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..._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

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

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.