(12-28-2011 05:05 PM)dcCid Wrote:  http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/...raud-fraud

Gee, there was no bias in that article.

Damn, why do the best articles on the American political system come from overseas?

So your NRA membership card is good enough in Texas, but not your Veterans Administration ID? Apparently the state is so red the GOP there just dropped all pretenses and is openly corrupt. "What else are you gonna do, vote for Democrats? They might slow down the executions!"

Quote:In Texas, student ID cards are no longer be valid for voting; neither are ID cards issued by the federal Veterans Administration. All those students and war vets need to do is go buy a gun: concealed weapons permits are acceptable at the polls.

Republicans all sing from the same hymnal on this one: voting must be tightly controlled to prevent fraud. Never mind that there is no fraud. Indeed, the Brennan Center found that voter fraud is so "exceedingly rare" that "one is more likely to be struck by lightning than to commit voter fraud." Mickey Mouse was not allowed to register. Paul Newman did not vote from beyond the grave. Hordes of undocumented Mexicans have not stuffed ballot boxes (though a great many new, legal Latino voters have registered in Florida, Texas and other large states).

But why let the facts get in the way of rigging an election? Some conservative sages have let the veil slip long enough for us to see what's really going on. Former Arkansas governor-turned-paid-Murdoch-mediaite Mike Huckabee likes to say that if people have friends who don't plan to vote the rightwing line, "Let the air out of their tires on election day. Tell them the election has been moved to a different date."

Huckabee protests he's just joking. But Matthew Vadum, a Fox News favorite and part of the paranoid right's brain trust, isn't being remotely funny when he says "registering the poor to vote is un-American." Nor was American Legislative Exchange Council co-founder Paul Weyrich back in the 1980s, when he said, "I don't want everybody to vote. Our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down."

Obviously, democracy is no fun if just anyone can play.

(12-28-2011 05:25 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Damn, why do the best articles on the American political system come from overseas?

So your NRA membership card is good enough in Texas, but not your Veterans Administration ID? Apparently the state is so red the GOP there just dropped all pretenses and is openly corrupt. "What else are you gonna do, vote for Democrats? They might slow down the executions!"

Quote:In Texas, student ID cards are no longer be valid for voting; neither are ID cards issued by the federal Veterans Administration. All those students and war vets need to do is go buy a gun: concealed weapons permits are acceptable at the polls.

Republicans all sing from the same hymnal on this one: voting must be tightly controlled to prevent fraud. Never mind that there is no fraud. Indeed, the Brennan Center found that voter fraud is so "exceedingly rare" that "one is more likely to be struck by lightning than to commit voter fraud." Mickey Mouse was not allowed to register. Paul Newman did not vote from beyond the grave. Hordes of undocumented Mexicans have not stuffed ballot boxes (though a great many new, legal Latino voters have registered in Florida, Texas and other large states).

But why let the facts get in the way of rigging an election? Some conservative sages have let the veil slip long enough for us to see what's really going on. Former Arkansas governor-turned-paid-Murdoch-mediaite Mike Huckabee likes to say that if people have friends who don't plan to vote the rightwing line, "Let the air out of their tires on election day. Tell them the election has been moved to a different date."

Huckabee protests he's just joking. But Matthew Vadum, a Fox News favorite and part of the paranoid right's brain trust, isn't being remotely funny when he says "registering the poor to vote is un-American." Nor was American Legislative Exchange Council co-founder Paul Weyrich back in the 1980s, when he said, "I don't want everybody to vote. Our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down."

Obviously, democracy is no fun if just anyone can play.

Here's the law and there's nothing about the NRA in it. And gee, a birth certificate counts. Weren't libs born?

Existing law:

Voter registration certificate

Driver’s license
Department of Public Safety ID card
A form of ID containing the person’s photo that establishes the person’s identity
A birth certificate or other document confirming birth that is admissible in a court of law and establishes the person’s identity
U.S. citizenship papers
A U.S. passport
Official mail addressed to the person, by name, from a governmental entity
A copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document that shows the person’s name and address
Any other form of ID prescribed by the secretary of state


New law:
Driver's license
Election identification certificate
Dept. of Public Safety personal ID card
U.S. military ID
U.S. citizenship certificate
U.S. passport
License to carry a concealed handgun issued by the Dept. of Public Safety
All of the above must include a photo of the voter. With the exception of the certificate of citizenship, these forms of ID cannot be expired, or cannot have expired more than 60 days before the election.

Actually, according to what you just posted, under the new law a birth certificate no longer counts!

The NRA membership card thing was hyperbole. Anybody with a concealed carry license though is probably just as dependable a GOP vote. Just drop the pretense and give them the option of their NRA membership card.

Clearly we can't allow people to vote just by showing a copy of their utility bill. All over Texas I'm sure, unregistered voters are rummaging through the trash of registered voters they KNOW won't be voting, just so they can cast a ballot for that 0.00001% chance they'll swing an election. And all at the risk of felony charges!

Worst case one way, somebody who can't afford an ID card doesn't get to vote.
Worst case the other, someone who isn't legally entitled to vote gets to vote.

I can't imagine the number of either being very large.

So it's a question of which evil you think is worse. There are arguments either way. I think the "someone who isn't legally entitled to vote gets to vote" is the worse of the two evils.

(12-28-2011 05:58 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Actually, according to what you just posted, under the new law a birth certificate no longer counts!

You're right, I was thinking ahead of myself. But to get the things under the new law, you still need to present a birth certificate. Crap, here in Texas I need to submit a CERTIFIED copy of my birth certificate and an ORIGINAL social security card. Who the hell has one of those? (my friggin wife, that's who! some day, bang, zoom!!!)

(12-28-2011 06:03 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Worst case one way, somebody who can't afford an ID card doesn't get to vote.
Worst case the other, someone who isn't legally entitled to vote gets to vote.

I can't imagine the number of either being very large.

So it's a question of which evil you think is worse. There are arguments either way. I think the "someone who isn't legally entitled to vote gets to vote" is the worse of the two evils.

On the same lines, is it better to execute an innocent man just to make sure a guilty one does not go free?.

The GOP is creating a boogy man and regulations to solve a problem that does not exist. Even by the GOP's own research.

http://www.blackamericaweb.com/?q=articl...news/35351

(12-28-2011 06:21 PM)dcCid Wrote:  

(12-28-2011 06:03 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Worst case one way, somebody who can't afford an ID card doesn't get to vote.
Worst case the other, someone who isn't legally entitled to vote gets to vote.
I can't imagine the number of either being very large.
So it's a question of which evil you think is worse. There are arguments either way. I think the "someone who isn't legally entitled to vote gets to vote" is the worse of the two evils.

On the same lines, is it better to execute an innocent man just to make sure a guilty one does not go free?.
The GOP is creating a boogy man and regulations to solve a problem that does not exist. Even by the GOP's own research.
http://www.blackamericaweb.com/?q=articl...news/35351

Sorry, but your analogy misses by a wide margin. Not even remotely close to the same thing. Or maybe it is close, in that the harm done by executing an innocent man is clearly greater than the harm done by letting a guilty man go free, just as the harm done by letting illegal votes skew an election is far greater than the harm done by not allowing someone so disinterested in society's going-on to fail to obtain a simple means of identification to vote--particularly since there is a reasonably likely possibility that the reason why he or she does not have an ID is that he or she is not legitimately entitled to vote in the first place.

And I'm afraid a link to a blog that clearly leans pretty hard one way fails by a wide margin to convince of anything.

I'm sorry, but I can't see condoning patently illegal activity simply because the system may not be "fair" to someone.

(12-28-2011 06:03 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Worst case one way, somebody who can't afford an ID card doesn't get to vote.
Worst case the other, someone who isn't legally entitled to vote gets to vote.

I can't imagine the number of either being very large.

So it's a question of which evil you think is worse. There are arguments either way. I think the "someone who isn't legally entitled to vote gets to vote" is the worse of the two evils.

The problem is that the proof of actual voter fraud is next to non-existent while the proof of those being disenfranchised is easily determined and no, it may not be extremely large, but if it happens once, it's too many in my book.

What's really crazy is this false choice between election security and disenfranchising voters. We can make elections more secure and preserve voting rights if we approach the problem correctly; but GOPers aren't interested in ways of making elections more secure if it doesn't include disenfranchising traditionally Democratic voters. Of course that is because they aren't really interested in the former, only the latter.

(12-28-2011 03:36 PM)Max Power Wrote:  The government had to step in in the first place because private charity can't be counted on to help all the poor.

BS. It is perfectly capable of doing so in regard to REAL poor and needy.

If government programs are so damn great...then why are there so many charities? Government programs help mostly those that can help themselves and are gaming the system or are institutional welfare kings and queens. The REAL poor get helped by Charity.

(12-28-2011 06:55 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  What's really crazy is this false choice between election security and disenfranchising voters. We can make elections more secure and preserve voting rights if we approach the problem correctly; but GOPers aren't interested in ways of making elections more secure if it doesn't include disenfranchising traditionally Democratic voters. Of course that is because they aren't really interested in the former, only the latter.

Yeah, requiring people to actually prove they're eligible to vote before voting is an OUTRAGE!

(12-29-2011 08:34 AM)Rebel Wrote:  

(12-28-2011 06:55 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  What's really crazy is this false choice between election security and disenfranchising voters. We can make elections more secure and preserve voting rights if we approach the problem correctly; but GOPers aren't interested in ways of making elections more secure if it doesn't include disenfranchising traditionally Democratic voters. Of course that is because they aren't really interested in the former, only the latter.

Yeah, requiring people to actually prove they're eligible to vote before voting is an OUTRAGE!

Damn Reb...You know it is racist to suggest that brown people have to have an ID for anything other than getting government assistance.

(12-28-2011 06:55 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  What's really crazy is this false choice between election security and disenfranchising voters. We can make elections more secure and preserve voting rights if we approach the problem correctly; but GOPers aren't interested in ways of making elections more secure if it doesn't include disenfranchising traditionally Democratic voters. Of course that is because they aren't really interested in the former, only the latter.

So, according to an earlier post; you're ok with voter ID laws if they're easier to get and as long as the burden is shared by voters of both parties? I'm all for making elections more secure and honestly I can't think of another way than to ask for an ID at the polling place. I'd agree that there is vote fraud at some level happening on both sides of the isle and there needs to be a way to make elections more secure for everyone..Libs and Con's. I like your idea of advertising the new ID's so that everyone knows they are available how exactly how to get one but the idea of sending someone to their house is crazy. How about for the first two years the state sets up temporary ID stations at local malls and supermarkets? Something like that should make getting the ID easier for the minorities and lower income voters. Everyone has to eat right? That way everyone who wants to vote can get an ID but isn't "inconvenienced". The ID should also be valid for anything that requires an ID. I think a voter ID law is inevitable...we just need to agree on how to make it fair and easy for everyone so not to "disenfranchise" any possible voters.

(12-29-2011 09:33 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(12-28-2011 06:55 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  What's really crazy is this false choice between election security and disenfranchising voters. We can make elections more secure and preserve voting rights if we approach the problem correctly; but GOPers aren't interested in ways of making elections more secure if it doesn't include disenfranchising traditionally Democratic voters. Of course that is because they aren't really interested in the former, only the latter.

So, according to an earlier post; you're ok with voter ID laws if they're easier to get and as long as the burden is shared by voters of both parties? I'm all for making elections more secure and honestly I can't think of another way than to ask for an ID at the polling place. I'd agree that there is vote fraud at some level happening on both sides of the isle and there needs to be a way to make elections more secure for everyone..Libs and Con's. I like your idea of advertising the new ID's so that everyone knows they are available how exactly how to get one but the idea of sending someone to their house is crazy. How about for the first two years the state sets up temporary ID stations at local malls and supermarkets? Something like that should make getting the ID easier for the minorities and lower income voters. Everyone has to eat right? That way everyone who wants to vote can get an ID but isn't "inconvenienced". The ID should also be valid for anything that requires an ID. I think a voter ID law is inevitable...we just need to agree on how to make it fair and easy for everyone so not to "disenfranchise" any possible voters.

The assertion that someone can't figure out a way to obtain an ID is absurd. You give everyone a year to get it done. If they can't do it in that time frame...then screw them. This business of coddling ADULTS is GD silly. I guarantee if you put $1000 in an account for these downtrodden folks, with the stipulation that they must show a picture ID to get the money....EVERY damn one of them would obtain one. This sh!t is one of the reasons America is doomed. We have a whole generation of people that believe that the country OWES them sh!t and must bend over backwards to take care of them.

(12-29-2011 09:45 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(12-29-2011 09:33 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(12-28-2011 06:55 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  What's really crazy is this false choice between election security and disenfranchising voters. We can make elections more secure and preserve voting rights if we approach the problem correctly; but GOPers aren't interested in ways of making elections more secure if it doesn't include disenfranchising traditionally Democratic voters. Of course that is because they aren't really interested in the former, only the latter.

So, according to an earlier post; you're ok with voter ID laws if they're easier to get and as long as the burden is shared by voters of both parties? I'm all for making elections more secure and honestly I can't think of another way than to ask for an ID at the polling place. I'd agree that there is vote fraud at some level happening on both sides of the isle and there needs to be a way to make elections more secure for everyone..Libs and Con's. I like your idea of advertising the new ID's so that everyone knows they are available how exactly how to get one but the idea of sending someone to their house is crazy. How about for the first two years the state sets up temporary ID stations at local malls and supermarkets? Something like that should make getting the ID easier for the minorities and lower income voters. Everyone has to eat right? That way everyone who wants to vote can get an ID but isn't "inconvenienced". The ID should also be valid for anything that requires an ID. I think a voter ID law is inevitable...we just need to agree on how to make it fair and easy for everyone so not to "disenfranchise" any possible voters.

The assertion that someone can't figure out a way to obtain an ID is absurd. You give everyone a year to get it done. If they can't do it in that time frame...then screw them. This business of coddling ADULTS is GD silly. I guarantee if you put $1000 in an account for these downtrodden folks, with the stipulation that they must show a picture ID to get the money....EVERY damn one of them would obtain one. This sh!t is one of the reasons America is doomed. We have a whole generation of people that believe that the country OWES them sh!t and must bend over backwards to take care of them.

What's absurd is thinking any Voter ID law can pass without cooperation from the left...

(12-28-2011 06:49 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-28-2011 06:03 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Worst case one way, somebody who can't afford an ID card doesn't get to vote.
Worst case the other, someone who isn't legally entitled to vote gets to vote.
I can't imagine the number of either being very large.
So it's a question of which evil you think is worse. There are arguments either way. I think the "someone who isn't legally entitled to vote gets to vote" is the worse of the two evils.

The problem is that the proof of actual voter fraud is next to non-existent while the proof of those being disenfranchised is easily determined and no, it may not be extremely large, but if it happens once, it's too many in my book.

So, are you saying that one instance of voter fraud is "next to non-existent" but one instance of someone being disenfranchised is "too many"? Would it not be equally true to say that one instance of someone being disenfranchised is "next to non-existent" but one instance of voter fraud is "too many"?

Clever rhetorical tool, but at the end of the day,
1. There's probably not a hell of a lot of either one going on, and
2. Both are bad, and one can logically support the idea of either being worse than the other.

My only question is whether, in this day and age when you need ID to get on an airplane or cash a welfare check or open a bank account or get food stamps, is someone with no ID really taking an active enough interest in participating in society for "disenfranchised" to be an accurate description if that person does not vote. Hasn't that person pretty much disenfranchised himself/herself from life in general by his/her other actions?

I could see a tiny case for cost, but it is my understanding that the SC statute follows the GA statute in providing free ID's for those who cannot afford one. If that is true (and I have not had a chance to read the law, someone who has feel free to correct me) then I see no basis for complaint.

(12-28-2011 06:55 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  What's really crazy is this false choice between election security and disenfranchising voters. We can make elections more secure and preserve voting rights if we approach the problem correctly; but GOPers aren't interested in ways of making elections more secure if it doesn't include disenfranchising traditionally Democratic voters. Of course that is because they aren't really interested in the former, only the latter.

And what, pray tell, is your fantastic solution?

(12-29-2011 10:29 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-28-2011 06:49 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-28-2011 06:03 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Worst case one way, somebody who can't afford an ID card doesn't get to vote.
Worst case the other, someone who isn't legally entitled to vote gets to vote.
I can't imagine the number of either being very large.
So it's a question of which evil you think is worse. There are arguments either way. I think the "someone who isn't legally entitled to vote gets to vote" is the worse of the two evils.

The problem is that the proof of actual voter fraud is next to non-existent while the proof of those being disenfranchised is easily determined and no, it may not be extremely large, but if it happens once, it's too many in my book.

So, are you saying that one instance of voter fraud is "next to non-existent" but one instance of someone being disenfranchised is "too many"? Would it not be equally true to say that one instance of someone being disenfranchised is "next to non-existent" but one instance of voter fraud is "too many"?

Clever rhetorical tool, but at the end of the day,
1. There's probably not a hell of a lot of either one going on, and
2. Both are bad, and one can logically support the idea of either being worse than the other.

My only question is whether, in this day and age when you need ID to get on an airplane or cash a welfare check or open a bank account or get food stamps, is someone with no ID really taking an active enough interest in participating in society for "disenfranchised" to be an accurate description if that person does not vote. Hasn't that person pretty much disenfranchised himself/herself from life in general by his/her other actions?

I could see a tiny case for cost, but it is my understanding that the SC statute follows the GA statute in providing free ID's for those who cannot afford one. If that is true (and I have not had a chance to read the law, someone who has feel free to correct me) then I see no basis for complaint.

With all the damn money that is pissed away in America on silly ass stuff..I have no problem with some of it being spent to simply give out ID cards free for anyone needing one that can show a valid Birth Certificate. There probably are not that many people anyway. This could simply be accomplished at the State DMV's. They already have a system in place for this type of card and they could be reimbursed for the charge.

There are absolutely more disenfranchised by a voter ID law than there are people trying to get away with voter fraud.

I've alluded to this but let's step back and think for a second. An ID requirement will only stop those people who are willing to risk felony charges to try to dupe the polling judge by claiming that they're a particular registered voter. It's not a problem and it's easy to see why. Many qualified voters don't even take the time to vote because they don't believe their vote "matters." Many people just do it because they believe it's their patriotic "duty." Why would some unregistered person or illegal immigrant go out of his way and risk so much to cast a single ballot??? It makes no sense. That's why its proponents can only find a handful of cases to demonstrate the need for this law. The significant instances of voting fraud that are actually trying to swing an election like the one in this thread's first post wouldn't have been affected by an ID law at all because the corruption is being done by the polling judges themselves or by others through absentee ballots. The IDs wouldn't solve anything!

Now let's look at those disenfranchised by the law. South Carolina's own statistics show minorities are 20% less likely to have an ID. 240,000 South Carolinians don't have a photo ID, so we're talking about tens of thousands of minorities who have to pick up their IDs in the next month to vote in the primary, and in the coming months to vote in the general. Some of them might not be able to, and many others might not think it's worth it. I know a lot of white people would be disinclined to vote if they had another hoop to jump through like this.

What if we turned this on its head? What if we added another hoop that disproportionately affected rich white people? What if the best IDs were issued at the welfare office and Democrats claimed it was necessary to improve security by making everyone go to the welfare office to get their IDs because, say, those IDs require fingerprints? That would be a sight to see! Rich white people in line at the welfare office to get their fingerprints registered for their free IDs. Something tells me we'd see door-to-door visits then, and quickly.