(02-29-2012 10:35 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(02-29-2012 10:27 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(02-29-2012 10:24 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Counting an extra vote cancels out a real one.

Right. Counting an extra vote cancels out my vote. Not counting votes...well that's obvious.

This isn't a "well, its the lesser of two evils" argument. We're talking about the sanctity of the vote and the only weapon we have to check the power of government. Voter fraud effectively takes that away. I'm not ok with that.

We disagree on the premise then. I do not believe that there is a way to have a 100% pure vote, you do. Of course you'll side with what you think is a pure vote, and I'll side with the option that I think is "more pure" than the alternative.

"Pure Vote" is impossible...more pure isn't. Would you rather drink muddy water or water with only a little dirt in it. I prefer the latter.

(02-29-2012 10:39 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(02-29-2012 10:35 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(02-29-2012 10:27 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(02-29-2012 10:24 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Counting an extra vote cancels out a real one.

Right. Counting an extra vote cancels out my vote. Not counting votes...well that's obvious.

This isn't a "well, its the lesser of two evils" argument. We're talking about the sanctity of the vote and the only weapon we have to check the power of government. Voter fraud effectively takes that away. I'm not ok with that.

We disagree on the premise then. I do not believe that there is a way to have a 100% pure vote, you do. Of course you'll side with what you think is a pure vote, and I'll side with the option that I think is "more pure" than the alternative.

"Pure Vote" is impossible...more pure isn't. Would you rather drink muddy water or water with only a little dirt in it. I prefer the latter.

So the lesser of two evils?

I'd rather the three people who refuse to get an ID for no other reason than to claim they're being disenfranchised not vote than the potential millions voting who don't have that right and shouldn't.

(02-29-2012 10:42 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(02-29-2012 10:39 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(02-29-2012 10:35 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(02-29-2012 10:27 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(02-29-2012 10:24 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Counting an extra vote cancels out a real one.

Right. Counting an extra vote cancels out my vote. Not counting votes...well that's obvious.

This isn't a "well, its the lesser of two evils" argument. We're talking about the sanctity of the vote and the only weapon we have to check the power of government. Voter fraud effectively takes that away. I'm not ok with that.

We disagree on the premise then. I do not believe that there is a way to have a 100% pure vote, you do. Of course you'll side with what you think is a pure vote, and I'll side with the option that I think is "more pure" than the alternative.

"Pure Vote" is impossible...more pure isn't. Would you rather drink muddy water or water with only a little dirt in it. I prefer the latter.

So the lesser of two evils?

I'm typing this slow because I know you read slow....I want a "More Pure" election. The only way I see to get there is Voter ID.

(02-29-2012 10:47 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(02-29-2012 10:42 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(02-29-2012 10:39 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(02-29-2012 10:35 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(02-29-2012 10:27 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  Right. Counting an extra vote cancels out my vote. Not counting votes...well that's obvious.

This isn't a "well, its the lesser of two evils" argument. We're talking about the sanctity of the vote and the only weapon we have to check the power of government. Voter fraud effectively takes that away. I'm not ok with that.

We disagree on the premise then. I do not believe that there is a way to have a 100% pure vote, you do. Of course you'll side with what you think is a pure vote, and I'll side with the option that I think is "more pure" than the alternative.

"Pure Vote" is impossible...more pure isn't. Would you rather drink muddy water or water with only a little dirt in it. I prefer the latter.

So the lesser of two evils?

I'm typing this slow because I know you read slow....I want a "More Pure" election. The only way I see to get there is Voter ID.

We agree that there is no perfect system. We disagree on which option is better and which is worse.

(02-29-2012 10:50 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(02-29-2012 10:47 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(02-29-2012 10:42 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(02-29-2012 10:39 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(02-29-2012 10:35 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  We disagree on the premise then. I do not believe that there is a way to have a 100% pure vote, you do. Of course you'll side with what you think is a pure vote, and I'll side with the option that I think is "more pure" than the alternative.

"Pure Vote" is impossible...more pure isn't. Would you rather drink muddy water or water with only a little dirt in it. I prefer the latter.

So the lesser of two evils?

I'm typing this slow because I know you read slow....I want a "More Pure" election. The only way I see to get there is Voter ID.

We agree that there is no perfect system. We disagree on which option is better and which is worse.

Your better option is to allow people who shouldn't be voting the ability to vote.

That's not a good option. That's disenfranchising real voters.

(02-29-2012 10:52 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(02-29-2012 10:50 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(02-29-2012 10:47 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(02-29-2012 10:42 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(02-29-2012 10:39 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  "Pure Vote" is impossible...more pure isn't. Would you rather drink muddy water or water with only a little dirt in it. I prefer the latter.

So the lesser of two evils?

I'm typing this slow because I know you read slow....I want a "More Pure" election. The only way I see to get there is Voter ID.

We agree that there is no perfect system. We disagree on which option is better and which is worse.

Your better option is to allow people who shouldn't be voting the ability to vote.

That's not a good option. That's disenfranchising real voters.

My option may result in people who shouldn't be voting actually voting. Your option may prevent people who should be voting from voting.

You think mine is worse, I think yours is worse. I won't convince you, you won't convince me.

(02-29-2012 10:15 AM)Paul M Wrote:  An ID is not a barrier.

It is to those Paul when they are required to pay money they don't have to get it. Or in some cases, they simply can't get the required documents.

(02-29-2012 11:13 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-29-2012 10:15 AM)Paul M Wrote:  An ID is not a barrier.

It is to those Paul when they are required to pay money they don't have to get it. Or in some cases, they simply can't get the required documents.

I'm all for making them free and what documents are required that they can't get?

You're missing the point. They all already have ID's. See the above list of everything you need an ID for. Do you think the "disenfranchised" voters don't do any of these things? They do. They have ID's.

I'm not saying it is common, but it does happen. Usually to really old people born in tiny towns that no longer have records. Or those born at home.

(02-29-2012 11:21 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I'm not saying it is common, but it does happen. Usually to really old people born in tiny towns that no longer have records. Or those born at home.

Fair enough. I'd be willing to set up buses to transport willing people to get the appropriate ID. It wouldn't take long as the number of people in the situation you described can't be many.

At least it seems we agree that the disenfranchising voters argument doesn't apply to minorities. Maybe the REALLY, REALLY old but that's all.

I find it interesting that these "disenfranchised" voters can't seem to find the time or means to go get an ID, but they seem to have no problem getting to the polling places.

As I said Owl. There ARE cases in some states where the documents necessary to get an ID are just not freely available...regardless if you can get there or not.

http://www.wausaudailyherald.com/article...nsequences

And there are such things as absentee ballots

At the end of the day, I really find it difficult to muster much in the way of sympathy for these supposedly disenfranchised voters. The vast majority, if not all, of them are participating in other programs and activities that require proper ID--at least the ones that are citizens and actually have the legal right to vote. I really think this is a tempest in a teapot.

Why is it that measures that protect the integrity of the vote almost always are opposed by one party on the left?

For example, states have found that their voter registration rolls are terribly maintained and contain lots of not only inactive voters, but names of those who may have moved out of state, or died. When the state officials in my state said we need to go through them and remove not only inactive voters (who haven't voted in the past two Presidential elections) but those whom it can be proven have moved elsewhere out of state or have died, that party went nuts with faux outrage.

Should be a straight forward process to clean up the voter registration rolls. Nope. One party (guess who?) cried foul and went straight to their election playbook. "It is not fair - there is the potential for disenfranchisement." Same as it ever was.

They don't even want us to TRY to have fair elections. It doesn't benefit them. But their objection is always that it MIGHT cause some harm. They rarely ever can point to an actual case.

What it is about is their ability to rig elections. The old joke about "vote early and vote often" in Chicago resonates because there was an element of truth in it. When you have organizations like ACORN, corrupt unions (political kickbacks of taxpayer $$ to one party), and a corrupt media that covers for this sort of behavior, it is any wonder that people question the integrity of elections? When the media response to allegations of voter fraud is anything other than crickets, it usually is to ridicule and disparage those making the accusations, ala Saul Alinski.

Without election integrity, do we really have liberty? The left knows this and knows that the ballot box is the last resort of the population they want to control.

(02-29-2012 03:01 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  Why is it that measures that protect the integrity of the vote almost always are opposed by one party on the left?

For example, states have found that their voter registration rolls are terribly maintained and contain lots of not only inactive voters, but names of those who may have moved out of state, or died. When the state officials in my state said we need to go through them and remove not only inactive voters (who haven't voted in the past two Presidential elections) but those whom it can be proven have moved elsewhere out of state or have died, that party went nuts with faux outrage.

Should be a straight forward process to clean up the voter registration rolls. Nope. One party (guess who?) cried foul and went straight to their election playbook. "It is not fair - there is the potential for disenfranchisement." Same as it ever was.

They don't even want us to TRY to have fair elections. It doesn't benefit them. But their objection is always that it MIGHT cause some harm. They rarely ever can point to an actual case.

What it is about is their ability to rig elections. The old joke about "vote early and vote often" in Chicago resonates because there was an element of truth in it. When you have organizations like ACORN, corrupt unions (political kickbacks of taxpayer $$ to one party), and a corrupt media that covers for this sort of behavior, it is any wonder that people question the integrity of elections? When the media response to allegations of voter fraud is anything other than crickets, it usually is to ridicule and disparage those making the accusations, ala Saul Alinski.

Without election integrity, do we really have liberty? The left knows this and knows that the ballot box is the last resort of the population they want to control.

:clap2:

One specific day at one specific location to vote. Four years to get an ID at your leisure at any number of locations including in at least some proposals, someone coming to your house and providing it for free.

ID. Not a problem.

MHB, I'm all for cleaning up the rolls and voter ID's (as long as they are free). But the problems usually seen with the proposals is that they almost always end up causing major issues for poor people. So naturally, the left is going to object to them.

And when it comes to cleaning up the rolls, it's not cheap...and most states have no money lying around to deal with it.

Lastly, the percentage of actual voter fraud is just not substantial. It's usually in the 1,000th to 10,000th decimal place. Likely less than other errors in counting, machine issues, etc.

That it causes problems for poor people is another myth manufactured by the left. But keep trying that lie.

Perhaps the reason the prevalence of actual voting fraud is so small is because rarely is it really looked into and prosecuted. When the left BELIEVES that an election has been "stolen" from them (2000?) not only does the left howl but the media revs up the spin machine and they keep the pressure on. When the right believes it, they are met with crickets and ridicule and scorn from the media.

You know this to be true. Why are you so against election integrity? Without it, we are not much different than Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, etc.