Voter Fraud

[carlfense]

Yes, I am concerned about legal voters being taken off of the list so let's work together to prevent that from happening. Saying "don't do anything because it's not a big problem" doesn't work for me.

But you're willing to make huge changes and enact barriers to voting even though you can't even show that it's a problem? Do you see how ridiculous that sounds?

 

Obviously it wasn't a big deterrent for ACORN.

What exactly are you referring to?

[Undone]

so, in regards to the treason example; it would be like if the gov't decided to warrant-less wiretap all american's citizens foreign communications, under the ruse of preventing treason. only, the ulterior motive is more clear in the case of voter id laws.

 

This is actually a pretty good hypothetical comparison. Not entirely parallel - because the wiretapping would also basically be a fourth amendment violation, which is not in the voter ID card discussion.

 

People on both sides of this debate have to agree that there are two different issues here. If you can't see them both, then you've got your extra thick prescription strength Emotional Filter glasses on. The two issues are:

 

1. Common sense

 

2. Principle

 

In principle, yes - having reasonable methods to ID a registered, qualified voter is legitimate. But if the actual data for past fraud can't warrant the proposed measures, why do it?

 

Personally, I'd be opposed to it in my state (Nebraska) specifically because it would cost me, the taxpayer, money. And if it doesn't pass the common sense test above, that would really piss me off.

[carlfense]

so, in regards to the treason example; it would be like if the gov't decided to warrant-less wiretap all american's citizens foreign communications, under the ruse of preventing treason. only, the ulterior motive is more clear in the case of voter id laws.

 

This is actually a pretty good hypothetical comparison. Not entirely parallel - because the wiretapping would also basically be a fourth amendment violation, which is not in the voter ID card discussion.

 

People on both sides of this debate have to agree that there are two different issues here. If you can't see them both, then you've got your extra thick prescription strength Emotional Filter glasses on. The two issues are:

 

1. Common sense

 

2. Principle

 

In principle, yes - having reasonable methods to ID a registered, qualified voter is legitimate. But if the actual data for past fraud can't warrant the proposed measures, why do it?

 

Personally, I'd be opposed to it in my state (Nebraska) specifically because it would cost me, the taxpayer, money. And if it doesn't pass the common sense test above, that would really piss me off.

Good post. +1

[sd'sker]

so, in regards to the treason example; it would be like if the gov't decided to warrant-less wiretap all american's citizens foreign communications, under the ruse of preventing treason. only, the ulterior motive is more clear in the case of voter id laws.

 

This is actually a pretty good hypothetical comparison. Not entirely parallel - because the wiretapping would also basically be a fourth amendment violation, which is not in the voter ID card discussion.

 

People on both sides of this debate have to agree that there are two different issues here. If you can't see them both, then you've got your extra thick prescription strength Emotional Filter glasses on. The two issues are:

 

1. Common sense

 

2. Principle

 

In principle, yes - having reasonable methods to ID a registered, qualified voter is legitimate. But if the actual data for past fraud can't warrant the proposed measures, why do it?

 

Personally, I'd be opposed to it in my state (Nebraska) specifically because it would cost me, the taxpayer, money. And if it doesn't pass the common sense test above, that would really piss me off.

agreed completely. i tried to think of a better paralleled example, but could not come up with one; but here was my formula: little to no threat, extreme measures, ulterior motive, (and to take it further, the ulterior motive is to facilitate the perceived threat it announced to combat. as in, voter fraud is a perceived threat to democracy, so we are going to make it harder to vote to preserve said democracy).

[Ziggy]

Do you think a non union worker should be able to vote in a union election? Should a republican be able to vote in the Democratic Convention?

 

And disenfranchising voters has been going on long before voter ID laws has come into popularity. The percent of eligible voters who actually vote, is between 50% to 60%, and that's in presidential elections, in off years we are lucky to hit 40%, actually we haven't done that since 1970. If we can not prove to Americans that we are going to every length possible to prevent election fraud, people will continue to believe that their vote doesn't matter.

[carlfense]

If we can not prove to Americans that we are going to every length possible to prevent election fraud, people will continue to believe that their vote doesn't matter.

What? We should enact barriers to voting so that people know that their votes matter?

[Undone]

If we can not prove to Americans that we are going to every length possible to prevent election fraud, people will continue to believe that their vote doesn't matter.

 

Every length possible? Try this on for size:

 

Acquiring a voter ID card requires getting a blood draw that is then processed by a ridiculously expensive machine that stores your DNA signature on file in your local precinct. But to get the blood drawn, you have to show up with a triple-notarized copy of your birth certificate (which is then filed in triplicate). The birth certificate and notary stamps are verified by local government employees. Then you can show up for the blood draw once this has been verified.

 

You show up to vote with your handy voter ID card. But wait! More blood has to drawn on site at the polling place to match your voter ID to the blood sample on file, which is also incredibly expensive, not to mention time consuming.

 

That might qualify going to "every length possible." Should we do that? Are you afraid that your vote won't count unless you do?

 

No, you aren't. Because you used common sense to arrive at your decision.

[BigRedBuster]

I'm fine with voter ID if . . . and only if . . . it's free and easily available. Also, I cannot in good conscience support it for this election cycle. The election is 7 weeks away. There just isn't time.

to your point:

 

Twenty Hours of Work & Two Trips To The DMV: What It Takes To Get Voter ID In Pennsylvania

 

 

 

 

ABC News interviewed one man who was struggling to navigate his 87-year-old mother through the burdensome process:

Voters who have the six types of documents necessary to apply for the state ID card have limited time to apply.

For residents of 13 counties, there is only one day per week that the DMV is open to apply for an ID. And in 10 more counties it’s only open two days per week.

For Klincewicz and his 87-year-old mother that limited schedule meant

two days of trying in order to get her the ID required to vote, after she mistakenly surrendered her state ID because of a Department of Transportation error

. Klincewicz’s wife had to make two trips to the DMV where she and her mother-in-law, Jisele, waited upwards of four hours to get the ID. All told,

he and his wife spent more than 20 hours making phone calls, writing emails, driving to the DMV and waiting in lines to get his mother’s ID reinstated so she could vote in November,

Klincewicz said.

 

So, let's fix that problem instead of throwing the entire effort out the window.

are you serious? this is a ruse to disenfranchise voters. how have you been convinced that this is some noble goal to protect democracy? it is so transparent and corrupt it is disgusting. and you have been convinced to defend this assault on decency and democracy? i do not even know what to say.

 

you mentioned treason earlier, for some inane reason. i will use the treason example again. treason is not a problem, but there should still be treason laws. voter fraud is not a problem, but there still should be laws to punish voter fraud. however, the government is using the fabricated specter of voter fraud to disenfranchise possibly millions of voters. there is to proportionality to the law or the problem. so, in regards to the treason example; it would be like if the gov't decided to warrant-less wiretap all american's citizens foreign communications, under the ruse of preventing treason. only, the ulterior motive is more clear in the case of voter id laws.

 

 

And you obviously don't see any problem with illegal people voting or dead people voting or people voting multiple times.

 

I have read back through my posts and can not find anywhere I mention "treason". Can you point to what you are talking about?

[carlfense]

And you obviously don't see any problem with illegal people voting or dead people voting or people voting multiple times.

Show us that this happens on anything but an EXTREMELY rare basis.

 

If you can't show that there is voter fraud then you can't show that we need to act.

 

It's an extremely simple concept and I'm baffled why people can't or won't understand it. Set aside any thoughts of partisanship and think about it carefully. Why try to find solutions to a problem that doesn't exist?

[BigRedBuster]

And, I have asked multiple times what mechanism is in place to catch it and not once has anyone showed me how that is done.

[knapplc]

And, I have asked multiple times what mechanism is in place to catch it and not once has anyone showed me how that is done.

 

 

CLICK ME

[carlfense]

And, I have asked multiple times what mechanism is in place to catch it and not once has anyone showed me how that is done.

Look it up. Figure something out. Assemble the facts and present an argument.

 

Until then . . . these disenfranchising efforts are a solution in search of a problem.

[BigRedBuster]

And, I have asked multiple times what mechanism is in place to catch it and not once has anyone showed me how that is done.

 

 

CLICK ME

 

Oh...isn't that cute.

 

I find it interesting that I have scanned through probably the first 6-8 links brought up by your search and nowhere in those links does it point to the specific mechanism in place to catch voter fraud.

 

But, of course I will keep looking through this. I find it interesting that I have asked this to various people and tried looking it up on line and nowhere can I find a specific mechanism in place that will catch me if I try to vote under a dead person's name.

[BigRedBuster]

This is like if we would put blind refs on the football field and then claim there wasn't any penalties because no flags were thrown.

[carlfense]

This is like if we would put blind refs on the football field and then claim there wasn't any penalties because no flags were thrown.

Maybe . . . if you'd add in that we need to prevent people from playing football because of all of the penalties.