Democrats want voter fraud. Therefore they oppose anything that makes it more difficult.

What you should have to prove to vote is 1) who you are, 2) that you are a resident of the precinct eligible to vote, and 3) that you have not already voted elsewhere. The registration process should establish 2), and a photo ID should establish 1). There are a lot of potential abuses of 3), and I'm not sure there is any valid procedure to prevent them at this point.

Bars solved 3) long ago.

(08-15-2013 07:42 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Democrats want voter fraud. Therefore they oppose anything that makes it more difficult.

What you should have to prove to vote is 1) who you are, 2) that you are a resident of the precinct eligible to vote, and 3) that you have not already voted elsewhere. The registration process should establish 2), and a photo ID should establish 1). There are a lot of potential abuses of 3), and I'm not sure there is any valid procedure to prevent them at this point.

No we do not. We want everyone that is eligible to vote to have a fair opportunity to vote. You prove who you are and where you live during the registration process. When you vote your name is checked off as having already voted. You prevent fraudulent voting by prosecuting those that attempt to do so or do so. It is a felony and isn't taken lightly.

If someone wants to rig an election they don't attempt to bring people to the polls to vote under someone else's name. It is ineffective and the consequences if caught are severe.

(08-15-2013 08:07 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(08-15-2013 07:42 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Democrats want voter fraud. Therefore they oppose anything that makes it more difficult.

What you should have to prove to vote is 1) who you are, 2) that you are a resident of the precinct eligible to vote, and 3) that you have not already voted elsewhere. The registration process should establish 2), and a photo ID should establish 1). There are a lot of potential abuses of 3), and I'm not sure there is any valid procedure to prevent them at this point.

No we do not. We want everyone that is eligible to vote to have a fair opportunity to vote. You prove who you are and where you live during the registration process. When you vote your name is checked off as having already voted. You prevent fraudulent voting by prosecuting those that attempt to do so or do so. It is a felony and isn't taken lightly.

If someone wants to rig an election they don't attempt to bring people to the polls to vote under someone else's name. It is ineffective and the consequences if caught are severe.

No sir. That is not the reality of the situation. Democrats rely on people voting multiple times, fake people voting and illegal immigrants to win elections.

The excuses Democrats make when they try to defend their reasoning for striking down voter ID laws are laughable. It's why the Democrats do not want to secure the southern border and it is why they are adamantly against someone having to prove who they are to vote in our elections.

i love this thread


before the election......all we heard about obama/mitt from the right was that the polls were wrong, the polls were skewed, the polls were too selective........

after the election......democrats only win because they rely on fraudulent votes.....

love it.....love it.....love it......

only reaffirms the conservatives have no personal accountability and refuse to admit that their party is old, outdated, & their platform sucks

(08-15-2013 10:04 PM)john01992 Wrote:  i love this thread


before the election......all we heard about obama/mitt from the right was that the polls were wrong, the polls were skewed, the polls were too selective........

after the election......democrats only win because they rely on fraudulent votes.....

love it.....love it.....love it......

only reaffirms the conservatives have no personal accountability and refuse to admit that their party is old, outdated, & their platform sucks

Forgotten about Bush/Gore already have we?

(08-15-2013 10:04 PM)john01992 Wrote:  i love this thread


before the election......all we heard about obama/mitt from the right was that the polls were wrong, the polls were skewed, the polls were too selective........

after the election......democrats only win because they rely on fraudulent votes.....

love it.....love it.....love it......

only reaffirms the conservatives have no personal accountability and refuse to admit that their party is old, outdated, & their platform sucks

No personal accountabilty? Are you freaking insane? It is a conservative utopia to see a country where people embrace the concept of personal accountability (vs collectivism). And what particularly in the "conservative platform" sucks beyond the principle of fiscal restraint, government limited to its Constitutional boundaries, and expectation that able-bodied individuals need to meet the responsibilities that they create?

Enlighten me, Socrates.

(08-15-2013 10:15 PM)ODUsmitty Wrote:  

(08-15-2013 10:04 PM)john01992 Wrote:  i love this thread


before the election......all we heard about obama/mitt from the right was that the polls were wrong, the polls were skewed, the polls were too selective........

after the election......democrats only win because they rely on fraudulent votes.....

love it.....love it.....love it......

only reaffirms the conservatives have no personal accountability and refuse to admit that their party is old, outdated, & their platform sucks

No personal accountabilty? Are you freaking insane? It is a conservative utopia to see a country where people embrace the concept of personal accountability (vs collectivism). And what particularly in the "conservative platform" sucks beyond the principle of fiscal restraint, government limited to its Constitutional boundaries, and expectation that able-bodied individuals need to meet the responsibilities that they create?

Enlighten me, Socrates.

personal accountability such as trying to get out of taxes?

or that conservative states tend to be poorer than blue states

or how they lose the popular vote in 5 of the last 6 elections and act like the country is getting more conservative and think people must adhere to republican ideals

or how they do nothing but bash whatever obama's trying to do without putting forth any good ideas

or how their biggest goal was making obama a 1 term president and not helping the party

yeah the party may preach being the party of personal accountability......but the reality is they dont show it

(08-15-2013 10:25 PM)john01992 Wrote:  personal accountability such as trying to get out of taxes?

or that conservative states tend to be poorer than blue states

or how they lose the popular vote in 5 of the last 6 elections and act like the country is getting more conservative and think people must adhere to republican ideals

or how they do nothing but bash whatever obama's trying to do without putting forth any good ideas

or how their biggest goal was making obama a 1 term president and not helping the party

yeah the party may preach being the party of personal accountability......but the reality is they dont show it

Didn't Tim Geitner try to get out of paying his taxes? Or Charles Rangel?

Did the Democrats go along with the Wisconsin Governor after his election?

Didn't the Democrats try to make Bush a 1 term President?

And I have no clue what any of this has to do with personal responsibility.

I clothe myself. I feed myself. I house myself. And I do the same for my family I accomplished that by WORKING HARD and spending my money wisely. I expect nothing from my neighbors. For the truly needy there are charities as opposed to a government which sucks people into dependency for its' own benefit using money it steals from the population in general.

(08-15-2013 10:25 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(08-15-2013 10:15 PM)ODUsmitty Wrote:  

(08-15-2013 10:04 PM)john01992 Wrote:  i love this thread


before the election......all we heard about obama/mitt from the right was that the polls were wrong, the polls were skewed, the polls were too selective........

after the election......democrats only win because they rely on fraudulent votes.....

love it.....love it.....love it......

only reaffirms the conservatives have no personal accountability and refuse to admit that their party is old, outdated, & their platform sucks

No personal accountabilty? Are you freaking insane? It is a conservative utopia to see a country where people embrace the concept of personal accountability (vs collectivism). And what particularly in the "conservative platform" sucks beyond the principle of fiscal restraint, government limited to its Constitutional boundaries, and expectation that able-bodied individuals need to meet the responsibilities that they create?

Enlighten me, Socrates.

personal accountability such as trying to get out of taxes? With a progressive tax system where nearly half of taxpayers pay NO net taxes (and many receive a net income boost), it's not about getting out of paying taxes, its about unfair wealth redistribution to the recipient class.

or that conservative states tend to be poorer than blue states Tell that to Illinois, California, Rhode Island, and Michigan

or how they lose the popular vote in 5 of the last 6 elections and act like the country is getting more conservative and think people must adhere to republican ideals from what source, sweeping generality, and explain what republican ideals conservatives are trying to force people to adhere

or how they do nothing but bash whatever obama's trying to do without putting forth any good ideasmaybe bacause Obama is an ideologue, without conscience, and has surrounded himself with similar-thinking puppets, constitution be damned. Many conservatives give obama credit for the few good ideas he has had - kids stying on parent's insurance until 26 and drug law mandatory sentence reform. Beyond that, Obama has marched merrily onto European styled socialism, with jobs, credit rating, and global influence decreased during his tenure.

or how their biggest goal was making obama a 1 term president and not helping the partyMyopic. What support did Bush receive from Dems? COnservatives have no interest in":helping the party", their concern is limited government and stopping the overspending and indoctrination of the recipient class.

yeah the party may preach being the party of personal accountability......but the reality is they dont show it How much do you pay into the system for taxes? Seen the fruits of your efforts given to sloths and generational victims. Been affected by social jsutice policies or reverse-racism quotas? Grow up, understand how to balance a f'ing checkbook, and maybe one day you can sit at the adult's table.

(08-15-2013 07:42 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Democrats want voter fraud. Therefore they oppose anything that makes it more difficult.
What you should have to prove to vote is 1) who you are, 2) that you are a resident of the precinct eligible to vote, and 3) that you have not already voted elsewhere. The registration process should establish 2), and a photo ID should establish 1). There are a lot of potential abuses of 3), and I'm not sure there is any valid procedure to prevent them at this point.

What are the Republican goals for voter id laws?

(08-15-2013 11:42 PM)jh Wrote:  

(08-15-2013 07:42 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Democrats want voter fraud. Therefore they oppose anything that makes it more difficult.
What you should have to prove to vote is 1) who you are, 2) that you are a resident of the precinct eligible to vote, and 3) that you have not already voted elsewhere. The registration process should establish 2), and a photo ID should establish 1). There are a lot of potential abuses of 3), and I'm not sure there is any valid procedure to prevent them at this point.

What are the Republican goals for voter id laws?

I don't know. Ask a republican. My goals for voter ideas are stated in the post you quoted. It's pretty clear that democrats do not want a system that accomplishes those three goals, since they resist efforts to make it so, and there must be some reason for such opposition. What is it?

No system run by humans is going to be perfect. So let me pose it a different way. Given a choice between a system where either 1) some people who should be entitled to vote are disqualified, or 2) some people who should not be entitled to vote are allowed to vote, which way should we choose to err? And realistically, how many people would you expect to see in either category?

Rather be sure that some people do not vote multiple times.
What has been to keep some of these people providing each other
with information and voting on absentee ballots in many districts and many states?
And no, you would not have proof of that until it was proved. Follow up on
voter fraud is not something many policing departments would have the expertise, money, time or
desire to spend the time following up.

(08-16-2013 04:53 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-15-2013 11:42 PM)jh Wrote:  

(08-15-2013 07:42 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Democrats want voter fraud. Therefore they oppose anything that makes it more difficult.
What you should have to prove to vote is 1) who you are, 2) that you are a resident of the precinct eligible to vote, and 3) that you have not already voted elsewhere. The registration process should establish 2), and a photo ID should establish 1). There are a lot of potential abuses of 3), and I'm not sure there is any valid procedure to prevent them at this point.

What are the Republican goals for voter id laws?

I don't know. Ask a republican. My goals for voter ideas are stated in the post you quoted. It's pretty clear that democrats do not want a system that accomplishes those three goals, since they resist efforts to make it so, and there must be some reason for such opposition. What is it?
No system run by humans is going to be perfect. So let me pose it a different way. Given a choice between a system where either 1) some people who should be entitled to vote are disqualified, or 2) some people who should not be entitled to vote are allowed to vote, which way should we choose to err? And realistically, how many people would you expect to see in either category?

So you can only speak for Democrats. Interesting.

(08-16-2013 08:53 AM)jh Wrote:  

(08-16-2013 04:53 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-15-2013 11:42 PM)jh Wrote:  

(08-15-2013 07:42 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Democrats want voter fraud. Therefore they oppose anything that makes it more difficult.
What you should have to prove to vote is 1) who you are, 2) that you are a resident of the precinct eligible to vote, and 3) that you have not already voted elsewhere. The registration process should establish 2), and a photo ID should establish 1). There are a lot of potential abuses of 3), and I'm not sure there is any valid procedure to prevent them at this point.

What are the Republican goals for voter id laws?

I don't know. Ask a republican. My goals for voter ideas are stated in the post you quoted. It's pretty clear that democrats do not want a system that accomplishes those three goals, since they resist efforts to make it so, and there must be some reason for such opposition. What is it?
No system run by humans is going to be perfect. So let me pose it a different way. Given a choice between a system where either 1) some people who should be entitled to vote are disqualified, or 2) some people who should not be entitled to vote are allowed to vote, which way should we choose to err? And realistically, how many people would you expect to see in either category?

So you can only speak for Democrats. Interesting.

No, I don't speak for anyone but myself.

If you are looking for me to criticize republicans on this issue, here is what I see. I don't think they go far enough. My guess is that R's probably abuse the absentee balloting provisions to violate my provision number 3 above. And I don't see them proposing anything that will close that loophole. So I go further than they do.

As for the people who don't have ID's to vote. If they are too poor to afford an ID, then they should be getting welfare benefits. To get welfare benefits, they must produce ID's that are adequate to vote. So when I try to identify that subset of our population that voter ID would disenfranchise, I have a really difficult time figuring out who they would be. By definition, it must be a bunch of poor people who are so withdrawn from society that they do not take advantage of the benefits available to them. I have a hard time believing that 1) there are a lot of these people, or that 2) their exclusion from the political process is a major problem.

Why don't you start by explaining to me exactly who this person who is being disenfranchised could possibly be. And after that, why don't you explain why excluding this person is a greater problem than letting people who should not vote get to vote, or letting people vote more than once.

(08-15-2013 03:07 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-15-2013 12:55 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  The conservatives that have taken control in NC are pushing this agenda. I oppose their bill because they went too far. I fully support voter ID..but oppose the end of early voting and registration on voting day. I see nothing wrong with either of these things.

I'd like to see early voting reduced, I don't have a problem with it in general, but it's just not necessary to have it for as long as they do in my opinion. Now same-day registration needs to be eliminated. It invites way too much opportunity for voter fraud, and besides, it's not like elections are a surprise.

Requiring ID should be sufficient IMO. I would however require solid proof of citizenship and residency to register day of voting. I agree people should be be more conscience about what it takes to register ahead of time...but...I am not going to deny a legitimate voter that opportunity regardless. I'd like to see more venues and avenues set up for registration so that we could eliminate most of the voting day registration.

(08-16-2013 04:53 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-15-2013 11:42 PM)jh Wrote:  

(08-15-2013 07:42 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Democrats want voter fraud. Therefore they oppose anything that makes it more difficult.
What you should have to prove to vote is 1) who you are, 2) that you are a resident of the precinct eligible to vote, and 3) that you have not already voted elsewhere. The registration process should establish 2), and a photo ID should establish 1). There are a lot of potential abuses of 3), and I'm not sure there is any valid procedure to prevent them at this point.

What are the Republican goals for voter id laws?

I don't know. Ask a republican. My goals for voter ideas are stated in the post you quoted. It's pretty clear that democrats do not want a system that accomplishes those three goals, since they resist efforts to make it so, and there must be some reason for such opposition. What is it?

No system run by humans is going to be perfect. So let me pose it a different way. Given a choice between a system where either 1) some people who should be entitled to vote are disqualified, or 2) some people who should not be entitled to vote are allowed to vote, which way should we choose to err? And realistically, how many people would you expect to see in either category?

Not many. That is why I believe voter ID solves most of this. As you say..no system is going to be perfect. Putting a face with a ballot IMO goes a long way in making the system as transparent as it can be.

(08-16-2013 09:07 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-16-2013 08:53 AM)jh Wrote:  

(08-16-2013 04:53 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-15-2013 11:42 PM)jh Wrote:  

(08-15-2013 07:42 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Democrats want voter fraud. Therefore they oppose anything that makes it more difficult.
What you should have to prove to vote is 1) who you are, 2) that you are a resident of the precinct eligible to vote, and 3) that you have not already voted elsewhere. The registration process should establish 2), and a photo ID should establish 1). There are a lot of potential abuses of 3), and I'm not sure there is any valid procedure to prevent them at this point.

What are the Republican goals for voter id laws?

I don't know. Ask a republican. My goals for voter ideas are stated in the post you quoted. It's pretty clear that democrats do not want a system that accomplishes those three goals, since they resist efforts to make it so, and there must be some reason for such opposition. What is it?
No system run by humans is going to be perfect. So let me pose it a different way. Given a choice between a system where either 1) some people who should be entitled to vote are disqualified, or 2) some people who should not be entitled to vote are allowed to vote, which way should we choose to err? And realistically, how many people would you expect to see in either category?

So you can only speak for Democrats. Interesting.

No, I don't speak for anyone but myself.
If you are looking for me to criticize republicans on this issue, here is what I see. I don't think they go far enough. My guess is that R's probably abuse the absentee balloting provisions to violate my provision number 3 above. And I don't see them proposing anything that will close that loophole. So I go further than they do.
As for the people who don't have ID's to vote. If they are too poor to afford an ID, then they should be getting welfare benefits. To get welfare benefits, they must produce ID's that are adequate to vote. So when I try to identify that subset of our population that voter ID would disenfranchise, I have a really difficult time figuring out who they would be. By definition, it must be a bunch of poor people who are so withdrawn from society that they do not take advantage of the benefits available to them. I have a hard time believing that 1) there are a lot of these people, or that 2) their exclusion from the political process is a major problem.
Why don't you start by explaining to me exactly who this person who is being disenfranchised could possibly be. And after that, why don't you explain why excluding this person is a greater problem than letting people who should not vote get to vote, or letting people vote more than once.

I don't have a problem with voter id laws, if they are actually trying to reduce voter fraud. They are probably an ineffectual response to a minor problem, but most of the attempts don't do all that much damage anyways.

Much of the Republican support for voter id laws, and Democratic opposition to the same, however, is rooted in partisan politics rather than a real concern about preventing fraud or preserving the right to vote. When they decide to work together, they actually can get bills passed. Kansas and Rhode Island both passed voter id laws with bipartisan support. Kansas even attempted to address voter fraud for absentee ballots at the same time.

I doubt there are all that many who will be unable to get an id, but there are some. Here's a link to story about a lady who couldn't get an id, despite trying several times, at least not until she became the lead plaintiff in a voter id lawsuit (it's not in this article, but I believe PennDOT contacted her about coming back in). Are these "unwritten exceptions" actually new policies designed to allow people to get their ids or was this just a cynical ploy to remove the lead plaintiff from an appeal? I hope it's the former, but I wouldn't put much money on it.
http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2012/08...to-get-id/

That it is worse for the government to deny a person his right than to allow him to abuse it seems to be one of the founding principles of this great nation. There is a reason why criminal trials are not decided on the preponderance of the evidence. And there is a reason why prior restraint of speech is not allowed. To preserve our freedoms we must suffer some abuses.

(08-16-2013 10:41 AM)jh Wrote:  They are probably an ineffectual response

Your opinion, not fact, and not substantiated in any way.

Quote:
to a minor problem,

Your opinion, not fact, and not substantiated in any way.

Quote:When they decide to work together, they actually can get bills passed. Kansas and Rhode Island both passed voter id laws with bipartisan support. Kansas even attempted to address voter fraud for absentee ballots at the same time.

And this is what should be done everywhere

Quote:I doubt there are all that many who will be unable to get an id, but there are some. Here's a link to story about a lady who couldn't get an id, despite trying several times,

How hard did she really try? All she needed was a social security card, and those are easy to get--and free. These are the kinds of stories I hear and read, and I have a very difficult time concluding that this person was denied any constitutional rights. I think it's more a case where she was cherry picked to be a plaintiff and the situation was manipulated to get her there.

Quote:That it is worse for the government to deny a person his right than to allow him to abuse it seems to be one of the founding principles of this great nation. There is a reason why criminal trials are not decided on the preponderance of the evidence. And there is a reason why prior restraint of speech is not allowed. To preserve our freedoms we must suffer some abuses.

This is the strongest argument in favor of looser registration. I don't find it totally compelling, but it does at least put the question in play. I think where I come down is you must provide proof of residence to get registered to vote, sufficient identification to prove that you are in fact the person who is registered in order to vote (with at least one sufficient form being free to those who cannot afford it), and some way of tracking who has and has not voted, including absentee and mail ballots, in order to make sure nobody votes more than once. And I would provide that the minimum penalty for 1) voting illegally or engaging in a conspiracy for people to vote illegally, or 2) lying to get a free ID card should be life without parole.

(08-15-2013 11:42 PM)jh Wrote:  

(08-15-2013 07:42 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Democrats want voter fraud. Therefore they oppose anything that makes it more difficult.
What you should have to prove to vote is 1) who you are, 2) that you are a resident of the precinct eligible to vote, and 3) that you have not already voted elsewhere. The registration process should establish 2), and a photo ID should establish 1). There are a lot of potential abuses of 3), and I'm not sure there is any valid procedure to prevent them at this point.

What are the Republican goals for voter id laws?

To crack down on voter fraud. Democrats voting 6 times. Democrats registering dead people. Democratic supporters mysteriously losing votes. Illegal aliens voting.