Another day, another irony.

Key Trump staffers are using email addresses associated with a private server (the RNC's), in the same manner Bush's staffers did. Hopefully they're following the 2014 law that says all of their emails for work are forwarded to a government account within 20 days.

http://gizmodo.com/trump-staffers-are-re...socialflow

(01-25-2017 04:11 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(01-25-2017 01:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-25-2017 01:06 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(01-25-2017 12:33 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(01-24-2017 04:06 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Concerning if true, or concerning if untrue?

Well either. If there were truly any reason to believe there were millions of fraudulent votes, that should be of concern to everyone. But since study after study has shown in-person voter fraud to be close to non-existent, that's not what I was specifically referring to.

1) It concerns me that he seems so obsessed with the popular vote and rehashing the election. Campaign's over. Work on leading the country.

2) It is simply irresponsible to make unfounded claims like that. At best it's reckless and at worst he's preparing to call whatever gains Dems might make in midterms illegitimate. Lyndsey Graham and other R's are rightfully condemning it.

I generally agree.

To JSA's point about why it would be assumed that voter fraud would generally be hurtful to the Republicans . . .

the election where late returns in Texas and Illinois from heavy partisan counties that had incredibly 'high' levels of voter turnout had a clear impact on the election was 1960, and it favored Kennedy (Chicago - a Democratic stronghold, and parts of the state that in Texas that LBJ controlled) . . . .

Also, that largest block of people who are not entitled to vote, yet who would have a potentially significant interest in this election, (or any election) would be undocumented aliens (or immigrants), or other non-citizens. It would be presumed by most that they would lean Democratic.

1. It is probably that there is some number of people who voted illegally.
2. It is unlikely or improbable that that number was significant, and certainly nowhere near 3,000,000 voters (I don't think Trump claimed that many, but it's an extrapolation of the number needed for him to have won the popular vote - - again, I think Trump is an F, not a T on the Myers-Briggs and he's reacting emotionally, not rationally).
3. I cannot believe that undocumented immigrants (or documented) made any kind of conspiratorial effort to vote.
4. In Texas, you have to present your voter registration card (I'm guessing, don't know if you need photo ID if you have your registration card with you), or a photo ID proving your identity matches someone on the voter rolls. Fraud, in this case, of any significance would have to involve poll workers casting ballots for voters who never showed up, once the polls have closed (i.e. the dead people who voted in Cook County and parts of Texas in 1960). There's no way that could amount to 3,000,000 votes, even if you assume this is much more common than it could possibly be.

Can anyone explain to me how a voter identification requirement could be construed as unconstitutional or racist, provided the state made available provisions for anyone qualified to obtain a free identification card?

People who think no one votes illegally are naïve.

People who think that the number who vote illegally is significant are paranoid.

If the state truly made it cost free and effort free (e.g. You were mailed a registration card and could return your registration for free and then receive a voter ID card), then it can't be construed as racist.

However, I don't know of a system proposed like this. Most require some form of photo ID and for you to get to a place like a DMV that is not open at all hours and may be many miles away. It is reallly a burden on the poor, but race is brought into the equation because the state's pushing these rules are often in the south, where a higher percentage of their poor citizens are black and these states have histories of trying to reduce the ability of black citizens to vote.

Your provision is crucial.

I think some form of photo ID is necessary to eliminate people voting by proxy (which is fraud).

You essentially just argued that the procedure for obtaining a driver's license is racist.

It is inconvenient for anyone to have to go somewhere to get a photo ID made, it is simply a matter of degree.

People who are in the business of registering people to vote (as volunteers) would be more than happy to provide transportation to facilitate people getting a free photo ID. There would just be some other objection or rationalization to explain the lack of interest shown by those who would refuse to avail themselves of the assistance.

At some point, if a process is free, available to all under the same conditions, and no one is actively hindering people from obtaining a photo ID . . . . . . I think complaints of racism are contrived, and come across to some as a means to intentionally allow potential for voter abuse to exist (i.e., voting by proxy, etc.)

I still think the seeds of Watergate were sown by the presidential election of 1960 in Cook County, Illinois, and rural counties in South Texas.

And the Pentagon Papers and early polls showing a close race in 1972 against Edmund Muskie.

Also, in 1960, Nixon promised to campaign in all 50 states and spent the weekend before the election in Alaska. There is speculation that he didn't push too hard for a recount because of what it might have uncovered in addition to any Democratic shenanigans.

The consensus is that Pappy O'Daniel stole the 1941 Senate race from LBJ and LBJ stole the 1948 race from Coke Stevenson.

I have a different idea why he is doing this. He's sucking a lot of oxygen off the front page with this. Meanwhile, he has done some pretty sweeping things with executive orders that aren't getting that much play. He keeps doing things that I think are crazy but they keep working.

(01-25-2017 05:45 PM)JSA Wrote:  

(01-25-2017 04:11 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(01-25-2017 01:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-25-2017 01:06 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(01-25-2017 12:33 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Well either. If there were truly any reason to believe there were millions of fraudulent votes, that should be of concern to everyone. But since study after study has shown in-person voter fraud to be close to non-existent, that's not what I was specifically referring to.

1) It concerns me that he seems so obsessed with the popular vote and rehashing the election. Campaign's over. Work on leading the country.

2) It is simply irresponsible to make unfounded claims like that. At best it's reckless and at worst he's preparing to call whatever gains Dems might make in midterms illegitimate. Lyndsey Graham and other R's are rightfully condemning it.

I generally agree.

To JSA's point about why it would be assumed that voter fraud would generally be hurtful to the Republicans . . .

the election where late returns in Texas and Illinois from heavy partisan counties that had incredibly 'high' levels of voter turnout had a clear impact on the election was 1960, and it favored Kennedy (Chicago - a Democratic stronghold, and parts of the state that in Texas that LBJ controlled) . . . .

Also, that largest block of people who are not entitled to vote, yet who would have a potentially significant interest in this election, (or any election) would be undocumented aliens (or immigrants), or other non-citizens. It would be presumed by most that they would lean Democratic.

1. It is probably that there is some number of people who voted illegally.
2. It is unlikely or improbable that that number was significant, and certainly nowhere near 3,000,000 voters (I don't think Trump claimed that many, but it's an extrapolation of the number needed for him to have won the popular vote - - again, I think Trump is an F, not a T on the Myers-Briggs and he's reacting emotionally, not rationally).
3. I cannot believe that undocumented immigrants (or documented) made any kind of conspiratorial effort to vote.
4. In Texas, you have to present your voter registration card (I'm guessing, don't know if you need photo ID if you have your registration card with you), or a photo ID proving your identity matches someone on the voter rolls. Fraud, in this case, of any significance would have to involve poll workers casting ballots for voters who never showed up, once the polls have closed (i.e. the dead people who voted in Cook County and parts of Texas in 1960). There's no way that could amount to 3,000,000 votes, even if you assume this is much more common than it could possibly be.

Can anyone explain to me how a voter identification requirement could be construed as unconstitutional or racist, provided the state made available provisions for anyone qualified to obtain a free identification card?

People who think no one votes illegally are naïve.

People who think that the number who vote illegally is significant are paranoid.

If the state truly made it cost free and effort free (e.g. You were mailed a registration card and could return your registration for free and then receive a voter ID card), then it can't be construed as racist.

However, I don't know of a system proposed like this. Most require some form of photo ID and for you to get to a place like a DMV that is not open at all hours and may be many miles away. It is reallly a burden on the poor, but race is brought into the equation because the state's pushing these rules are often in the south, where a higher percentage of their poor citizens are black and these states have histories of trying to reduce the ability of black citizens to vote.

Your provision is crucial.

I think some form of photo ID is necessary to eliminate people voting by proxy (which is fraud).

You essentially just argued that the procedure for obtaining a driver's license is racist.

It is inconvenient for anyone to have to go somewhere to get a photo ID made, it is simply a matter of degree.

People who are in the business of registering people to vote (as volunteers) would be more than happy to provide transportation to facilitate people getting a free photo ID. There would just be some other objection or rationalization to explain the lack of interest shown by those who would refuse to avail themselves of the assistance.

At some point, if a process is free, available to all under the same conditions, and no one is actively hindering people from obtaining a photo ID . . . . . . I think complaints of racism are contrived, and come across to some as a means to intentionally allow potential for voter abuse to exist (i.e., voting by proxy, etc.)

I still think the seeds of Watergate were sown by the presidential election of 1960 in Cook County, Illinois, and rural counties in South Texas.

And the Pentagon Papers and early polls showing a close race in 1972 against Edmund Muskie.

Also, in 1960, Nixon promised to campaign in all 50 states and spent the weekend before the election in Alaska. There is speculation that he didn't push too hard for a recount because of what it might have uncovered in addition to any Democratic shenanigans.

The consensus is that Pappy O'Daniel stole the 1941 Senate race from LBJ and LBJ stole the 1948 race from Coke Stevenson.

Ultimately the 1972 election was a landslide, rendering the whole Watergate affair inexplicable in hindsight.

I think speculation about Nixon's actions in 1960 are just that, and used to explain away the Texas/Illinois irregularities.

Not saying Nixon was justified in 1972. Just saying that people who've been burned do get paranoid, and paranoid people do inexplicable things.

Frankly, everything in your post screams for voter identification cards and strictly monitored elections. The issue is getting non-partisan people in charge of the rule-making.

Again, done correctly, it makes absolute sense.

(01-25-2017 04:11 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(01-25-2017 01:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-25-2017 01:06 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(01-25-2017 12:33 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(01-24-2017 04:06 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Concerning if true, or concerning if untrue?

Well either. If there were truly any reason to believe there were millions of fraudulent votes, that should be of concern to everyone. But since study after study has shown in-person voter fraud to be close to non-existent, that's not what I was specifically referring to.

1) It concerns me that he seems so obsessed with the popular vote and rehashing the election. Campaign's over. Work on leading the country.

2) It is simply irresponsible to make unfounded claims like that. At best it's reckless and at worst he's preparing to call whatever gains Dems might make in midterms illegitimate. Lyndsey Graham and other R's are rightfully condemning it.

I generally agree.

To JSA's point about why it would be assumed that voter fraud would generally be hurtful to the Republicans . . .

the election where late returns in Texas and Illinois from heavy partisan counties that had incredibly 'high' levels of voter turnout had a clear impact on the election was 1960, and it favored Kennedy (Chicago - a Democratic stronghold, and parts of the state that in Texas that LBJ controlled) . . . .

Also, that largest block of people who are not entitled to vote, yet who would have a potentially significant interest in this election, (or any election) would be undocumented aliens (or immigrants), or other non-citizens. It would be presumed by most that they would lean Democratic.

1. It is probably that there is some number of people who voted illegally.
2. It is unlikely or improbable that that number was significant, and certainly nowhere near 3,000,000 voters (I don't think Trump claimed that many, but it's an extrapolation of the number needed for him to have won the popular vote - - again, I think Trump is an F, not a T on the Myers-Briggs and he's reacting emotionally, not rationally).
3. I cannot believe that undocumented immigrants (or documented) made any kind of conspiratorial effort to vote.
4. In Texas, you have to present your voter registration card (I'm guessing, don't know if you need photo ID if you have your registration card with you), or a photo ID proving your identity matches someone on the voter rolls. Fraud, in this case, of any significance would have to involve poll workers casting ballots for voters who never showed up, once the polls have closed (i.e. the dead people who voted in Cook County and parts of Texas in 1960). There's no way that could amount to 3,000,000 votes, even if you assume this is much more common than it could possibly be.

Can anyone explain to me how a voter identification requirement could be construed as unconstitutional or racist, provided the state made available provisions for anyone qualified to obtain a free identification card?

People who think no one votes illegally are naïve.

People who think that the number who vote illegally is significant are paranoid.

If the state truly made it cost free and effort free (e.g. You were mailed a registration card and could return your registration for free and then receive a voter ID card), then it can't be construed as racist.

However, I don't know of a system proposed like this. Most require some form of photo ID and for you to get to a place like a DMV that is not open at all hours and may be many miles away. It is reallly a burden on the poor, but race is brought into the equation because the state's pushing these rules are often in the south, where a higher percentage of their poor citizens are black and these states have histories of trying to reduce the ability of black citizens to vote.

Your provision is crucial.

I think some form of photo ID is necessary to eliminate people voting by proxy (which is fraud).

You essentially just argued that the procedure for obtaining a driver's license is racist.

It is inconvenient for anyone to have to go somewhere to get a photo ID made, it is simply a matter of degree.

People who are in the business of registering people to vote (as volunteers) would be more than happy to provide transportation to facilitate people getting a free photo ID. There would just be some other objection or rationalization to explain the lack of interest shown by those who would refuse to avail themselves of the assistance.

At some point, if a process is free, available to all under the same conditions, and no one is actively hindering people from obtaining a photo ID . . . . . . I think complaints of racism are contrived, and come across to some as a means to intentionally allow potential for voter abuse to exist (i.e., voting by proxy, etc.)

I still think the seeds of Watergate were sown by the presidential election of 1960 in Cook County, Illinois, and rural counties in South Texas.

Rick, to the bold, there was some crucial nuance in my comment. I specifically stated that ID requirements are burdensome on the poor.

Then, I stated that race is brought into the equation because, if you look up the % of people living under the poverty line in southern states (predominantly the states looking to enact voter ID laws), you'll see that people of color generally make up the largest % of people who are poor. The reason this is such a burden on the poor is that, if they are the working poor, they may not have the ability to go to a DMV during working hours during the week to get an ID made, as the DMV in most states doesn't operate outside of regular working hours.

So, perhaps the act itself isn't done with racist intentions, but when you look at the people it will affect the most (the poor) you see that they are predominantly people of color.

Then when you take a step back and go, "Well, what problems have we witnessed that lead legislators to take action against voter fraud?" and you find out that there is no evidence that wide-spread voter fraud is happening, it makes one wonder what the motivation is to require a photo ID to vote. Now, it could just be motivated in keeping democratic turnout low (see: http://www.politico.com/story/2012/06/pa...e-077811), but is that any better?

In short, until there is proof that voter ID laws are needed to curb problems that exist, there will be questions about their intentions.

(01-25-2017 01:54 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I mean, I think we should encourage as many people as possible to vote, because the greater the participation the better, since we begin to more closely resemble what the will of the entire nation is.

Should we not try and make it as easy as possible for people to vote? If no, why not?

You make two very different points.

I agree with your second paragraph, at least with the provision:

We should try and make it as easy as possible for every legally eligible citizen to vote, while eliminating the most common and easily addressable forms of voter fraud.

i.e., not convicted felons, not non-citizens.

With regard to your first paragraph, I don't necessarily agree that the greater the participation the better.

Voters who are uneducated on the issues, voters casting ballots for candidates for whom others have told them to vote, voters who have been bribed (monetarily, not politically). . . . I'm not sure that makes for a better outcome.

Ideally we have a voting constituency of citizens who have a least a reasonable understanding of how our government works, have an understanding of the issues that are important in a given election.

For the record, saying that I don't necessarily agree that greater participation = better outcome, is not the same as saying I want to limit participation.

Just pointing out the obvious.

For example, I think clearly think Venezuela would've been better served with less participation in the elections that put Hugo Chavez in power. Within months, he had succeeded in completely re-writing their Constitution in a manner that eliminated term limits and effectively set himself up as el presidente for life. To say that he had a sizeable proportion of support from the less educated portion of the country would be accurate.

Ultimately, democracy does not fare well unless there is a majority middle class, or a majority who feel themselves well represented by the status quo (in our case, a two party system).

Democracies get overthrown when you have a majority of disaffected poor. See Germany in the depression following WW I. See Venezuela.

Maybe the democratic institutions in place (Venezuela was/is the oldest South American democracy) needed to change to address the realities of the situations in those cases. But they clearly got a lot more than what they bargained for.

(01-25-2017 06:46 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-25-2017 04:11 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(01-25-2017 01:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-25-2017 01:06 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(01-25-2017 12:33 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Well either. If there were truly any reason to believe there were millions of fraudulent votes, that should be of concern to everyone. But since study after study has shown in-person voter fraud to be close to non-existent, that's not what I was specifically referring to.

1) It concerns me that he seems so obsessed with the popular vote and rehashing the election. Campaign's over. Work on leading the country.

2) It is simply irresponsible to make unfounded claims like that. At best it's reckless and at worst he's preparing to call whatever gains Dems might make in midterms illegitimate. Lyndsey Graham and other R's are rightfully condemning it.

I generally agree.

To JSA's point about why it would be assumed that voter fraud would generally be hurtful to the Republicans . . .

the election where late returns in Texas and Illinois from heavy partisan counties that had incredibly 'high' levels of voter turnout had a clear impact on the election was 1960, and it favored Kennedy (Chicago - a Democratic stronghold, and parts of the state that in Texas that LBJ controlled) . . . .

Also, that largest block of people who are not entitled to vote, yet who would have a potentially significant interest in this election, (or any election) would be undocumented aliens (or immigrants), or other non-citizens. It would be presumed by most that they would lean Democratic.

1. It is probably that there is some number of people who voted illegally.
2. It is unlikely or improbable that that number was significant, and certainly nowhere near 3,000,000 voters (I don't think Trump claimed that many, but it's an extrapolation of the number needed for him to have won the popular vote - - again, I think Trump is an F, not a T on the Myers-Briggs and he's reacting emotionally, not rationally).
3. I cannot believe that undocumented immigrants (or documented) made any kind of conspiratorial effort to vote.
4. In Texas, you have to present your voter registration card (I'm guessing, don't know if you need photo ID if you have your registration card with you), or a photo ID proving your identity matches someone on the voter rolls. Fraud, in this case, of any significance would have to involve poll workers casting ballots for voters who never showed up, once the polls have closed (i.e. the dead people who voted in Cook County and parts of Texas in 1960). There's no way that could amount to 3,000,000 votes, even if you assume this is much more common than it could possibly be.

Can anyone explain to me how a voter identification requirement could be construed as unconstitutional or racist, provided the state made available provisions for anyone qualified to obtain a free identification card?

People who think no one votes illegally are naïve.

People who think that the number who vote illegally is significant are paranoid.

If the state truly made it cost free and effort free (e.g. You were mailed a registration card and could return your registration for free and then receive a voter ID card), then it can't be construed as racist.

However, I don't know of a system proposed like this. Most require some form of photo ID and for you to get to a place like a DMV that is not open at all hours and may be many miles away. It is reallly a burden on the poor, but race is brought into the equation because the state's pushing these rules are often in the south, where a higher percentage of their poor citizens are black and these states have histories of trying to reduce the ability of black citizens to vote.

Your provision is crucial.

I think some form of photo ID is necessary to eliminate people voting by proxy (which is fraud).

You essentially just argued that the procedure for obtaining a driver's license is racist.

It is inconvenient for anyone to have to go somewhere to get a photo ID made, it is simply a matter of degree.

People who are in the business of registering people to vote (as volunteers) would be more than happy to provide transportation to facilitate people getting a free photo ID. There would just be some other objection or rationalization to explain the lack of interest shown by those who would refuse to avail themselves of the assistance.

At some point, if a process is free, available to all under the same conditions, and no one is actively hindering people from obtaining a photo ID . . . . . . I think complaints of racism are contrived, and come across to some as a means to intentionally allow potential for voter abuse to exist (i.e., voting by proxy, etc.)

I still think the seeds of Watergate were sown by the presidential election of 1960 in Cook County, Illinois, and rural counties in South Texas.

Rick, to the bold, there was some crucial nuance in my comment. I specifically stated that ID requirements are burdensome on the poor.

Then, I stated that race is brought into the equation because, if you look up the % of people living under the poverty line in southern states (predominantly the states looking to enact voter ID laws), you'll see that people of color generally make up the largest % of people who are poor. The reason this is such a burden on the poor is that, if they are the working poor, they may not have the ability to go to a DMV during working hours during the week to get an ID made, as the DMV in most states doesn't operate outside of regular working hours.

So, perhaps the act itself isn't done with racist intentions, but when you look at the people it will affect the most (the poor) you see that they are predominantly people of color.

Then when you take a step back and go, "Well, what problems have we witnessed that lead legislators to take action against voter fraud?" and you find out that there is no evidence that wide-spread voter fraud is happening, it makes one wonder what the motivation is to require a photo ID to vote. Now, it could just be motivated in keeping democratic turnout low (see: http://www.politico.com/story/2012/06/pa...e-077811), but is that any better?

In short, until there is proof that voter ID laws are needed to curb problems that exist, there will be questions about their intentions.

It's a pain for anyone to get to the DMV is my point.

Jury duty is a pain. I still go.

If the answer is to open up offices for registration occasionally outside of M-F, 8-5, then that's still a better answer than to accept whatever levels of voter fraud do exist.

(01-25-2017 07:17 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(01-25-2017 06:46 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-25-2017 04:11 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(01-25-2017 01:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-25-2017 01:06 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  I generally agree.

To JSA's point about why it would be assumed that voter fraud would generally be hurtful to the Republicans . . .

the election where late returns in Texas and Illinois from heavy partisan counties that had incredibly 'high' levels of voter turnout had a clear impact on the election was 1960, and it favored Kennedy (Chicago - a Democratic stronghold, and parts of the state that in Texas that LBJ controlled) . . . .

Also, that largest block of people who are not entitled to vote, yet who would have a potentially significant interest in this election, (or any election) would be undocumented aliens (or immigrants), or other non-citizens. It would be presumed by most that they would lean Democratic.

1. It is probably that there is some number of people who voted illegally.
2. It is unlikely or improbable that that number was significant, and certainly nowhere near 3,000,000 voters (I don't think Trump claimed that many, but it's an extrapolation of the number needed for him to have won the popular vote - - again, I think Trump is an F, not a T on the Myers-Briggs and he's reacting emotionally, not rationally).
3. I cannot believe that undocumented immigrants (or documented) made any kind of conspiratorial effort to vote.
4. In Texas, you have to present your voter registration card (I'm guessing, don't know if you need photo ID if you have your registration card with you), or a photo ID proving your identity matches someone on the voter rolls. Fraud, in this case, of any significance would have to involve poll workers casting ballots for voters who never showed up, once the polls have closed (i.e. the dead people who voted in Cook County and parts of Texas in 1960). There's no way that could amount to 3,000,000 votes, even if you assume this is much more common than it could possibly be.

Can anyone explain to me how a voter identification requirement could be construed as unconstitutional or racist, provided the state made available provisions for anyone qualified to obtain a free identification card?

People who think no one votes illegally are naïve.

People who think that the number who vote illegally is significant are paranoid.

If the state truly made it cost free and effort free (e.g. You were mailed a registration card and could return your registration for free and then receive a voter ID card), then it can't be construed as racist.

However, I don't know of a system proposed like this. Most require some form of photo ID and for you to get to a place like a DMV that is not open at all hours and may be many miles away. It is reallly a burden on the poor, but race is brought into the equation because the state's pushing these rules are often in the south, where a higher percentage of their poor citizens are black and these states have histories of trying to reduce the ability of black citizens to vote.

Your provision is crucial.

I think some form of photo ID is necessary to eliminate people voting by proxy (which is fraud).

You essentially just argued that the procedure for obtaining a driver's license is racist.

It is inconvenient for anyone to have to go somewhere to get a photo ID made, it is simply a matter of degree.

People who are in the business of registering people to vote (as volunteers) would be more than happy to provide transportation to facilitate people getting a free photo ID. There would just be some other objection or rationalization to explain the lack of interest shown by those who would refuse to avail themselves of the assistance.

At some point, if a process is free, available to all under the same conditions, and no one is actively hindering people from obtaining a photo ID . . . . . . I think complaints of racism are contrived, and come across to some as a means to intentionally allow potential for voter abuse to exist (i.e., voting by proxy, etc.)

I still think the seeds of Watergate were sown by the presidential election of 1960 in Cook County, Illinois, and rural counties in South Texas.

Rick, to the bold, there was some crucial nuance in my comment. I specifically stated that ID requirements are burdensome on the poor.

Then, I stated that race is brought into the equation because, if you look up the % of people living under the poverty line in southern states (predominantly the states looking to enact voter ID laws), you'll see that people of color generally make up the largest % of people who are poor. The reason this is such a burden on the poor is that, if they are the working poor, they may not have the ability to go to a DMV during working hours during the week to get an ID made, as the DMV in most states doesn't operate outside of regular working hours.

So, perhaps the act itself isn't done with racist intentions, but when you look at the people it will affect the most (the poor) you see that they are predominantly people of color.

Then when you take a step back and go, "Well, what problems have we witnessed that lead legislators to take action against voter fraud?" and you find out that there is no evidence that wide-spread voter fraud is happening, it makes one wonder what the motivation is to require a photo ID to vote. Now, it could just be motivated in keeping democratic turnout low (see: http://www.politico.com/story/2012/06/pa...e-077811), but is that any better?

In short, until there is proof that voter ID laws are needed to curb problems that exist, there will be questions about their intentions.

It's a pain for anyone to get to the DMV is my point.

Jury duty is a pain. I still go.

If the answer is to open up offices for registration occasionally outside of M-F, 8-5, then that's still a better answer than to accept whatever levels of voter fraud do exist.

The issue to me is the difference between inconvenience and a burden. Yes, it's a pain for me, but I have a salaried job that let's me take time off to go to the DMV, and I live in an urban area with a lot of DMVs, so I'm not burdened with the fact that I need an ID. In the end, there is no reasonable hardship for me.

But I can find a number of other situations where going to the DMV is a burden, not a pain. Mandating that DMVs are open either later or on a weekend X times per month would be a start. Providing a service where you could get an ID without going to a DMV if it isn't within, say, a 30 minute trip on public transit, would be even better.

I just find it mind-boggling that steps to make getting IDs easier aren't put into law at the same time IDs are being required for voting.

(01-25-2017 06:46 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Then when you take a step back and go, "Well, what problems have we witnessed that lead legislators to take action against voter fraud?" and you find out that there is no evidence that wide-spread voter fraud is happening, it makes one wonder what the motivation is to require a photo ID to vote.

There is no evidence that it is or is not happening, because without voter ID there is no way to obtain any credible evidence either way.

You're a poll worker, I show up and claim to be John Smith of 123 Main Street and want to vote. Without voter ID, and unless you know me personally, exactly how can you verify that I am in fact John Smith of 123 Main Street and entitled to vote at this particular polling place?

Without a satisfactory answer to that question, how can any determination be made as to whether wide-spread voter fraud is or is not happening?

It is not being detected, but is that because it is not happening or because we have no method to detect it?

(01-25-2017 08:41 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-25-2017 06:46 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Then when you take a step back and go, "Well, what problems have we witnessed that lead legislators to take action against voter fraud?" and you find out that there is no evidence that wide-spread voter fraud is happening, it makes one wonder what the motivation is to require a photo ID to vote.

There is no evidence that it is or is not happening, because without voter ID there is no way to obtain any credible evidence either way.

You're a poll worker, I show up and claim to be John Smith of 123 Main Street and want to vote. Without voter ID, and unless you know me personally, exactly how can you verify that I am in fact John Smith of 123 Main Street and entitled to vote at this particular polling place?

Without a satisfactory answer to that question, how can any determination be made as to whether wide-spread voter fraud is or is not happening?

It is not being detected, but is that because it is not happening or because we have no method to detect it?

Well, you have to get lucky to pretend to be John Smith and then not have John Smith show up, for starters. And then you also have to know that John Smith is in fact a registered voter. And then you also have to hope that John Smith is registered to vote at that precinct.

So let's say you get past all three of those, then yeah, I guess you could commit voter fraud in that manner.

I'm not sure how people evaluate if wide-spread voter fraud is happening or not, but I have to imagine that there are statistics involved with evaluating the # of reported fraud cases when someone goes to vote and someone has already voted for them.

(01-25-2017 09:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-25-2017 08:41 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-25-2017 06:46 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Then when you take a step back and go, "Well, what problems have we witnessed that lead legislators to take action against voter fraud?" and you find out that there is no evidence that wide-spread voter fraud is happening, it makes one wonder what the motivation is to require a photo ID to vote.

There is no evidence that it is or is not happening, because without voter ID there is no way to obtain any credible evidence either way.

You're a poll worker, I show up and claim to be John Smith of 123 Main Street and want to vote. Without voter ID, and unless you know me personally, exactly how can you verify that I am in fact John Smith of 123 Main Street and entitled to vote at this particular polling place?

Without a satisfactory answer to that question, how can any determination be made as to whether wide-spread voter fraud is or is not happening?

It is not being detected, but is that because it is not happening or because we have no method to detect it?

Well, you have to get lucky to pretend to be John Smith and then not have John Smith show up, for starters. And then you also have to know that John Smith is in fact a registered voter. And then you also have to hope that John Smith is registered to vote at that precinct.

So let's say you get past all three of those, then yeah, I guess you could commit voter fraud in that manner.

I'm not sure how people evaluate if wide-spread voter fraud is happening or not, but I have to imagine that there are statistics involved with evaluating the # of reported fraud cases when someone goes to vote and someone has already voted for them.

I think I've shared this before here, but when I worked as a poll worker in the 90s, I had my share of questionable inquiries to vote at the precinct. I was precinct lead (or vice lead, depending on party in power) in many cases, so was often called in. I would say we handled 3 to 5 cases each election where people came in, trying to vote without the necessary info, said they were leaving to get it, and never came back. This was in the general elections, in particular.

It's not a high attempt rate (precinct size was typically between 2000 and 3000 registered voters), and not trying to say it's all fraud either. Some people only have a limited amount of time to vote. But they were questionable situations, and we had a provisional ballot process some of them could have followed if they wanted to provide proof within a few days of the election.

The thing that voter ID laws ignore is that more and more voting is not even being done in-person anymore. Early voting, particularly absentee voting, is increasingly the choice of many, and other than signing your name on the application and being at the address on file/requested from (to receive the absentee voting packet), there's very little to prevent stuffed rolls (assuming the people can be fraudulently registered in the first place).

I'm not saying this is a big factor, but more mentioning the hypothetical.
.
BTW, I can probably make the case that Republican numbers were suppressed some in California due to there being no Republican running for US Senator and the fact that California was guaranteed to put its electoral college votes to Hillary. The jungle primary resulted in 2 Democrats being on the ballot for Senator. Certainly not enough to make up the national margin being disputed, but I'm guessing there were some who never bothered to show up.

And in the end, it doesn't matter, as many here are arguing. It's a stupid thing to argue about, IMO. Hopefully, he's not really serious about it, and it is a ploy to suck up the oxygen from the news cycle covering other things happening. (And I say that cynically, not as a judgment on other things he's doing.)

(01-25-2017 09:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-25-2017 08:41 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-25-2017 06:46 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Then when you take a step back and go, "Well, what problems have we witnessed that lead legislators to take action against voter fraud?" and you find out that there is no evidence that wide-spread voter fraud is happening, it makes one wonder what the motivation is to require a photo ID to vote.

There is no evidence that it is or is not happening, because without voter ID there is no way to obtain any credible evidence either way.

You're a poll worker, I show up and claim to be John Smith of 123 Main Street and want to vote. Without voter ID, and unless you know me personally, exactly how can you verify that I am in fact John Smith of 123 Main Street and entitled to vote at this particular polling place?

Without a satisfactory answer to that question, how can any determination be made as to whether wide-spread voter fraud is or is not happening?

It is not being detected, but is that because it is not happening or because we have no method to detect it?

Well, you have to get lucky to pretend to be John Smith and then not have John Smith show up, for starters. And then you also have to know that John Smith is in fact a registered voter. And then you also have to hope that John Smith is registered to vote at that precinct.

So let's say you get past all three of those, then yeah, I guess you could commit voter fraud in that manner.

I'm not sure how people evaluate if wide-spread voter fraud is happening or not, but I have to imagine that there are statistics involved with evaluating the # of reported fraud cases when someone goes to vote and someone has already voted for them.

Its not luck. I need to hook you up with my old union organizer beer drinking buds.... According to them, the bus circuit that they alleged that they ran for voting purposes came replete with that knowledge, whether representing deceased, representing multiple registrations for the same person, or whether that identity had been carved from whole cloth via workshop arrangements. Its not a matter of "luck" according to them.

It is a very viable strategy in the no ID states.... comically easy actually.

Additionally, for sh-ts and giggles, go to the CA Secretary of State and look at what you have to do to register to vote. So please, don't give me the "it would be hard for this to happen thingy" -- in some states yes, in others comically no.

(01-25-2017 05:45 PM)JSA Wrote:  And the Pentagon Papers and early polls showing a close race in 1972 against Edmund Muskie.

In the words of Charles Montgomery Burns:
"A nonprofit organization with oil? I won't allow it. An oil well doesn't belong in the hands of Betsy Bleeding-heart and Maynard G. Muskie-vote."

Personally, I would like to see an interested and informed electorate, but not a lot of people agree with me.

I would like to see ALL our voters pass a basic civics test, once in their life, similar to the one that naturalized citizens have to pass. Nothing evil about understanding our Constitution and the checks and balances. I am tired of having my vote cancelled by somebody who thinks, like, you know, Alaska is an island because that's the way it, like, you lknow, looks on the weather, or that there are 20 Senators, or that the President is elected by popular vote, or Manitoba s one of,those northern states, you know

But if you don't care about the level of knowledge of voters, just the turnout, change the tax system. Eliminate the income tax and replace it with a national sales tax. Exempt some basics, to make it less regressive, but once EVERYBODY is paying their fair share via a tax on spending, EVEYBODY will care care where the money goes, and most importantly, EVERYBODY will want to express their thoughts to their representatives regarding even the tiniest tax increase. You could easily start getting 90%turnout if tax issues are part of the campaign.

The objections to voter ID are silly. You have to present ID to get food stamps or a passport. NObody is objecting on the grounds that the US is trying to restrict the right of poor people or people of color to travel.

Maybe for some weat Texas people who live 100 miles from the DMV, it could be seen as a burden, but guess what, they are going to travel that 100 miles anyway to buy groceries, or get a haircut, or see a doctor, no big deal to spend an extra 15 minutes at the DMV the next time they go to town...IF they really give a da,n about voting.

I too think the right to vote in the US is the exact same as the right to enter a foreign country or be provided government assistance. One in the same.

I guess we just view the right to vote differently - that to me it should be denied to as few people as possible, while you don't believe that.

I wish that people who voted were all well informed and understood civics, but I worry that putting any sort of poll tax (be that monetary or intelligent based), would unintentionally (or intentionally) keep swaths of people from voting in elections that directly effect them.

(01-25-2017 10:59 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(01-25-2017 05:45 PM)JSA Wrote:  And the Pentagon Papers and early polls showing a close race in 1972 against Edmund Muskie.

In the words of Charles Montgomery Burns:
"A nonprofit organization with oil? I won't allow it. An oil well doesn't belong in the hands of Betsy Bleeding-heart and Maynard G. Muskie-vote."

Mr. Burns: This anonymous clan of slack-jawed troglodytes has cost me the election, and yet if I were to have them killed,
I would be the one to go to jail. That's democracy for you.

Smithers: You are noble and poetic in defeat, sir.

(01-26-2017 10:16 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I too think the right to vote in the US is the exact same as the right to enter a foreign country or be provided government assistance. One in the same.

I guess we just view the right to vote differently - that to me it should be denied to as few people as possible, while you don't believe that.

I wish that people who voted were all well informed and understood civics, but I worry that putting any sort of poll tax (be that monetary or intelligent based), would unintentionally (or intentionally) keep swaths of people from voting in elections that directly effect them.

Sigh

OK, I've stated photo voter ID's should be free, and registration locations should be opened more then 'standard' hours to allow access to all. I've suggested location issues also could be addressed.

While I contend that greater voter turnout does not necessarily translate into better results (uninformed voters out for presidential elections, then voting on ballot propositions based on 'trigger' words (for them) without understanding the ramifications of their 'vote' - - see HISD proposition last November) . . . I was clear in stating that I did not want to limit voter access. . . . . .

then you use inflammatory language like 'poll tax' in what is otherwise a reasonable discussion. That's an inflammatory term, that might not meet the definition of an ad hominem attack exactly, but it is a diversion that has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

The issue at hand is this: there are ways to vote illegally. There are ways to stuff the ballot box. If requiring a picture ID can reduce some of the pathways to illegal voting activity, I will NEVER understand objections to requiring voter ID, provided it's free and no intentional and/or partisan action is taken to limit legal access to the ID.

(01-26-2017 10:16 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I guess we just view the right to vote differently - that to me it should be denied to as few people as possible, while you don't believe that.

I would change this to "it should be denied to as few citizens as possible", and that "you need to be able to show such citizenship in incontrovertible manner".

The crux of the problem is the control method vs keeping the spigots wide open in an unmanaged fashion.

I have no problem with showing an ID to exercise a (implicit) fundamental right to vote, much as I have no problem to show ID to exercise another (explicit though) fundamental right to own and bear arms.

(01-26-2017 10:16 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I too think the right to vote in the US is the exact same as the right to enter a foreign country or be provided government assistance. One in the same.

I guess we just view the right to vote differently - that to me it should be denied to as few people as possible, while you don't believe that.

I wish that people who voted were all well informed and understood civics, but I worry that putting any sort of poll tax (be that monetary or intelligent based), would unintentionally (or intentionally) keep swaths of people from voting in elections that directly effect them.

Well, it certainly would keep stupid, umimformed minimally caring people from voting. I can see how that would slant the results toward good policies. We sure don't need that.

Out of curiosity, who do you think would have been most affected if my plan was in place, Trump or Clinton? Who would have lost the most voters?


You misunderstood my point about passports. If asking people for ID to vote is restricting their right to vote, then asking them for ID to get a passport must be restricting their right to travel. Yet there s an uproar over one and silence on the other.

(01-26-2017 11:58 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-26-2017 10:16 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I too think the right to vote in the US is the exact same as the right to enter a foreign country or be provided government assistance. One in the same.

I guess we just view the right to vote differently - that to me it should be denied to as few people as possible, while you don't believe that.

I wish that people who voted were all well informed and understood civics, but I worry that putting any sort of poll tax (be that monetary or intelligent based), would unintentionally (or intentionally) keep swaths of people from voting in elections that directly effect them.

Well, it certainly would keep stupid, umimformed minimally caring people from voting. I can see how that would slant the results toward good policies. We sure don't need that.

Out of curiosity, who do you think would have been most affected if my plan was in place, Trump or Clinton? Who would have lost the most voters?


You misunderstood my point about passports. If asking people for ID to vote is restricting their right to vote, then asking them for ID to get a passport must be restricting their right to travel. Yet there s an uproar over one and silence on the other.

What if a UT student ID wasn't a valid ID for getting a passport, but a concealed carry permit was?