

You will find that most opposition to voter ID laws comes from who it is advocated by (Republicans), and how (the assertion of widespread voter fraud, not backed up by any credible research). Not only that, but the programs Republicans design tend to have the effect of disenfranchising blacks and poors in urban areas.
When it is advocated for properly - as part of an effort to provide greater transparency and security, while modernizing the American voting system - there is far less opposition. These laws should empower citizens, not remove their privileges.

How so? Real examples please. Not pseudo examples, but real examples please.
Can you please (and I hope you can) give me one example of a voter ID law that wasn't opposed?

[Tahuyaman]

Tell me, @exploited (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1808): if this is meaningless, why do Dem operatives risk jail to engage in it?



Voter fraud isn't widespread enough to alter a presidential election. It can and has changed local elections. Plus it's mostly comncentrated in the large urban areas where Democrats have unchecked power.

Democrats do not want to lose the big city vote. They want that just as much, maybe even more than they want the White House. They need to sustain and expand the dependent class.

[maineman]

I agree with that.

Every citizen deserves to have identification that allows him/her to take full advantage of services offered here.

if the ID itself is free, but requires the voter to produce a lot of documentation that will practically cost them time and money to procure, then the ID isn't really free, and the burden of time and money will certainly be a greater burden on folks who don't have a lot of either.

[exploited]

How so? Real examples please. Not pseudo examples, but real examples please.
Can you please (and I hope you can) give me one example of a voter ID law that wasn't opposed?

Voter ID laws are in place in 33 states. Federally, the Help America Vote Act implemented a voter ID requirement for those who could not provide a drivers license number or SS number.

Laws in Ohio, Kansas, Texas, NC and Wisconsin have already had sections overturned, largely because they disproportionately targeted minority communities by severely limiting the types of acceptable ID, while providing no freely available alternatives issued by the state. In the case of NC, the ruling explicitly said the law targeted blacks and attempted to suppress the vote.

In other words, the vast majority of voter ID initiatives are successful and supported by the public through their legislature. It is only when the Republicans try to suppress the vote that people get really riled up about it.

[DGUtley]

if the ID itself is free, but requires the voter to produce a lot of documentation that will practically cost them time and money to procure, then the ID isn't really free, and the burden of time and money will certainly be a greater burden on folks who don't have a lot of either.

Agree, except that I don't know what 'practically cost them time and money' means. Voter ID should require a reasonable ID. Nothing more, nothing less.

[DGUtley]

Voter ID laws are in place in 33 states. Federally, the Help America Vote Act implemented a voter ID requirement for those who could not provide a drivers license number or SS number. Laws in Ohio, Kansas, Texas, NC and Wisconsin have already had sections overturned, largely because they disproportionately targeted minority communities by severely limiting the types of acceptable ID, while providing no freely available alternatives issued by the state. In the case of NC, the ruling explicitly said the law targeted blacks and attempted to suppress the vote. In other words, the vast majority of voter ID initiatives are successful and supported by the public through their legislature. It is only when the Republicans try to suppress the vote that people get really riled up about it.

The HAVA's voter ID requirements apply only to voters who are newly registering or re-registering in a different county or location since that time. This has nothing to do with a Voter ID law for all voters. I haven't tracked the ID litigation, but I'm aware of it. If the courts are reasonably finding the ID requirement too tight, then I agree. This, to me, isn't rocket science -- we need a photo ID for so many things, let's be reasonable on it. The goal is that people that are legally able to vote can vote.

Be careful on 'supported by the public through their legislature' -- all of these bills pass the legislatures. I fully support a voter ID law, as does the SC. Let's agree on a list of reasonable ID's. Let's not disenfranchise anyone. As for the time-frame and hours of voting - a different thread.

[Tahuyaman]

Democrats will never support anything which ensures elections are protected from fraud. Not because of national,elections either. They need to ensure they are able to maintain control over cities and counties.

They will support anything which makes it easier for anyone and that means anyone to walk into any polling place and vote. Even if that person is a foreign national.

[Newpublius]

MORE THAN A BILLION VOTES: 31 CASES OF VOTER FRAUD (http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/10/16/1583223/-MORE-THAN-A-BILLION-VOTES-31-CASES-OF-VOTER-FRAUD)

Donald Trump continues to rage at the totally unsupported claim that this presidential election is “rigged.” He persistently warns his true believers that there will be massive voter fraud that will cheat him of his victory on November 8th. Not that actual evidence matters to Mr. Mendacity, but let us not forget the massive study by Professor Justin Levitt at Loyola University of the actual incidences of voter fraud from 2000 to 2014. According to Levitt, there were only 31 cases of voter impersonation fraud during those years. There were more than a billion votes cast. Actual voter fraud is almost unheard of in the United States.

Source: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/10/16/1583223/-MORE-THAN-A-BILLION-VOTES-31-CASES-OF-VOTER-FRAUD


What's 31/1000000000?



'voter impersonation fraud' ie I show up and say I am John Smith, even though I am not, which would be ballsy for a number of reasons not the least of which is John Smith might be there, the poll workers might actually know John Smith. You're right, that isn't the problem.

[Subdermal]

As it happens, I support voter ID laws. It is a reasonable expectation and every other modern country does it. Voter IDs should be funded by the taxpayer and given out at no additional charge to citizens.

That said, do I think voter fraud is particularly damaging at this time? Nope. Not at all. While you have spewed much in your post, it is, as per usual, totally lacking any substance. You simply are not capable of making a rational argument.

:facepalm:

Whatever you say, leftist hack. I'm sure you're screaming at the top of your lungs against your fellow leftists over the Voter ID issue. Sure. Mighty convenient for you, isn't it? Like a leftist who figures out if a pet leftist issue is in any danger in Congress before they determine that they can safely oppose the pet issue in order to save face with their voters. Continuing dishonesty on your part to claim you're in favor of Voter ID, and then do absolutely nothing to compel your fellow leftist hacks.

On the one hand, clowns on the left claim EVEN ONE "disenfranchised voter" is enough to oppose Voter ID, and then - in a hilarious display of hypocrisy - claim that "there isn't enough fraud to worry about".

Uh huh. Hack.

[Subdermal]

if the ID itself is free, but requires the voter to produce a lot of documentation that will practically cost them time and money to procure, then the ID isn't really free, and the burden of time and money will certainly be a greater burden on folks who don't have a lot of either.

Oh look. A hack who makes just exactly that sort of argument.

Oh yeah: these "disenfranchised voters" who "don't have a lot of time or money" (ostensibly because they're working their ass off 100 hours a week, and that's why they have nothing *guffaw*) can't possibly secure an ID.

But they need one to cash their AFDC check. :facepalm:

[FindersKeepers]

if the ID itself is free, but requires the voter to produce a lot of documentation that will practically cost them time and money to procure, then the ID isn't really free, and the burden of time and money will certainly be a greater burden on folks who don't have a lot of either.


That's why I said the expenses should be covered.

[Newpublius]

if the ID itself is free, but requires the voter to produce a lot of documentation that will practically cost them time and money to procure, then the ID isn't really free, and the burden of time and money will certainly be a greater burden on folks who don't have a lot of either.

And yet anybody working has to provide sufficient proof of the right to work here. Now that leaves those who aren't working, basically the poor and the old. If they're poor, they're on Medicaid and are capable of proving citizenship to Medicaid and a photo there ends that issue and if they're old they might jave their licenses expire eventually so stick a picture on the Medicare card.

Call it a day, copy and paste Indiana's law and maybe understand why the issue isn't voter fraud, its whether people perceive that elections are free and fair.

Consistently arguing against voter ID makes me believe they are not.

Now you can argue that until your bkue on the face but what you can't argue is whethet I believe in the government because I am here to tell you, I really don't.

So you better start thinking up ways to bolster the government's credibikity because I don't fucking believe them.

[exploited]

:facepalm:

Whatever you say, leftist hack. I'm sure you're screaming at the top of your lungs against your fellow leftists over the Voter ID issue. Sure. Mighty convenient for you, isn't it? Like a leftist who figures out if a pet leftist issue is in any danger in Congress before they determine that they can safely oppose the pet issue in order to save face with their voters. Continuing dishonesty on your part to claim you're in favor of Voter ID, and then do absolutely nothing to compel your fellow leftist hacks.

On the one hand, clowns on the left claim EVEN ONE "disenfranchised voter" is enough to oppose Voter ID, and then - in a hilarious display of hypocrisy - claim that "there isn't enough fraud to worry about".

Uh huh. Hack.

You really are losing it dude. Relax, it is just one election. In four years you'll be able to vote for whatever moron you want again.

I have always supported electoral reform. I post about it here whenever it comes up.

[maineman]

Now you can argue that until your blue on the face but what you can't argue is whethet I believe in the government because I am here to tell you, I really don't.

So you better start thinking up ways to bolster the government's credibility because I don't fucking believe them.

why would I give a rat's ass about YOUR confidence in the credibility of the government? Really. That's YOUR problem, not mine.

[maineman]

and I know that my own father, long since deceased, who was a world traveler, big league attorney, and a former Illinois State legislator, in his later years gave up driving, so his license had expired. He gave up traveling and let his passport expire. He did not own a photo ID. Not one. He had zero need for one, ever. He had voted at the same polling place for decades. Everyone in town knew him. If someone had asked him to produce a photo ID, he would have asked them to show him the Illinois statute that required it. There was none. As long as one is already on a registry of voters in their town there still IS none. If someone told him he had to spend a dime out of pocket to prove his identity in order to exercise his right to vote he would have sued them.

[DGUtley]

why would I give a rat's ass about YOUR confidence in the credibility of the government? Really. That's YOUR problem, not mine.

Actually, it's our problem, isn't it? In 2010, a significant percentage of the American electorate stood up and said we lacked confidence in the governing rulers and the MSM and the pols stepped up and smacked us down. In 2016, a significant percentage of the American electorate stood up and again said we lacked confidence in the governing rulers and it appears that we're going to get smacked down again, if polls are to be believed.

At some point, you may not be able to slap us down. The feds govern at the will of the people. When the confidence of the people is lost, the feds will have lost the right to govern and then the feds will have to make a decision. It appears that even your candidate lacks the confidence of the masses, just less so than ours. You might want to care at some point. Just saying....

[DGUtley]

and I know that my own father, long since deceased, who was a world traveler, big league attorney, and a former Illinois State legislator, in his later years gave up driving, so his license had expired. He gave up traveling and let his passport expire. He did not own a photo ID. Not one. He had zero need for one, ever. He had voted at the same polling place for decades. Everyone in town knew him. If someone had asked him to produce a photo ID, he would have asked them to show him the Illinois statute that required it. There was none. As long as one is already on a registry of voters in their town there still IS none. If someone told him he had to spend a dime out of pocket to prove his identity in order to exercise his right to vote he would have sued them.

And I have voted in the same precinct for 27 years. I walk in each and every election and they say: Hi, Mr. Utley, can we see your ID. I gladly pull it out and show it to them. They look at my ID and cross check it to the list, check it off and then I go vote. It's been that way for 27 years. I don't remember how we did it in Cleveland, that was a long time ago.

[Newpublius]

and I know that my own father, long since deceased, who was a world traveler, big league attorney, and a former Illinois State legislator, in his later years gave up driving, so his license had expired. He gave up traveling and let his passport expire. He did not own a photo ID. Not one. He had zero need for one, ever. He had voted at the same polling place for decades. Everyone in town knew him. If someone had asked him to produce a photo ID, he would have asked them to show him the Illinois statute that required it. There was none. As long as one is already on a registry of voters in their town there still IS none. If someone told him he had to spend a dime out of pocket to prove his identity in order to exercise his right to vote he would have sued them.

Excellent point and this why Medicare cards should have pictures, not a reason we shouldn't have voter ID

[maineman]

Excellent point and this why Medicare cards should have pictures, not a reason we shouldn't have voter ID

If you could find a way to give every registered voter an ID totally free of cost, I wouldn't object.

[decedent]

'voter impersonation fraud' ie I show up and say I am John Smith, even though I am not, which would be ballsy for a number of reasons not the least of which is John Smith might be there, the poll workers might actually know John Smith.

That awkward moment.

https://i.imgflip.com/1cmk1t.jpg

[maineman]

and i have voted in the same precinct for 27 years. I walk in each and every election and they say: hi, mr. Utley, can we see your id. I gladly pull it out and show it to them. They look at my id and cross check it to the list, check it off and then i go vote. It's been that way for 27 years. I don't remember how we did it in cleveland, that was a long time ago.ymmv

[Newpublius]

That awkward moment.

https://i.imgflip.com/1cmk1t.jpg

Its not about voters committing fraud its about politicians, the ones who we are handing the key to the cookie jar to who are unquestionably cheating. I mean, I have to presume that between playing fair and cheating, that they're lying scumbags and will cheat if they can get away with it because that's who they are st their core.

[AZ Jim]

When I first got a drivers license in California early 50's they didn't take pictures, just a thumb print which appeared on your drivers license. With today's technology it would be fast and accurate method of Identification. Work on the details. You cannot fool Thumbprints.

[Bethere]

When I first got a drivers license in California early 50's they didn't take pictures, just a thumb print which appeared on your drivers license. With today's technology it would be fast and accurate method of Identification. Work on the details. You cannot fool Thumbprints.

But how can our heroic patriot role models tell without a picture if you are black or not?