86 and can't get an ID to vote

[tarheelbybirth]

Yeah, that's how all the dead people manage to cast votes on election day.

The absentee ballot will be difficult, because that's going to be mailed to the voters address on record.

Once more...LOL. So you have people obtaining the voter rolls, cross-checking them against some database of deaths to find matches, and then going to vote in the name of the dead. Damn...looks like you should be raising money to update the voter registration system rather than worrying about this. Tax hike, anyone? Make the voting process truly more secure? Anyone? Bueller?

As for absentee ballots...seriously? In NC...

Receive Ballot: The Board will send these items to the mailing address you provide

It's an absentee ballot, don't you see? As in...absent. You can have them sent anywhere you want. 'Cause you might be...well...absent.

 

[theiacowtipper]

Uh, let's see, ...I am gonna guess that the 1st Amendment gives me the right to say that. Do you disagree?

Second, I have not proposed or suggested that I or anyone else "randomly" make rules that tell a subgroup they cannot vote. Nothing I posted suggested that. There are requirements for the exercise of virtually every right or privilege. It is simply a reasonable balance between protecting the ability to vote and the need to maintain the integrity of the election process. It is simply silly to suggest that there is anything more than a statistically insignificant portion of the population that cannot easily and without burden meet the requirement of a proper ID to vote. And no, "free" ID is not a fallacy, but a reality.

1. You cannot show there is a need for that balance. Voter fraud that is cured by ID does not exist in any significant numbers. It is a solution in search of a problem.
2. It is a fallacy. It costs money to obtain the necessary documents. It costs time, perhaps unpaid time off work. Many poor people do not have access to transportation. It costs bus fare. It costs gas. These are folks who do not have significant assets and they are the ones targeted by these laws.

Your side just needs to admit they are seeking to disenfranchise typically Democratic groups. They might be able to sleep better.

 

[hawklandish]

Explained in this article. Statistically, it is to be expected that districts that were overwhelmingly black could vote 100% Obama. Counties that had voter turnout >100% did not exist, or if they did (Ohio) voted for Romney.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/ballot/2012fraud.asp

Precincts in St. Louis were found to have voter turnout in excess of 100%. Also, no way that a 100% vote is statistically "expected" given the statistical likelihood of errors.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Precincts in St. Louis were found to have voter turnout in excess of 100%. Also, no way that a 100% vote is statistically "expected" given the statistical likelihood of errors.

You do realize that you saying this doesn't make it so.

Right?

 

[hawkifann]

As I keep pointing out, we do billions (trillions?) of dollars worth of transactions on line. Secure voting should be a piece of cake.

I agree, and all the verification work would be done at registration. Once registered, it would be like my online banking login or going to a local branch. I could present photo ID or I could provide some information I know. We need to have ID at some point to register, then once we validate people coming in, we need some shared secret or inherent characteristic to validate my identity from then on....not necessarily a photo ID every time I walk into a polling place.

 

[hawklandish]

1. You cannot show there is a need for that balance. Voter fraud that is cured by ID does not exist in any significant numbers. It is a solution in search of a problem.
2. It is a fallacy. It costs money to obtain the necessary documents. It costs time, perhaps unpaid time off work. Many poor people do not have access to transportation. It costs bus fare. It costs gas. These are folks who do not have significant assets and they are the ones targeted by these laws.

Your side just needs to admit they are seeking to disenfranchise typically Democratic groups. They might be able to sleep better.

It costs money to live, also....does that mean we must have a guaranteed income under the constitution. I mean, "life" is a constitutionally guaranteed right, isn't it?

I can comfortably assert that the burden of requiring ID is so minimal that it does make a good balance with the prevention of fraudulent voting. And, fraudulent voting is more widespread than the left will admit. They simply lie about it.

 

[hawklandish]

You do realize that you saying this doesn't make it so.

Right?

Ironic response.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Ironic response.

You already have one citation proving you're woefully uninformed. What would you like to have shown to you now?

Let's see your citation for your St. Louis claim.

 

[theiacowtipper]

It costs money to live, also....does that mean we must have a guaranteed income under the constitution. I mean, "life" is a constitutionally guaranteed right, isn't it?

I can comfortably assert that the burden of requiring ID is so minimal that it does make a good balance with the prevention of fraudulent voting. And, fraudulent voting is more widespread than the left will admit. They simply lie about it.

I would argue that the Constitution orders the government to provide for the "General Health and Welfare" of its citizens, so you could claim there is a constitutionally mandated minimum income, but I digress. To the bolded. Show me. Show me where there is widespread fraud. We can then talk about minimization. It simply doesn't exist. There are isolated, scattered cases which don't impact elections. Millions of voters may not be able to vote because of voter ID.

 

[Lone Clone]

ok you forgot to mention that she was playing games with her own name. way to go, reba. she is just as bad as steve dunham, or barry soetoro or barak. shame on her. stop playing name games folks, simple as that.

LOL.....newspaper is desperately trying to use this highly unusual case as an argument against the voter ID law, but the woman was never denied an opportunity to vote.

 

[Lone Clone]

I would argue that the Constitution orders the government to provide for the "General Health and Welfare" of its citizens, so you could claim there is a constitutionally mandated minimum income, but I digress. To the bolded. Show me. Show me where there is widespread fraud. We can then talk about minimization. It simply doesn't exist. There are isolated, scattered cases which don't impact elections. Millions of voters may not be able to vote because of voter ID.

Widespread fraud has been documented time and time and time again. Voter fraud based on fake ID has not been widely documented -- which is no surprise, as I don't think a real investigation has ever been held to see how often it occurs. The only way to determine that would be to contact everybody who is listed as voting to determine if they did indeed vote. If that's ever been done, I'm not aware of it.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

I can comfortably assert that the burden of requiring ID is so minimal that it does make a good balance with the prevention of fraudulent voting. And, fraudulent voting is more widespread than the left will admit. They simply lie about it.

You can "comfortably assert" that the moon is made of green cheese if you wish. You will then be asked to demonstrate the validity of your claim. So...show us that fraudulent voting that would be prevented by an ID is widespread. And, "it must be" is just more BS.

 

[theiacowtipper]

Precincts in St. Louis were found to have voter turnout in excess of 100%. Also, no way that a 100% vote is statistically "expected" given the statistical likelihood of errors.

Couldn't find anything on St. Louis. Do you mean St. Lucia? That is included in the Snopes articles posted above.

 

[theiacowtipper]

Widespread fraud has been documented time and time and time again. Voter fraud based on fake ID has not been widely documented -- which is no surprise, as I don't think a real investigation has ever been held to see how often it occurs. The only way to determine that would be to contact everybody who is listed as voting to determine if they did indeed vote. If that's ever been done, I'm not aware of it.

If you want to limit it to fake ID, then, yes, it hasn't been studied, probably because voter ID is a recent trend. Iowa spent $250,000 and convicted six people, none of whom would have been caught by ID, most of them were convicted felons who thought they had been granted a return of the right to vote.
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/st...tate-voter-fraud-report-matt-schultz/8858595/

 

[KitingHigh]

1. You cannot show there is a need for that balance. Voter fraud that is cured by ID does not exist in any significant numbers. It is a solution in search of a problem.
2. It is a fallacy. It costs money to obtain the necessary documents. It costs time, perhaps unpaid time off work. Many poor people do not have access to transportation. It costs bus fare. It costs gas. These are folks who do not have significant assets and they are the ones targeted by these laws.

Your side just needs to admit they are seeking to disenfranchise typically Democratic groups. They might be able to sleep better.

I'm not a Republican. I'm not on that side. However this works both ways. Your side hasn't shown any widespread instances of people who wish to vote being disenfranchised because of an ID requirement. Therefore your only objection is that you wish to enable voter fraud. You'll
Sleep better when you admit that.

Your side is resorting to outright blatant lies, such as the article this thread is based on.

 

[PerkyForHerky]

Oh brother. You were blaming people for not having an ID, saying it was their fault, and implying they deserve to be denied their constitutional right to vote.

Then you insulted the intelligence of anyone who couldn't see that people SHOULD have an ID.

And now, when called on it, the best you can come up with is that it would be NICE to have an ID.

Here's your report card:

Shucking and jiving - A
Intellectual honesty - F

People should have an ID.

I have used the word "should" how many times?

Any opinion on the above link I posted?

 

[HawksR1]

I would argue that the Constitution orders the government to provide for the "General Health and Welfare" of its citizens, so you could claim there is a constitutionally mandated minimum income, but I digress. To the bolded. Show me. Show me where there is widespread fraud. We can then talk about minimization. It simply doesn't exist. There are isolated, scattered cases which don't impact elections. Millions of voters may not be able to vote because of voter ID.

read the document again bovine lover; it states "promote" the general welfare NOT provide. common mistake by you libs

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Widespread fraud has been documented time and time and time again. Voter fraud based on fake ID has not been widely documented -- which is no surprise, as I don't think a real investigation has ever been held to see how often it occurs. The only way to determine that would be to contact everybody who is listed as voting to determine if they did indeed vote. If that's ever been done, I'm not aware of it.

Don't come playing that card, LC. The bush DOJ made voter fraud a TOP PRIORITY for five years and found NOT ONE SINGLE CASE of voter fraud that would have been prevented by an ID. Texas AG Abbott did the same in his state...with practically the same result.

You can't come in here claiming the only way to prove it is to canvas every single voter in every single district in every single state in the country. That's just a lazy way of saying, "See, it must be happening". If you want to go that route, you have the GOP apparently interested in this issue. Put them on the job. They should relish the opportunity to prove their claims...right?

 

[tarheelbybirth]

People should have an ID.

Why?

 

[hawkifann]

That doesn't stop the "helpful" family member. Or that doesn't stop someone from changing the address. Do you know how you change your voter address in Iowa? You fill out a form and mail it to the auditor's office.

You can take this line of reasoning to the extreme. It's like saying that because I could share my online bank login with my brother so that he can line up a payment for me, there's no reason for banks to bother with any login security at all.

I'm in favor of ID because I want to expand voting capabilities. I want to standardize, I want to make it available online, I want anyone to be able to drop into any precinct in any US state or territory and be able to cast their home ballot electronically. The beauty of such a system is that while it's complex and would certainly require oversight and monitoring (as any other sensitive electronic system does), the primary identity validation would be done the first time at registration.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Precincts in St. Louis were found to have voter turnout in excess of 100%. Also, no way that a 100% vote is statistically "expected" given the statistical likelihood of errors.

If I ask nicer than tarheel will you provide a link? Please? This would be quite intriguing to look in to, especially with its lack of reporting.

 

[theiacowtipper]

I'm not a Republican. I'm not on that side. However this works both ways. Your side hasn't shown any widespread instances of people who wish to vote being disenfranchised because of an ID requirement. Therefore your only objection is that you wish to enable voter fraud. You'll
Sleep better when you admit that.

Your side is resorting to outright blatant lies, such as the article this thread is based on.

To begin with, if you are restricting a right, you must show a cause for that restriction. It doesn't work the other way. Secondly, voter turnout is significantly depressed and millions don't have the proper ID. A simple google search will show you those studies.

 

[PerkyForHerky]

Why?

Because there are no benefits to not having one. It's not like the big gub'ment doesn't know who you are if you don't have one. And it makes some things in life painfully difficult or virtually impossible without one.

I'll say that I'm surprised that a group of people who want the government to do everything for us are so much against the government knowing who we are, in the first place.

 

[theIowaHawk]

This link was the closest I could find through quick googling on St. Louis: http://www.chicagonow.com/publius-f...ers-registered-than-citizens-that-live-there/

From 2011 and about East Stl.

This seems to be what the article found: They aren't purging their voter rolls like they are required. I think we can all get on board with doing that.

Now there is already a federal law on the books that is supposed to prevent this from happening. It is section 8 of the Motor Voter Act. That section is supposed to require that each state makes sure that its voter rolls are cleared every year of ineligible voters. Whether the voter has moved, has passed away, has gone to jail or what have you, these ineligible voters are supposed to be cleared off the rolls.


Unfortunately, not once has the states been forced to undertake this move to assure that their voter rolls are true and clear of ineligible voters and fraud.


Earlier this year I spoke with J. Christian Adams and he told me that it would take about $10,000 to bring such a lawsuit to the courts to try and force a state to satisfy section 8 of the Motor Voter law. So that is one problem, for sure. If our actual lawmakers -- whether in congress or back in the states -- aren't going to uphold the law, the price for interested parties to force the matter are high.

 

[theiacowtipper]

You can take this line of reasoning to the extreme. It's like saying that because I could share my online bank login with my brother so that he can line up a payment for me, there's no reason for banks to bother with any login security at all.

I'm in favor of ID because I want to expand voting capabilities. I want to standardize, I want to make it available online, I want anyone to be able to drop into any precinct in any US state or territory and be able to cast their home ballot electronically. The beauty of such a system is that while it's complex and would certainly require oversight and monitoring (as any other sensitive electronic system does), the primary identity validation would be done the first time at registration.

Your analogy doesn't make sense. In one case I gave access in another someone else is assuming access.

I love the concept of online voting, but it completely goes against the reason for requiring ID's. What is to stop a person from acquiring numerous voter logins and voting for all those people. ID doesn't stop that. You are doing nothing to ensure that the actual voter is casting an actual ballot.

 

[KitingHigh]

To begin with, if you are restricting a right, you must show a cause for that restriction. It doesn't work the other way. Secondly, voter turnout is significantly depressed and millions don't have the proper ID. A simple google search will show you those studies.

I can see studies showing fraud as well. You wanted proof, so you should also provide it.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Because there are no benefits to not having one. It's not like the big gub'ment doesn't know who you are if you don't have one. And it makes some things in life painfully difficult or virtually impossible without one.

I'll say that I'm surprised that a group of people who want the government to do everything for us are so much against the government knowing who we are, in the first place.

There are lots of people who manage to get through life quite well with no govt ID. Not painful, certainly not impossible. As for your last statement...try flipping that around and you'll understand why these threads are so amusing.

 

[theIowaHawk]

You can take this line of reasoning to the extreme. It's like saying that because I could share my online bank login with my brother so that he can line up a payment for me, there's no reason for banks to bother with any login security at all.

I'm in favor of ID because I want to expand voting capabilities. I want to standardize, I want to make it available online, I want anyone to be able to drop into any precinct in any US state or territory and be able to cast their home ballot electronically. The beauty of such a system is that while it's complex and would certainly require oversight and monitoring (as any other sensitive electronic system does), the primary identity validation would be done the first time at registration.

First and far more important step: Up-to-date and synced voter rolls across jurisdictions. Without that the ID is fairly pointless itself.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

First and far more important step: Up-to-date and synced voter rolls across jurisdictions. Without that the ID is fairly pointless itself.

Uh-oh....now you went and did it. You're talking about spending money!! Wonder how many of these IDers would go to their state reps and push for a tax increase to fund a 21st century registration system?

 

[hawkifann]

First and far more important step: Up-to-date and synced voter rolls across jurisdictions. Without that the ID is fairly pointless itself.

I do agree with this completely. It needs to be virtually in real-time and would be done in conjunction with identification.

 

[hawklandish]

Widespread fraud has been documented time and time and time again. Voter fraud based on fake ID has not been widely documented -- which is no surprise, as I don't think a real investigation has ever been held to see how often it occurs. The only way to determine that would be to contact everybody who is listed as voting to determine if they did indeed vote. If that's ever been done, I'm not aware of it.

This.

 

[hawkifann]

Your analogy doesn't make sense. In one case I gave access in another someone else is assuming access.

I love the concept of online voting, but it completely goes against the reason for requiring ID's. What is to stop a person from acquiring numerous voter logins and voting for all those people. ID doesn't stop that. You are doing nothing to ensure that the actual voter is casting an actual ballot.

The analogy is the same. I may grant my brother one-time access to my account, but unless I change my password, he'll have ongoing access. The point is, there are no 100% fraud-free systems. We don't have one now for voting and online voting or giving voters the ability to vote in any precinct anywhere wouldn't eliminate all fraud either. The "helpful family member" case would always be in play.

To your second point, some of this would surely happen, however, there are a lot of safeguards that can be built in. Someone could hack my online bank account, but if they update my profile or hit any of my other transaction triggers, I'm going to get an email. Even if I change my own email, my previously listed email gets a note saying the change happened. If I get an email that I voted, but I didn't vote, I can report that and that can be investigated and reversed. In those cases where it does happen, it would generally be easier to investigate and quantify potential fraud electronically than trying to handle walk-ins checking names off paper-based rolls across thousands of local precincts.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

I agree, and all the verification work would be done at registration. Once registered, it would be like my online banking login or going to a local branch. I could present photo ID or I could provide some information I know. We need to have ID at some point to register, then once we validate people coming in, we need some shared secret or inherent characteristic to validate my identity from then on....not necessarily a photo ID every time I walk into a polling place.

Great ideas.

Everybody already has to be registered in order to vote. That's a given (although we should make that easier, if not automatic). Important to point out that there's a difference between point-of-voting validation, on the one hand, and making people jump through unnecessary hoops that are clearly designed to suppress voting and to do so in a partisan manner.

A voter ID could be one way to validate. But we can have other options, too, that minimize hardship.

Like most lefties, I'm not opposed to eliminating voter fraud - even if it is a trivial problem - as long as it doesn't cause unfairness and create a bigger problem than it tries to cure.

The voter ID approach is DESIGNED to cause more problems than it cures, when imposed as the only method of validation. Even if you are disingenuous enough to pretend that's an unintended consequence, it's obvious that it has that impact. But it's perfectly acceptable as one of the options, as long as the others are intelligently designed.

 

[theIowaHawk]

[

Widespread fraud has been documented time and time and time again. Voter fraud based on fake ID has not been widely documented -- which is no surprise, as I don't think a real investigation has ever been held to see how often it occurs. The only way to determine that would be to contact everybody who is listed as voting to determine if they did indeed vote. If that's ever been done, I'm not aware of it.

"Widespread" has a funny definition in your eyes.

But more importantly, you don't have a very high opinion of the GOP and its investigators based on this post.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

This.

Telling you the same thing I told LC. Do it. There's nothing stopping you. The GOP should be all over this idea to prove their point. Wonder why they've taken a pass?

(Actually, I don't wonder....I know why)

 

[hawkifann]

Great ideas.

Everybody already has to be registered in order to vote. That's a given (although we should make that easier, if not automatic). Important to point out that there's a difference between point-of-voting validation, on the one hand, and making people jump through unnecessary hoops that are clearly designed to suppress voting and to do so in a partisan manner.

A voter ID could be one way to validate. But we can have other options, too, that minimize hardship.

Like most lefties, I'm not opposed to eliminating voter fraud - even if it is a trivial problem - as long as it doesn't cause unfairness and create a bigger problem than it tries to cure.

The voter ID approach is DESIGNED to cause more problems than it cures, when imposed as the only method of validation. Even if you are disingenuous enough to pretend that's an unintended consequence, it's obvious that it has that impact. But it's perfectly acceptable as one of the options, as long as the others are intelligently designed.

I can go along with this. We need to start looking forward. in 10-15 years, we won't have many elderly who don't have the basic ability to use some sort of electronic device. We'll always have the extreme poor, the homeless and other challenges in society, but the obstacles there should be with registration. Once registered, the point of voting should include some sort of authentication process (could be scanning a photo ID, swiping a card of some sort, using a password, potentially using a biometric, doing a text/email based validation code, whatever) and then you can validate your address, etc. There are plenty of fraud safeguards we can put in that won't necessarily eliminate fraud, but would make it harder and allow for the collection of some breadcrumbs to help with audit and investigation.

Our world is getting more and more connected and people are getting more and more tech savvy. This kind of voting should be available. We should have on-site voting available in every area for up to a month before the election and the election day model we have now. Online voting would be open for as long as the early voting is available. Election Day would be the conclusion of the election period. We have the technology to do this, we just have to decide it's a priority.

 

[binsfeldcyhawk2]

Basically every European country has a socialized system for ensuring access to healthcare, guaranteed vacations, and guaranteed pensions. Are we implementing all those as well? The one main socialized, universal system we have in this country is Social Security. AND THAT ID CARD WASN'T GOOD ENOUGH FOR THEM.

Basically true....but that has nothing to do with requiring a photo ID for voting. I find the arguments against unpersuasive....

 

[Lone Clone]

Don't come playing that card, LC. The bush DOJ made voter fraud a TOP PRIORITY for five years and found NOT ONE SINGLE CASE of voter fraud that would have been prevented by an ID. Texas AG Abbott did the same in his state...with practically the same result.

You can't come in here claiming the only way to prove it is to canvas every single voter in every single district in every single state in the country. That's just a lazy way of saying, "See, it must be happening". If you want to go that route, you have the GOP apparently interested in this issue. Put them on the job. They should relish the opportunity to prove their claims...right?

Your schtick is beyond old, Tar. When wrong, change the subject and hhope nobody notices. Try something else for once, will you?

 

[Lone Clone]

Telling you the same thing I told LC. Do it. There's nothing stopping you. The GOP should be all over this idea to prove their point. Wonder why they've taken a pass?

(Actually, I don't wonder....I know why)

I agree, as I have said in the past. I think we also agree that everyone would be well served if there were a national computerized voter database, because one thing for which abundant proof exists is the prevalence of people voting in more than one jurisdiction.

The Republicans don't listen to me.

 

[Lone Clone]

[


"Widespread" has a funny definition in your eyes.

But more importantly, you don't have a very high opinion of the GOP and its investigators based on this post.

Well, "widespread" is definitely a matter of interpretation. "Significant" is a much better word. I assume that a number that might effect the outcome of an election would fit that definition for most anybody.