Voter ID Fun

[zitothebrave]

With several states in the last week or so pushing for voter ID laws. Will make for some fun things coming up.

One thing that will now have to change is those Voter ID states will lose house seats

Section 2 of the 14th Amendment

"Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State."

Obviously later amendments covered women and the voting age to 18.

So now states with Voter ID laws will have to change their apportion to number of citizens who can legally be able to vote to the people who have a proper state ID. Would be awesome if Texas and Florida lost a lot of house seats in 2020. I presume that they'll have to wait for the census to do that.

[BravesBlock]

I don't see why the outrage over having to provide a state issued drivers license in order to vote. Personally I think that every person should have to provide finger prints and a DNA sample while obtaining the requires state identification but that is for another thread. Having to provide identification will certainly reduce voter fraud. And of course people that cannot afford to purchase an ID should be provided one by the state.

[zitothebrave]

I don't see why the outrage over having to provide a state issued drivers license in order to vote. Personally I think that every person should have to provide finger prints and a DNA sample while obtaining the requires state identification but that is for another thread. Having to provide identification will certainly reduce voter fraud. And of course people that cannot afford to purchase an ID should be provided one by the state.

Are you also gonna provide transportation for those people to get their license?

Basically I'm against it because it's a big ass waste of money for somethat's not really a problem.

For example, in Ohio there were 5.6 Million people who voted. A swing state, in that swing state there were 625 irregularities, only 135 of them were referrals for further investigation. Look at the irregularities indicates that maybe there's a less than a thousandth of a percentage of a problem in one of the most liekly states ot have voter fraud.

To me there's a much bigger problem with voter disenfranchisement than there is of voter fraud, and wasting our money on the latter is stupid, JMO.

[57Brave]

I don't see why the outrage over having to provide a state issued drivers license in order to vote. Personally I think that every person should have to provide finger prints and a DNA sample while obtaining the requires state identification but that is for another thread. Having to provide identification will certainly reduce voter fraud. And of course people that cannot afford to purchase an ID should be provided one by the state.


Alright, you stepped in it.
What voter fraud?

[ESP47]

I don't see why the outrage over having to provide a state issued drivers license in order to vote. Personally I think that every person should have to provide finger prints and a DNA sample while obtaining the requires state identification but that is for another thread. Having to provide identification will certainly reduce voter fraud. And of course people that cannot afford to purchase an ID should be provided one by the state.

Just for sharts and giggles, go ahead and make a thread about this.

[Julio3000]

Are you also gonna provide transportation for those people to get their license?

Basically I'm against it because it's a big ass waste of money for somethat's not really a problem.

For example, in Ohio there were 5.6 Million people who voted. A swing state, in that swing state there were 625 irregularities, only 135 of them were referrals for further investigation. Look at the irregularities indicates that maybe there's a less than a thousandth of a percentage of a problem in one of the most liekly states ot have voter fraud.

To me there's a much bigger problem with voter disenfranchisement than there is of voter fraud, and wasting our money on the latter is stupid, JMO.

This.

I'm skeptical of (and disheartened by) efforts to make it harder to vote. Seems antithetical to democracy, no?

[Yogi44]

My problem is the same people complaining about having to produce an id, have no problem being required to show one in order to buy beer or liquor. Most, even senior citizens are required to show ID at a doctors office. So if proving I am who I say I am stops any thought of voter fraud, then I have no problem with it. While fraud may not be rampant, it does exist as evidenced by the last election where the lady admitted to casting votes three times for other people (IIRC it was Illinois).

[Tapate50]

My problem is the same people complaining about having to produce an id, have no problem being required to show one in order to buy beer or liquor. Most, even senior citizens are required to show ID at a doctors office. So if proving I am who I say I am stops any thought of voter fraud, then I have no problem with it. While fraud may not be rampant, it does exist as evidenced by the last election where the lady admitted to casting votes three times for other people (IIRC it was Illinois).

It usually is.

[Julio3000]

My problem is the same people complaining about having to produce an id, have no problem being required to show one in order to buy beer or liquor. Most, even senior citizens are required to show ID at a doctors office. So if proving I am who I say I am stops any thought of voter fraud, then I have no problem with it. While fraud may not be rampant, it does exist as evidenced by the last election where the lady admitted to casting votes three times for other people (IIRC it was Illinois).

Um, it's not rampant but it does exist? Care to fill us in on how common it is?

[jpx7]

Personally I think that every person should have to provide finger prints and a DNA sample while obtaining the require[d] state identification but that is for another thread.

Your politics are extremely frightening.

[gilesfan]

Someone explain to me the problem with having someone prove who they are when voting?

[57Brave]

In my state I have to show a voter registration card.

Some of the tactics of the vote suppressors have been:
passing laws less than a year before an election ----
then
registration offices inaccessible to people without cars that rely on public transportation -
another issue has been the hours of operation of registering offices -
in some state one has to produce a birth certificate. In the rural south during Jim Crow a plenty number of the population did not get birth certificates --
a number of these laws passed are flat out unconstitutional. By the time it goes through the judicial system the damage the vote suppressors intend has been done.

All under the guise of voter fraud. Which I've asked repeatedly over the past 5 years fellow board members to show evidence of and have yet to see the emergency propped up by (R) other than they cant win elections unless they gerrymander congressional districts leading to enacting laws that suppress vote. Most every time I get called a name or accused of being a troll but never been shown this rampant voter fraud they profess

Pretty sure when registering to vote a person is required to show ID.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////

This report:
http://www.salon.com/2013/08/08/vote_suppression_alleged_in_close_fla_election/
--
This law on the books since 2006: debunking right wing myth of people showing up willy nilly and voting. More of you need to educate yourselves before you type nonsense.
http://sos.georgia.gov/Gaphotoid/
http://sos.georgia.gov/Gaphotoid/

[weso1]

Someone explain to me the problem with having someone prove who they are when voting?

Basically the problem is that democrats can't cheat as much.

[Julio3000]

Someone explain to me the problem with having someone prove who they are when voting?

Poll access should be convenient, secure, and simple. A driver's license or state-issued photo ID is not necessary for the second and is potentially problematic for the other two, at least for the 10M+ people of voting age who don't have one. Other forms of ID should be adequate, particularly since in-person voter fraud is a non-issue.

If you'd rather see states spend hundreds of millions of dollars chasing a problem that doesn't exist, perhaps you should turn in your "I hate the inefficiency and intrusiveness of big government" card.

If a photo ID requirement seems like common sense to you, consider that broad and easy access to the vote, the cornerstone of democracy, seems like common sense to me.

[Julio3000]

Basically the problem is that democrats can't cheat as much.

Still waiting to hear about all of those cases of in-person vote fraud that photo-ID laws will solve.

[57Brave]

I'm still waiting for an answer ---

[weso1]

How would you know if there isn't a good method in place to catch it? In 1998 I'm sure MLB was saying... "Hey we don't have a steroid problem. Virtually nobody has been caught doing it." Well MLB, that's because you didn't have good enough testing to actually catch anyone doing it.

So for in person voter fraud you have to go to great lengths to figure out if someone is doing it. Something like this:

LINK (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/331572/there-no-voter-fraud-myth-takes-torpedo-john-fund)

Guys... here's the deal... If even one election in the US is lost because the other side cheated, then the process has been tainted. It's not just about national elections, but about local elections. I'm sure it's happened before and I'm sure it will happen again. Put away the liberal colored glasses for a second (we know you guys just want every single doofus in the world to vote because the doofuses lean liberal). Isn't real voter disenfranchisement when your vote truly doesn't count due to cheating? Even the most seemingly inconsequential elections like local judges can disenfranchise a person's vote if there is cheating.

And everyone will still have access to vote that is still allowed to vote in this country. That stuff is incredibly easy to solve. Even a made up story by crumpfish won't convince me otherwise.

[Julio3000]

How would you know if there isn't a good method in place to catch it? In 1998 I'm sure MLB was saying... "Hey we don't have a steroid problem. Virtually nobody has been caught doing it." Well MLB, that's because you didn't have good enough testing to actually catch anyone doing it.

So for in person voter fraud you have to go to great lengths to figure out if someone is doing it. Something like this:

LINK (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/331572/there-no-voter-fraud-myth-takes-torpedo-john-fund)

Guys... here's the deal... If even one election in the US is lost because the other side cheated, then the process has been tainted. It's not just about national elections, but about local elections. I'm sure it's happened before and I'm sure it will happen again. Put away the liberal colored glasses for a second (we know you guys just want every single doofus in the world to vote because the doofuses lean liberal). Isn't real voter disenfranchisement when your vote truly doesn't count due to cheating? Even the most seemingly inconsequential elections like local judges can disenfranchise a person's vote if there is cheating.

And everyone will still have access to vote that is still allowed to vote in this country. That stuff is incredibly easy to solve. Even a made up story by crumpfish won't convince me otherwise.

So, no actual cases? Even after the Bush Administration made it a law-enforcement priority? Don't show me how it could happen. Show me that it's happening.

Steroids are controlled substances, sure. In the US, anyway. Voter fraud is a felony. For pro athletes, the risk-reward equation is a bit different, don't you think?

There was no PED testing in MLB during those years. There ARE legal protections in place to protect the process of voting.

My interest is in seeing more people voting, and voting made as accessible as it can be. I'm very suspicious of the motivations of elected officials (and their water-carriers in the media) whose goal is to limit the franchise, or to make it harder to vote. I think that's an issue of fairness and civil rights, not ideology.

[weso1]

We all know the number of people that have actually been caught committing in person fraud is incredibly low. Maybe like 10 people or so in the last ten years. My argument though is that it's incredibly difficult to actually catch someone doing it. So we don't really have good data on how much it is really happening. I think you missed my point about steroids in baseball. It was about how it's very difficult to know when someone is using when you don't actually have a quality test for it. You know very well that there are many ideological weirdos out there that will risk prison time. Again, if the system is cheated even one time then that's a big blow to our process. And elections are much closer on the local level where the majority of cheating occurs. I agree that it's likely not really a problem on the national level.

I understand that some of these voter ID laws aren't good, and my argument would center around voter ID law that makes sure everyone can get an ID. Even allowing a person a pass to vote without an ID one time and then issue them an ID at the time of voting.

I will say that this is incredibly low on my priority list. Somewhere down there near the death penalty.

[BedellBrave]

If we had a benevolent monarchy we wouldn't have to deal with this crap.

[zitothebrave]

We all know the number of people that have actually been caught committing in person fraud is incredibly low. Maybe like 10 people or so in the last ten years. My argument though is that it's incredibly difficult to actually catch someone doing it. So we don't really have good data on how much it is really happening. I think you missed my point about steroids in baseball. It was about how it's very difficult to know when someone is using when you don't actually have a quality test for it. You know very well that there are many ideological weirdos out there that will risk prison time. Again, if the system is cheated even one time then that's a big blow to our process. And elections are much closer on the local level where the majority of cheating occurs. I agree that it's likely not really a problem on the national level.

I understand that some of these voter ID laws aren't good, and my argument would center around voter ID law that makes sure everyone can get an ID. Even allowing a person a pass to vote without an ID one time and then issue them an ID at the time of voting.

I will say that this is incredibly low on my priority list. Somewhere down there near the death penalty.

Or how about getting more people to care about the election? That's a novel idea!

Read my post above. If of the 5.6 Million votes in Ohio, only 625 were looked at for irregularities, don't you think this "epidemic" may not be a real problem.

Are you willing to waste hundreds of millions of dollars in tax money to solve something that isn't actually a problem? Seriously think about that. Like Julio said, anyone who's pro-voter ID law and proposes everyone should get one and it should be free, should hand in their small government card.

[weso1]

I've already argued about why there aren't more irregularities in regards to in person voting. How do you catch someone if your method of catching them stinks? Don't know that I've said anything about an epidemic. However, you don't think it's possible those 625 irregularities could have an effect on local elections? You're just looking at it on a macro scale. Some local elections are very close.

If there is a way to help prevent potential fraud while still maintaining a reasonable opportunity for every citizen to vote, then why not do it? You guys are only looking at voter disenfranchisement from one end of the spectrum here.

I'm not sure I buy your premise on cost. I'm guessing the cost really wouldn't be that much. Most folks already have driver's licences. It would probably just be like spitting in the ocean in the end. This is one of the duties of government, imo.

[sturg33]

I totally disagree with voter ID requirements.

What I would like to see happen, though, is for the ballots to remove the "D" and "R" next to candidate's names.

[zitothebrave]

I totally disagree with voter ID requirements.

What I would like to see happen, though, is for the ballots to remove the "D" and "R" next to candidate's names.

Would be fun.

I believe Jill Stein was talking about that last cycle.

[Tapate50]

Removing party affiliations would turn some elections on their ear. Especially in the rural areas. It may actually force people to educate themselves first! OMG!

[gilesfan]

Poll access should be convenient, secure, and simple. A driver's license or state-issued photo ID is not necessary for the second and is potentially problematic for the other two, at least for the 10M+ people of voting age who don't have one. Other forms of ID should be adequate, particularly since in-person voter fraud is a non-issue.

If you'd rather see states spend hundreds of millions of dollars chasing a problem that doesn't exist, perhaps you should turn in your "I hate the inefficiency and intrusiveness of big government" card.

If a photo ID requirement seems like common sense to you, consider that broad and easy access to the vote, the cornerstone of democracy, seems like common sense to me.

I don't see the issue with requiring some form of ID like a photo id, drivers license, etc. How does this make it that much tougher to vote? Really stressing about requiring someone to get an ID?

[Julio3000]

I don't see the issue with requiring some form of ID like a photo id, drivers license, etc. How does this make it that much tougher to vote? Really stressing about requiring someone to get an ID?

Whether or not you or I think it should be an issue, it is one.

[gilesfan]

Whether or not you or I think it should be an issue, it is one.

Well, if you don't care enough to get a photo ID, then you have no business voting.

[zitothebrave]

Well, if you don't care enough to get a photo ID, then you have no business voting.

So someone who's unable to make their way to the DMV because of physical or financial means shouldn't be allowed to vote?

I'm fine wit hVoter ID laws, will make for more fun when states lose house members and electoral votes and change their tune. I wonder if those states even considered that.

[Julio3000]

We all know the number of people that have actually been caught committing in person fraud is incredibly low. Maybe like 10 people or so in the last ten years. My argument though is that it's incredibly difficult to actually catch someone doing it. So we don't really have good data on how much it is really happening. I think you missed my point about steroids in baseball. It was about how it's very difficult to know when someone is using when you don't actually have a quality test for it. You know very well that there are many ideological weirdos out there that will risk prison time. Again, if the system is cheated even one time then that's a big blow to our process. And elections are much closer on the local level where the majority of cheating occurs. I agree that it's likely not really a problem on the national level.

I understand that some of these voter ID laws aren't good, and my argument would center around voter ID law that makes sure everyone can get an ID. Even allowing a person a pass to vote without an ID one time and then issue them an ID at the time of voting.

I will say that this is incredibly low on my priority list. Somewhere down there near the death penalty.

I see what you're saying, I think, I'm just not sure it's an adequate analogy, simply because those legal controls already exist and we already know that the problem is minimal. Fraud is more likely to exist at the administrative level or in absentee voting.

I do think that ease of voting/access to polls is a pretty big deal. For a country that values and promotes the superiority of our democratic system, we tend to make it harder to vote than it ought to be.

[Tapate50]

I see what you're saying, I think, I'm just not sure it's an adequate analogy, simply because those legal controls already exist and we already know that the problem is minimal. Fraud is more likely to exist at the administrative level or in absentee voting.

I do think that ease of voting/access to polls is a pretty big deal. For a country that values and promotes the superiority of our democratic system, we tend to make it harder to vote than it ought to be.

How is it hard to vote?

[Julio3000]

How is it hard to vote?

It may not be where you live. It isn't particularly difficult in my precinct, although wait times can be long in high-turnout elections. There are a lot of places where this isn't the case, though.
Lots of people don't have the luxury of taking hours away from work or family responsibilities in order to wait in line for hours. A lot of states have made early voting a possibility, which is a positive step.

[Tapate50]

It may not be where you live. It isn't particularly difficult in my precinct, although wait times can be long in high-turnout elections. There are a lot of places where this isn't the case, though.
Lots of people don't have the luxury of taking hours away from work or family responsibilities in order to wait in line for hours. A lot of states have made early voting a possibility, which is a positive step.

They have and it's fairly simple to vote absentee. It isn't like the date sneaks up on anyone. It's pretty easy. It takes me 10 minutes. Much of voting is anticipation...

[jpx7]

If we had a benevolent monarchy we wouldn't have to deal with this crap.

The problem with enlightened, benevolent monarchy is heredity: there's just no way to assure one's son (or daughter) isn't a crazy, syphilitic despot. As Machiavelli argues, the best prince in the one who organizes his state into the best possible republic, then abdicates his rule to the people.

[jpx7]

(we know you guys just want every single doofus in the world to vote because the doofuses lean liberal)

So the only voters who blindly and stupidly tow a party-line – the only "doofuses" in this country – are left-leaning?

[Julio3000]

They have and it's fairly simple to vote absentee. It isn't like the date sneaks up on anyone. It's pretty easy. It takes me 10 minutes. Much of voting is anticipation...

I usually volunteer on election day, so I vote absentee. Until recently, early voting was not an option where I live. It's a big improvement. It's not the only one that could be made. If we're going to spend money on elections, I'd prefer to see it spent on measures that enable people to vote, not establishing barriers that may disproportionately effect the already marginalized.

[weso1]

So the only voters who blindly and stupidly tow a party-line – the only "doofuses" in this country – are left-leaning?

Actually I meant to type the majority of doofuses lean left. And by doofuses I mean those who aren't really paying attention and typically won't vote unless Julio3000 carries them to the polling place.

I'm completely against the idea of trying to talk people into voting. I feel like if you need to be talked into it then you should probably just stay home.

[weso1]

Keep in mind that I mean the term "doofus" in the most loving way possible. I consider myself a doofus. My wife calls me doofus.

[weso1]

If we had a benevolent monarchy we wouldn't have to deal with this crap.

Sturg thinks we do. He thinks we've been electing the same person over and over again.

[Bj1133]

So someone who's unable to make their way to the DMV because of physical or financial means shouldn't be allowed to vote?

Yes and I'd question rather that person should even be allowed to breathe. Not exactly asking a whole lot there.

[zitothebrave]

Yes and I'd question rather that person should even be allowed to breathe. Not exactly asking a whole lot there.

Lovely sentiment. I'm sure my grandfather who's nearly blind would not agree with you.

[Bj1133]

Lovely sentiment. I'm sure my grandfather who's nearly blind would not agree with you.

I'm sure his caring grandson or another family member could get him there

[weso1]

I'm all for giving every US citizen a reasonable opportunity to vote regardless of cost. I really don't see why that means the government shouldn't try to prevent any potential fraud they can regardless of the cost. These 2 goals don't have to contradict each other. Simple compromise should be able to avoid contradiction.

Just another quick retort to the argument that in person voter fraud has been rare in the past... I would also argue that it doesn't matter. Before 9/11 happened terrorists had never successfully pulled off an attack close to that magnitude. Point being that just because it hasn't happened yet, doesn't mean it won't happen in the future. If the opportunity for in person fraud is there then why not try to preemptively squelch the potential conflagration? And again... consider local elections moreso than national elections.

I just feel that this is a key role of government and something money should be spent on.

[zitothebrave]

I'm sure his caring grandson or another family member could get him there

And if they have no transportation.

[Bj1133]

And if they have no transportation.

Bus, taxi, friends, neighbors, bike, 2 legs?

How are they going to get to the polling place to cast their vote? Use that same mode of transportation. Its really not that difficult.

[zitothebrave]

Bus, taxi, friends, neighbors, bike, 2 legs?

How are they going to get to the polling place to cast their vote? Use that same mode of transportation. Its really not that difficult.

Absentee ballot. You should maybe consider that not everyone has access to the polls that you do. Much less having access to get around other ways. I for example can easily walk to my polling place, not a problem, I drive so I have a license, to me voter ID isn't the slightest problem, but for many others it's a big problem. And laws shouldn't be made because they accomidate most people, especially laws involving voting, the most sacred right we have as Americans. Granted to us in the 14th Amendment any attempt to take that right will be punished.

[Bj1133]

Absentee ballot. You should maybe consider that not everyone has access to the polls that you do. Much less having access to get around other ways. I for example can easily walk to my polling place, not a problem, I drive so I have a license, to me voter ID isn't the slightest problem, but for many others it's a big problem. And laws shouldn't be made because they accomidate most people, especially laws involving voting, the most sacred right we have as Americans. Granted to us in the 14th Amendment any attempt to take that right will be punished.

I really could care less about voter ID's being required. I'm sure making them a requirement would benefit my type of political thinking (conservative), but it is hardly something that really irritates me. The inability to get to the DMV or where ever needed just seems like a really weak excuse to me.

[zitothebrave]

I really could care less about voter ID's being required. I'm sure making them a requirement would benefit my type of political thinking (conservative), but it is hardly something that really irritates me. The inability to get to the DMV or where ever needed just seems like a really weak excuse to me.

It really wouldn't benefit either side. It would take voters from both sides. It would disenfranchise some of the less into it voters. I have little doubt that there will be buses and things of that nature paid by the DNC and RNC to get people to the DMV. It's just not a law I want to see on the books, though I kind of hope some states are dumb enough to do it to see if Congress and the SC have the stones to follow the constitution.

I mean to me the Voter ID law will either be counterproductive in costs (meaning spending billions to fix a problem that doesn't exist) counterproductive in result (doing things like ship out ID forms still enabling voter fraud) or unconstitutional in direct violation of the 14th and 24th Amendments.

[acesfull86]

I don't know about other states, but when I voted in NY, I just needed to give a name and address then sign a book. The ladies volunteering there were all aged somewhere between 95-112. No one looked at the signature, and I know this because my signature was different from when I first voted 8 years prior and no one questioned it. Even if they did, I'm doubtful that these ladies were experts in the field of signature forgery and could spot the frauds out of thousands of voters. I could have gone back an hour later and voted for one of my non-voting friends. Could have gone back an hour after that and done it again. Not saying that it does happen, but the potential for it is there. It would be ridiculously easy to commit fraud. You wouldn't need to be some mastermind with an Ocean's Eleven style plan.

Not saying that providing a gov't ID would even be an improvement, but when I voted in 2012 I was taken aback at how loose everything was. This has nothing to do with left/right.

[zitothebrave]

I am pretty sure there are people who go over the books for irregularities. Sure there is an opportunity for fraud, but again I'm sure the issues of Fraud are one in a thousand if even inthat much.