Are you for Voter I.D. ?

[kyrider]

This is so great!

So, you still think no one should have to show i.d?

Link to original page on YouTube.

[shiroganeshinobi]

Originally Posted by kyrider

This is so great!

So, you still think no one should have to show i.d?

It's a great video because it shows the crime of performing voter fraud. If anything whoever videotaped it is in trouble if the state pursues an investigation. The video proves voter fraud can happen NOT that it occurs all the time as some may claim. They might as well just showed themselves robbing a bank to prove it can be done.

If you look at the below map, there is a surprising correlation to political affiliation if you think about it.

Also more Fox shenanigans.

[greenaero]

If you don't think voter fraud is widespread wait until you see the difference when it is actually allowed to be enforced. It is being opposed so vehemently because it would actually make it harder for non-citizens, dead people and non-existent people to continue stuff ballot boxes for the democrats. Just like enforcing our borders and immigration laws it makes too much sense. Before you call me a racist or a redneck , this is the opinion of a Mexican-American.

[FrugalNinja250]

Originally Posted by greenaero

If you don't think voter fraud is widespread wait until you see the difference when it is actually allowed to be enforced. It is being opposed so vehemently because it would actually make it harder for non-citizens, dead people and non-existent people to continue stuff ballot boxes for the democrats. Just like enforcing our borders and immigration laws it makes too much sense. Before you call me a racist or a redneck , this is the opinion of a Mexican-American.

As a democrat I find your post offensive, and it's obvious to me that it was intended to be so. I have lost all respect for you and have now added you to my ignore list. And for the record, I don't give a crap what your ethic background is, that's something we haven't really ever been concerned with.

[kyrider]

Originally Posted by shiroganeshinobi

It's a great video because it shows the crime of performing voter fraud. If anything whoever videotaped it is in trouble if the state pursues an investigation. The video proves voter fraud can happen NOT that it occurs all the time as some may claim. They might as well just showed themselves robbing a bank to prove it can be done.

If you look at the below map, there is a surprising correlation to political affiliation if you think about it.

Also more Fox shenanigans.

That means nothing!

You have to wonder why no one is claiming discrimination about having to show an I.D. for so many other things.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by greenaero

IBefore you call me a racist or a redneck , this is the opinion of a Mexican-American.

I wouldn't expect anyone to call you a racist or a redneck. In fact, I wouldn't expect anyone to take anything you have to say about your political views seriously enough to respond at all after that monumentally ill-informed rant.

Originally Posted by kyrider

You have to wonder why no one is claiming discrimination about having to show an I.D. for so many other things.

If you can't see the difference between a constitutionally protected right that cannot be infringed upon, and checking age restrictions while buying liquor or security requirements when boarding a plane, how could you expect anyone to bother to engage you on this either?

[kyrider]

Originally Posted by Alex

If you can't see the difference between a constitutionally protected right that cannot be infringed upon, and checking age restrictions while buying liquor or security requirements when boarding a plane, how could you expect anyone to bother to engage you on this either?

It amazes me how you on the left can rationalize this. No I take it back it is the M.O.A.

[Whiskey]

Originally Posted by Alex

If you can't see the difference between a constitutionally protected right that cannot be infringed upon, and checking age restrictions while buying liquor or security requirements when boarding a plane, how could you expect anyone to bother to engage you on this either?

Which is more important in the grand scheme of things, someone too young to drink having a beer, or someone deciding to cast hundreds or thousands of votes and possibly affecting the outcome of an election?

I have to show my passport or driver's licence to vote, along with the card sent out to my address & have my name crossed off a list before I'm handed my polling card.

No government issued photo id on the day = no vote
No voter card = no vote

The idea that vested interests are able to register thousands of people who do not exist and have them cast votes without their identity being checked seems like madness.

You have the right to vote, the state has the responsibility to make sure only people with the right to vote actually vote

[shiroganeshinobi]

Originally Posted by kyrider

That means nothing!

You have to wonder why no one is claiming discrimination about having to show an I.D. for so many other things.

Which means nothing, the link or my pic? Evasion is always a sigh of not grasping the issue presented or no counter argument. My pic just shows where we have voter id laws and the degree of id required. My inference of red states with the voting id laws is just my observation to link for critical thinkers aware of the big picture.

The link refutes the arguments presented such as "Oh well you need an ID to do this...." but I guess reading can be hard for most people because it's boring and long. If you dont like that link, here's another source which has a same link to the one I posted last year regarding the Brennan Center study.

Of course, if I cant appeal to your rationale then let me appeal to your emotion.

Portage County veteran, 86, doesn't vote after VA identification card rejected at polls

[shiroganeshinobi]

Originally Posted by Whiskey

Which is more important in the grand scheme of things, someone too young to drink having a beer, or someone deciding to cast hundreds or thousands of votes and possibly affecting the outcome of an election?

I have to show my passport or driver's licence to vote, along with the card sent out to my address & have my name crossed off a list before I'm handed my polling card.

No government issued photo id on the day = no vote
No voter card = no vote

The idea that vested interests are able to register thousands of people who do not exist and have them cast votes without their identity being checked seems like madness.

You have the right to vote, the state has the responsibility to make sure only people with the right to vote actually vote

The state also has the responsibility to make sure it does not discriminate against those with the right to vote. Depending on some states, I believe your passport isn't valid id. You need a state issued id.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by Whiskey

Which is more important in the grand scheme of things, someone too young to drink having a beer, or someone deciding to cast hundreds or thousands of votes and possibly affecting the outcome of an election?

That's a false choice, filled with inherent contradictions. It's not about more important or less important. One is a constitutional right, and one is not.

Originally Posted by Whiskey

The idea that vested interests are able to register thousands of people who do not exist and have them cast votes without their identity being checked seems like madness.

The idea that people still believe this widely happens after numerous investigations by administrations across the political spectrum concluding with certainty that it simply does not, also seems like madness.

Originally Posted by Whiskey

You have the right to vote, the state has the responsibility to make sure only people with the right to vote actually vote

Yes. But they also have the responsibility to not infringe on that right in ways that individually or collectively intentionally discriminate. The recent Voter ID laws can be kicked out pretty easily in some of the areas with the worst history of discrimination in our country that are specifically called out in the Voting Rights Act. Section 5 is pretty interesting reading that should make much of this discussion moot, but people have to read it first:

http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/vot/sec_5/about.php

Under Section 5, any change with respect to voting in a covered jurisdiction -- or any political subunit within it -- cannot legally be enforced unless and until the jurisdiction first obtains the requisite determination by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia or makes a submission to the Attorney General. This requires proof that the proposed voting change does not deny or abridge the right to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group

By that 47 year old law, it's not the federal government's responsibility to prove that changes to the voting laws are discriminatory. It's the covered area's responsibility to prove that the changes to the voting laws are not discriminatory.

[Xoulrath]

Originally Posted by Alex

By that 47 year old law, it's not the federal government's responsibility to prove that changes to the voting laws are discriminatory. It's the covered area's responsibility to prove that the changes to the voting laws are not discriminatory.

Which is fine, but i just don't see what the issue is in a state saying that they require ID to vote, so long as they make sure anyone who wishes to obtain an ID can get one, free of charge if necessary. Having an ID is just a smart thing to do for so many reasons, that using the old "but asking for ID is discriminatory" line just doesn't carry water with me.

I seriously believe that some people might really wish for the days of the poll tax, and that is sad. But I don't think everyone who believes in having to show ID to vote has bad intentions.

And while I have seen several studies that show that a very small number of people have been caught in voter fraud, the issue remains, "How many more get away with it?" I absolutely believe that voter fraud happens, but I simply haven't seen anything that really has a clue to the true scope, large or small, of the matter.

Truthfully, I believe so few citizens have even have a clue about any issues, much less one single issue, that I think it may be time to look into the state legislatures choose the President again. Though our entire political system is pretty corrupt. You've got a few people in there with genuine integrity and the rest are simply out to better their own lives.

I don't have time at the moment, but I will look at your link later on.

[massacremasses]

Originally Posted by shiroganeshinobi

Which means nothing, the link or my pic? Evasion is always a sigh of not grasping the issue presented or no counter argument. My pic just shows where we have voter id laws and the degree of id required. My inference of red states with the voting id laws is just my observation to link for critical thinkers aware of the big picture.

The link refutes the arguments presented such as "Oh well you need an ID to do this...." but I guess reading can be hard for most people because it's boring and long. If you dont like that link, here's another source which has a same link to the one I posted last year regarding the Brennan Center study.

Of course, if I cant appeal to your rationale then let me appeal to your emotion.

Portage County veteran, 86, doesn't vote after VA identification card rejected at polls

[kyrider]

This is the left once again trying to manipulate the system, Anyone who can remember Florida in 2000 can tell you just how precious a few votes can be or Minnesota in 2008.

No real reason one would be against voting after having to show your free i.d.

[Whiskey]

Originally Posted by Alex

That's a false choice, filled with inherent contradictions. It's not about more important or less important. One is a constitutional right, and one is not.

It's very clear to me, underage drinking is not an issue (The fact that at 18 you can be sent to Iraq/Afghanistan but can't buy a beer is crazy to me, but someone drinking underage is of no real importance) however someone being able to walk up to the polling station, claim to be whoever they like & be given a polling card with no questions asked undercuts democracy.

There was a war fought in Northern Ireland to get one man one vote brought in. This began about the same time as the civil rights issues in the Southern USA

Originally Posted by Alex

The idea that people still believe this widely happens after numerous investigations by administrations across the political spectrum concluding with certainty that it simply does not, also seems like madness.

Whether it happens in the USA or not who really knows without a way of checking?

Originally Posted by Alex

Yes. But they also have the responsibility to not infringe on that right in ways that individually or collectively intentionally discriminate. The recent Voter ID laws can be kicked out pretty easily in some of the areas with the worst history of discrimination in our country that are specifically called out in the Voting Rights Act. Section 5 is pretty interesting reading that should make much of this discussion moot, but people have to read it first:

http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/vot/sec_5/about.php



By that 47 year old law, it's not the federal government's responsibility to prove that changes to the voting laws are discriminatory. It's the covered area's responsibility to prove that the changes to the voting laws are not discriminatory.

Who exactly is discriminated against by asking them to produce ID?
Discrimination is singling out one person or a group of people on the grounds of race, background, gender ect...
If a policy is applied across the board it is not discriminatory.



The only people that requiring an ID to vote discriminates against are people who have something to hide and are not who they say they are.

How much more do you think it costs to have the person who hands out polling cards check a driver's licence before handing you your polling card?
(Assuming that they don't just have a stack of polling cards for you to take one on the honour system... )


Please pardon my ignorance, but how in the green states on the map is a photo ID required "within a few days after" applied?

[Alex]

Originally Posted by Whiskey

Whether it happens in the USA or not who really knows without a way of checking?

The assumption that the Voter ID laws being proposed are the only method to check for voter fraud is a false one.

Originally Posted by Whiskey

Who exactly is discriminated against by asking them to produce ID?
Discrimination is singling out one person or a group of people on the grounds of race, background, gender ect...
If a policy is applied across the board it is not discriminatory.

That's not the full story. If the expected outcome of a policy will result in portion of the public with a constitutional right to a vote, casting significantly less ballots due to a change in the voting laws, it's by definition discriminatory. Across the board has nothing to do with discrimination or not. Applying a $10 fee to all voters would be fair, equal, and blatantly discriminatory, for example.

Originally Posted by Whiskey

The only people that requiring an ID to vote discriminates against are people who have something to hide and are not who they say they are.

Sure. Just like anyone who fights for privacy rights must be doing something illegal.

Originally Posted by Whiskey

How much more do you think it costs to have the person who hands out polling cards check a driver's licence before handing you your polling card?
(Assuming that they don't just have a stack of polling cards for you to take one on the honour system... )

And for those without driver's licenses....

Originally Posted by Whiskey

Please pardon my ignorance, but how in the green states on the map is a photo ID required "within a few days after" applied?

Good question, I'd be interested to know that as well.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by Xoulrath

Which is fine, but i just don't see what the issue is in a state saying that they require ID to vote, so long as they make sure anyone who wishes to obtain an ID can get one, free of charge if necessary.

If the implementation of the voter ID laws was as clear as you've stated, and there were no additional inherent impediments to certain classes of legal voters, this would be a much less significant issue. But it's not.

[Xoulrath]

Read your link Alex. It was a long one. More or less what I thought it would be. No discrimination of voters since it is a constitutionally protected right to me is a no-brainer.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by Xoulrath

No discrimination of voters since it is a constitutionally protected right to me is a no-brainer.

I'm not sure what you mean here, can you clarify?

(I really don't know if you mean that the law is clear and you believe these new proposals are in accordance with the law, is that the case?)

[shiroganeshinobi]

Originally Posted by kyrider

This is the left once again trying to manipulate the system, Anyone who can remember Florida in 2000 can tell you just how precious a few votes can be or Minnesota in 2008.

No real reason one would be against voting after having to show your free i.d.

What free id? You mean the one a state can provide based off MY TAXES? What your brain fails to grasp, is that a free state ID has to be provided through taxes (ie wasteful spending because voter fraud occurs habitually is a myth). The right cannot produce any evidence because there isn't any. So how to make something true if it's a lie? Keep repeating it over and over.

Also in order to receive said free ID, you must provide a valid form of ID accepted by the state . So in this case, passport, veteran IDs, college IDs, and various other forms of photo ID may not be accepted. So if you lost your SS card or birth certificate, you are paying to get one, and in this case paying to vote. Hence the argument of the poll tax.

So you're asking who does this affect/discriminate against? The hints have been dropped in the links I provided but again for the lazy people, I'll drop this dot. It's the base who usually doesn't vote republican. That's what my inference with the map was about.

For those asking about what does that green state mean

Strict Photo ID: Voters must show a photo ID in order to vote. Voters who are unable to show photo ID at the polls are permitted to vote a provisional ballot, which is counted only if the voter returns to election officials within several days after the election to show a photo ID. At the beginning of 2011, there were just two states--Georgia and Indiana--with strict photo ID laws. Six states passed strict photo ID laws in 2011, although four are not currently in effect (see the notes below Table 1 for more information regarding effective dates for new legislation). That leaves four states with strict photo ID laws currently in effect.

Originally Posted by Xoulrath

And while I have seen several studies that shows that a very small number of people have been caught in voter fraud, the issue remains, "How many more get away with it?" I absolutely believe that voter fraud happens, but I simply haven't seen anything that really has a clue to the true scope, large or small, of the matter.

This is the wrong question to ask because the study show it doesn't occur enough. If you are confusing voter registration with voter fraud you need to look at the study. The right wing likes to play those word games. It's same with pay no taxes, then cite income taxes graph.

[kyrider]

Whats is the worst that can happen if we give free i.d's and you have to show them to vote? Whats the worst that could happen if there is no checks to see if the voter is valid?

This is not rocket surgery.

Show I.D. vote and God Bless the U.S.A!

[Xoulrath]

Alex, I was just referencing the 15th Amendment and it allowing all citizens, regardless of race, creed, national origin, religion, etc., being allowed to vote should be a no-brainer. The 15th Amendment was drafted specifically to allow black males, who up to that point were slaves, the right to vote. Of course, the Democrats used any number of tricks, like the poll tax, to make sure that didn't happen. Hence the no discrimination sentence, which looking at it now, does look sloppy and incoherent. I hope this is more clear.

Anyone who has a basic understanding of U.S. history should know this, but then again, I give people more credit than I probably should. So, if one wants to implement a "Show ID to Vote" in one's state, then it should be obvious that people below a certain threshold should be given the ID free of charge. I don't have a problem with my tax dollars being used that way, as they should have an ID anyway.

[sombo]

Originally Posted by shiroganeshinobi

Wait wait wait...... you actually believe a report from a "multi-year investigation" into voter fraud done by the Bush administration? The joke is most certainly on you then.

[kyrider]

Hmmmmm

Georgia actually had record turnout after voter I.D. laws.

[massacremasses]

Originally Posted by sombo

Wait wait wait...... you actually believe a report from a "multi-year investigation" into voter fraud done by the Bush administration? The joke is most certainly on you then.

believable only when it suits him....

[Whiskey]

Originally Posted by Alex

The assumption that the Voter ID laws being proposed are the only method to check for voter fraud is a false one.

I would guess that it is the cheapest & easiest implemented method

Originally Posted by Alex

That's not the full story. If the expected outcome of a policy will result in portion of the public with a constitutional right to a vote, casting significantly less ballots due to a change in the voting laws, it's by definition discriminatory. Across the board has nothing to do with discrimination or not. Applying a $10 fee to all voters would be fair, equal, and blatantly discriminatory, for example.

True, however showing an ID costs nothing, I'm from a country where you need an ID to get a job or to get state benefits, but where parts of the system is so badly lacking that certain groups can abuse the system with impunity. I'm all for biometric ID's to cut that sort of activity.

Originally Posted by Alex

Sure. Just like anyone who fights for privacy rights must be doing something illegal.

Nothing against personal privacy, I don't see it being an invasion of privacy if you are asked to show an ID when going to vote. Is it an invasion of privacy when you are asked to show an ID while exercising your 2nd amendment rights by buying a handgun?

Originally Posted by Alex

And for those without driver's licenses....

I used driver's licence as an example, there are other forms of ID.

Originally Posted by Alex

Good question, I'd be interested to know that as well.

[Alex]

I fixed the quotes in your post to make it easier to follow - hit edit to see where the tags go if you'd want to do that going forward.

Originally Posted by Whiskey

Nothing against personal privacy, I don't see it being an invasion of privacy if you are asked to show an ID when going to vote.

That wasn't my point. You brought up the same incorrect statement that kyrider did when starting this thread, that anyone who wasn't for voter ID laws was in favor of fraud:

Originally Posted by Whiskey

The only people that requiring an ID to vote discriminates against are people who have something to hide and are not who they say they are.

and

Originally Posted by kyrider

I disagree and think if you are against voter I.D. you must be for voter fraud.

The clear analogy to point out why this is wrongheaded was the privacy vs. surveillance issue. Just because one values privacy doesn't mean one is committing a crime.

[massacremasses]

i dont see how this is a privacy issue. However when it comes down to it is it worth extra tax payer dollars? idk... probably not if they had to issue new IDs to everyone...

[shiroganeshinobi]

Originally Posted by kyrider

Whats is the worst that can happen if we give free i.d's and you have to show them to vote? Whats the worst that could happen if there is no checks to see if the voter is valid?

This is not rocket surgery.

Show I.D. vote and God Bless the U.S.A!

Awfully hypocritical to say, we need to control deficits and runaway spending while wanting to spend money on an ineffectual program no?

Originally Posted by sombo

Wait wait wait...... you actually believe a report from a "multi-year investigation" into voter fraud done by the Bush administration? The joke is most certainly on you then.

The pic is meant as a reference to the odds of voter fraud occurring because since people would rather be told what to believe than think and do research. Whatever else happening in the background is just noise. I guess I'll have to directly link the study again.


The Truth About Voter Fraud

Naturally, I don't expect anyone to read my links anymore but it is there for those critical thinkers. It's a really good read in depth that I can't summarize.

[Whiskey]

Originally Posted by Alex

That wasn't my point. You brought up the same incorrect statement that kyrider did when starting this thread, that anyone who wasn't for voter ID laws was in favor of fraud:

The clear analogy to point out why this is wrongheaded was the privacy vs. surveillance issue. Just because one values privacy doesn't mean one is committing a crime.

This is kinda coming down to people who have to show ID already see it as normal, reasonable & making sense, Vs people who don't have to show ID seeing it as an unreasonable interference.

Just as a side point we appear to be looking at the right to vote from opposite sides too, I don't see it as a right that can't be taken away, I see it as an obligation to the state. (even if it's a case of voting one group of traitors out & another group of traitors in)

[kyrider]

Looks like some on here would love to be able to manipulate the system and cheat to win at any cost. To rationalize against having to have a i.d. to vote shows a lot.

[Alex]

It's not rationalizing against having an ID, no matter how much you try to appeal to the simple-minded (or simply are simple-minded). It's combating a cynical and transparent effort to change the outcomes of elections with anti-constitutional mandates.

[shiroganeshinobi]

Originally Posted by kyrider

Looks like some on here would love to be able to manipulate the system and cheat to win at any cost. To rationalize against having to have a i.d. to vote shows a lot.

That would suggest that cheating occurs a lot when evidence shows it doesnt. It isn't rationalizing, if you dont use objective logical facts. It's just another example of ideology/tribalism at work rather than critical thinking. If you seriously want to think about the issue then make a pro/cons chart.

I still see some people falling into the "you must show ID argument" when I demonstrated sometimes it isn't enough. There is also the issue of people not understanding that false voter registration isn't the same as voter fraud.

[FrugalNinja250]

I wonder if voter ID laws would have prevented Charlie White's voter fraud? He was the Indiana Sec. of State convicted of various felonies including voter fraud and theft. http://www.wbez.org/story/indiana%E2...ntencing-96638

Secretary of state is top election official, no telling how deep the corruption runs as he claims innocence even still, says Governor Mitch Daniels has committed same fraudulent acts. Irony is both are conservativees, and more importantly, both swore oaths to uphold their Constitutions, both state and federal.

Votor ID is specifically targeted at those who tend to vote Democrat, the poor, elderly, and marginal in our society. All evidence and facts support this, and support the fact that it is an expensive solution looking for a non-existent problem. The kindest word I can come up with to describe those folks who believe otherwise is "hallucinatory".

[kyrider]

God what a bunch of socialists we have here!

Cheaters to boot!

[Alex]

kyrider's on a short break for trolling - 2.1.

[kyrider]

Hi Alex!

http://www.mrctv.org/videos/are-voter-id-laws-racist