(08-17-2013 11:04 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(08-17-2013 10:01 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  The fact of the matter is that voter ID's make it less likely that certain segments of the population will vote. Those segments of society tend to vote Democrat.

Anyone attempting to give another reason is just spinning.

What fact(s) support that?

"fact of the matter" and "less likely" in the same sentence is a pathetic troll attempt.

You're response is pure spin.

Loser.

You live in Mississippi, right? That seems to me that would make YOU the loser.

(08-17-2013 11:13 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(08-17-2013 11:04 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(08-17-2013 10:01 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  The fact of the matter is that voter ID's make it less likely that certain segments of the population will vote. Those segments of society tend to vote Democrat.

Anyone attempting to give another reason is just spinning.

What fact(s) support that?

"fact of the matter" and "less likely" in the same sentence is a pathetic troll attempt.

You're response is pure spin.

Loser.

You live in Mississippi, right? That seems to me that would make YOU the loser.

Man, did you just hit 'perception' square in the head. I know what you're trying to say. Just as you exhibited, everyone is biased to some degree.

This isn't about black/white even though people like you wish it was.

(08-17-2013 11:42 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(08-17-2013 11:13 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(08-17-2013 11:04 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(08-17-2013 10:01 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  The fact of the matter is that voter ID's make it less likely that certain segments of the population will vote. Those segments of society tend to vote Democrat.

Anyone attempting to give another reason is just spinning.

What fact(s) support that?

"fact of the matter" and "less likely" in the same sentence is a pathetic troll attempt.

You're response is pure spin.

Loser.

You live in Mississippi, right? That seems to me that would make YOU the loser.

Man, did you just hit 'perception' square in the head. I know what you're trying to say. Just as you exhibited, everyone is biased to some degree.

This isn't about black/white even though people like you wish it was.

You are right. It isn't about black or white and it isn't about voter fraud either.

It's about discouraging people from voting.

(08-17-2013 03:39 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-17-2013 11:42 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(08-17-2013 11:13 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(08-17-2013 11:04 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(08-17-2013 10:01 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  The fact of the matter is that voter ID's make it less likely that certain segments of the population will vote. Those segments of society tend to vote Democrat.

Anyone attempting to give another reason is just spinning.

What fact(s) support that?

"fact of the matter" and "less likely" in the same sentence is a pathetic troll attempt.

You're response is pure spin.

Loser.

You live in Mississippi, right? That seems to me that would make YOU the loser.

Man, did you just hit 'perception' square in the head. I know what you're trying to say. Just as you exhibited, everyone is biased to some degree.

This isn't about black/white even though people like you wish it was.

You are right. It isn't about black or white and it isn't about voter fraud either.

It's about discouraging people from voting.

You are aware that most everyone outside the far left understands that is a lie?

(08-17-2013 03:45 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-17-2013 03:39 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-17-2013 11:42 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(08-17-2013 11:13 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(08-17-2013 11:04 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  What fact(s) support that?

"fact of the matter" and "less likely" in the same sentence is a pathetic troll attempt.

You're response is pure spin.

Loser.

You live in Mississippi, right? That seems to me that would make YOU the loser.

Man, did you just hit 'perception' square in the head. I know what you're trying to say. Just as you exhibited, everyone is biased to some degree.

This isn't about black/white even though people like you wish it was.

You are right. It isn't about black or white and it isn't about voter fraud either.

It's about discouraging people from voting.

You are aware that most everyone outside the far left understands that is a lie?

Not only is it not a lie but it's common knowledge.

Millions of people don't vote as it is now.


One more step to vote is simply going to discourage even more people.

Even the states own data proves it.

(08-16-2013 09:53 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-16-2013 07:31 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(08-16-2013 01:49 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(08-16-2013 01:30 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(08-16-2013 12:39 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  There is no valid argument against voter ID laws. To be against proving who you are to vote in an election that impacts everyone is the true definition of corruption. You show an ID to buy alcohol. You show an ID to purchase cigarettes. In that case you are only hurting yourself. When people who are not qualified to vote do so, they hurt everyone.

You prove who you are and where you live in the registration process.

How does the person that gives you the ballot know who you are? Granted in my small town...they know me..but..that is not the case in Urban areas and large precincts.

All I see going on at my precinct is people stating their name and being given a ballot. Hell..you don't even have to show a registration card. I doubt that it happens much at all...but...this process can be easily defrauded by someone not a registered voter or even legal citizen. ID eliminates that entirely. I don't see the problem with it. Hell...we could have our voter info incorporated into the ID if we wanted to.

Actually you state your name and address. This is cross checked with the registration on file. Coming to the polls and claiming to be someone else in order to cast a vote just plain isn't how you cheat. It doesn't produce significant results to warrant the risk. It isn't practical. But if it were utilized as a way to cheat how the heck is an ID card going to prevent it? How hard does anyone think it is to print a fake ID in the name of the dead person who's name is still on the books, or the elderly person that hasn't voted in ten year? Does anyone really think that a volunteer poll worker or even an employee of the board of elections has the expertise or time when the line to vote is two hours long, to identify a forged ID?

Voter ID is a political strategy not a good faith effort to prevent fraud. If it were then the first place they would be cracking down would be in absentee voting. It is the easiest way to vote fraudulently but it is also a type of voting that is more often utilized by those that vote Republican.

You almost had it right until your last sentence. I read where you got that claim and you are using Florida's 2008 data and a handful of other blue states. That is not true on a national level or constant. Also Absentee ballots are not the main source of voter fraud. Rigging ballots, multiple voting, votes from non citizens and registering people who do not exist lead the charge.

http://thegazette.com/2012/09/13/most-ar...democrats/

http://go.bloomberg.com/political-capita...l-ballots/

Anyone that read the above and saw that there were two links to back up Okie's assertion that I got it wrong check out the links. Come on Okie, did you even read the links? The first one is a story about a few Iowa counties and the second one doesn't even show D's getting more absentee votes. It says just the opposite.
If you are going to dispute my statement do it with facts that agree with your assertion.

Absentee voters historically, including in recent elections is more often utilized by Republican voters.

(08-17-2013 04:01 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(08-16-2013 09:53 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-16-2013 07:31 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(08-16-2013 01:49 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(08-16-2013 01:30 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  You prove who you are and where you live in the registration process.

How does the person that gives you the ballot know who you are? Granted in my small town...they know me..but..that is not the case in Urban areas and large precincts.

All I see going on at my precinct is people stating their name and being given a ballot. Hell..you don't even have to show a registration card. I doubt that it happens much at all...but...this process can be easily defrauded by someone not a registered voter or even legal citizen. ID eliminates that entirely. I don't see the problem with it. Hell...we could have our voter info incorporated into the ID if we wanted to.

Actually you state your name and address. This is cross checked with the registration on file. Coming to the polls and claiming to be someone else in order to cast a vote just plain isn't how you cheat. It doesn't produce significant results to warrant the risk. It isn't practical. But if it were utilized as a way to cheat how the heck is an ID card going to prevent it? How hard does anyone think it is to print a fake ID in the name of the dead person who's name is still on the books, or the elderly person that hasn't voted in ten year? Does anyone really think that a volunteer poll worker or even an employee of the board of elections has the expertise or time when the line to vote is two hours long, to identify a forged ID?

Voter ID is a political strategy not a good faith effort to prevent fraud. If it were then the first place they would be cracking down would be in absentee voting. It is the easiest way to vote fraudulently but it is also a type of voting that is more often utilized by those that vote Republican.

You almost had it right until your last sentence. I read where you got that claim and you are using Florida's 2008 data and a handful of other blue states. That is not true on a national level or constant. Also Absentee ballots are not the main source of voter fraud. Rigging ballots, multiple voting, votes from non citizens and registering people who do not exist lead the charge.

http://thegazette.com/2012/09/13/most-ar...democrats/

http://go.bloomberg.com/political-capita...l-ballots/

Anyone that read the above and saw that there were two links to back up Okie's assertion that I got it wrong check out the links. Come on Okie, did you even read the links? The first one is a story about a few Iowa counties and the second one doesn't even show D's getting more absentee votes. It says just the opposite.
If you are going to dispute my statement do it with facts that agree with your assertion.

Absentee voters historically, including in recent elections is more often utilized by Republican voters.

You made two false claims:

1.You said absentee ballots were the best way to crack down on voter fraud. Although I agree that they should be eliminated, they are one of many main sources of voter fraud. Besides, the GOP would face the same Democrat outrage if they tried to limit absentee ballots that they would with voter ID laws.

2. You said Republicans are more likely to ask for absentee ballots. I could only find that to be true in about five states. I offered an example of that not being the case in other parts of the country. My final link is where you can retrieve all that data.

(08-17-2013 04:16 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-17-2013 04:01 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(08-16-2013 09:53 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-16-2013 07:31 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(08-16-2013 01:49 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  How does the person that gives you the ballot know who you are? Granted in my small town...they know me..but..that is not the case in Urban areas and large precincts.

All I see going on at my precinct is people stating their name and being given a ballot. Hell..you don't even have to show a registration card. I doubt that it happens much at all...but...this process can be easily defrauded by someone not a registered voter or even legal citizen. ID eliminates that entirely. I don't see the problem with it. Hell...we could have our voter info incorporated into the ID if we wanted to.

Actually you state your name and address. This is cross checked with the registration on file. Coming to the polls and claiming to be someone else in order to cast a vote just plain isn't how you cheat. It doesn't produce significant results to warrant the risk. It isn't practical. But if it were utilized as a way to cheat how the heck is an ID card going to prevent it? How hard does anyone think it is to print a fake ID in the name of the dead person who's name is still on the books, or the elderly person that hasn't voted in ten year? Does anyone really think that a volunteer poll worker or even an employee of the board of elections has the expertise or time when the line to vote is two hours long, to identify a forged ID?

Voter ID is a political strategy not a good faith effort to prevent fraud. If it were then the first place they would be cracking down would be in absentee voting. It is the easiest way to vote fraudulently but it is also a type of voting that is more often utilized by those that vote Republican.

You almost had it right until your last sentence. I read where you got that claim and you are using Florida's 2008 data and a handful of other blue states. That is not true on a national level or constant. Also Absentee ballots are not the main source of voter fraud. Rigging ballots, multiple voting, votes from non citizens and registering people who do not exist lead the charge.

http://thegazette.com/2012/09/13/most-ar...democrats/

http://go.bloomberg.com/political-capita...l-ballots/

Anyone that read the above and saw that there were two links to back up Okie's assertion that I got it wrong check out the links. Come on Okie, did you even read the links? The first one is a story about a few Iowa counties and the second one doesn't even show D's getting more absentee votes. It says just the opposite.
If you are going to dispute my statement do it with facts that agree with your assertion.

Absentee voters historically, including in recent elections is more often utilized by Republican voters.

You made two false claims:

1.You said absentee ballots were the best way to crack down on voter fraud. Although I agree that they should be eliminated, they are one of many main sources of voter fraud. Besides, the GOP would face the same Democrat outrage if they tried to limit absentee ballots that they would with voter ID laws.

2. You said Republicans are more likely to ask for absentee ballots. I could only find that to be true in about five states. I offered an example of that not being the case in other parts of the country. My final link is where you can retrieve all that data.

That isn't what I said. You misread what others write. I said it was the first place they should address voter fraud and that it was the easiest way to vote fraudulently. You also make the assumption that I think absentee voting should be eliminated. This is incorrect. Absentee voting is important for our elderly, those that will be out of town during the voting period, and the military. There could be some additional safeguards, but it definitely shouldn't be ended.

One case of a few counties in Iowa having more Democrats requesting absentee ballots during one election cycle hardly disputes what I've said about Republicans voting absentee in greater numbers. The second article shows the that Floridians continued to see more Republicans voting absentee! I can't help it if you can't find data that shows the historical fact that Republicans utilize absentee voting in greater numbers. You haven't shown that to be untrue.

You said the data to back up you assertion was in the second link. I went back and searched for any link on that article that would do that and it isn't there!

(08-17-2013 04:40 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(08-17-2013 04:16 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-17-2013 04:01 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(08-16-2013 09:53 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-16-2013 07:31 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  Actually you state your name and address. This is cross checked with the registration on file. Coming to the polls and claiming to be someone else in order to cast a vote just plain isn't how you cheat. It doesn't produce significant results to warrant the risk. It isn't practical. But if it were utilized as a way to cheat how the heck is an ID card going to prevent it? How hard does anyone think it is to print a fake ID in the name of the dead person who's name is still on the books, or the elderly person that hasn't voted in ten year? Does anyone really think that a volunteer poll worker or even an employee of the board of elections has the expertise or time when the line to vote is two hours long, to identify a forged ID?

Voter ID is a political strategy not a good faith effort to prevent fraud. If it were then the first place they would be cracking down would be in absentee voting. It is the easiest way to vote fraudulently but it is also a type of voting that is more often utilized by those that vote Republican.

You almost had it right until your last sentence. I read where you got that claim and you are using Florida's 2008 data and a handful of other blue states. That is not true on a national level or constant. Also Absentee ballots are not the main source of voter fraud. Rigging ballots, multiple voting, votes from non citizens and registering people who do not exist lead the charge.

http://thegazette.com/2012/09/13/most-ar...democrats/

http://go.bloomberg.com/political-capita...l-ballots/

Anyone that read the above and saw that there were two links to back up Okie's assertion that I got it wrong check out the links. Come on Okie, did you even read the links? The first one is a story about a few Iowa counties and the second one doesn't even show D's getting more absentee votes. It says just the opposite.
If you are going to dispute my statement do it with facts that agree with your assertion.

Absentee voters historically, including in recent elections is more often utilized by Republican voters.

You made two false claims:

1.You said absentee ballots were the best way to crack down on voter fraud. Although I agree that they should be eliminated, they are one of many main sources of voter fraud. Besides, the GOP would face the same Democrat outrage if they tried to limit absentee ballots that they would with voter ID laws.

2. You said Republicans are more likely to ask for absentee ballots. I could only find that to be true in about five states. I offered an example of that not being the case in other parts of the country. My final link is where you can retrieve all that data.

That isn't what I said. You misread what others write. I said it was the first place they should address voter fraud and that it was the easiest way to vote fraudulently. You also make the assumption that I think absentee voting should be eliminated. This is incorrect. Absentee voting is important for our elderly, those that will be out of town during the voting period, and the military. There could be some additional safeguards, but it definitely shouldn't be ended.

One case of a few counties in Iowa having more Democrats requesting absentee ballots during one election cycle hardly disputes what I've said about Republicans voting absentee in greater numbers. The second article shows the that Floridians continued to see more Republicans voting absentee! I can't help it if you can't find data that shows the historical fact that Republicans utilize absentee voting in greater numbers. You haven't shown that to be untrue.

That's not the most common form of voter fraud. Altering the results of the election is the most prevalent form of voter fraud. Who cares what is the easiest. Go after what happens the most. Understand, Al Franken?

Quote:One case of a few counties in Iowa having more Democrats requesting absentee ballots during one election cycle hardly disputes what I've said about Republicans voting absentee in greater numbers.

Then show me how that is true on a national level. Making claim that Republicans request more absentee ballots is vague and leads the reader to believe you mean on a national level. I can find that to be true in about five states.

It may be vague but is common knowledge among political scientists.

Altering the results of an election (if you are talking about manipulating the count) isn't voter fraud. The voters don't have anything to do with it. It is political corruption and done by officials with the election board or other government officials that have access to the votes cast.

(08-17-2013 03:39 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-17-2013 11:42 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(08-17-2013 11:13 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(08-17-2013 11:04 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(08-17-2013 10:01 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  The fact of the matter is that voter ID's make it less likely that certain segments of the population will vote. Those segments of society tend to vote Democrat.

Anyone attempting to give another reason is just spinning.

What fact(s) support that?

"fact of the matter" and "less likely" in the same sentence is a pathetic troll attempt.

You're response is pure spin.

Loser.

You live in Mississippi, right? That seems to me that would make YOU the loser.

Man, did you just hit 'perception' square in the head. I know what you're trying to say. Just as you exhibited, everyone is biased to some degree.

This isn't about black/white even though people like you wish it was.

You are right. It isn't about black or white and it isn't about voter fraud either.

It's about discouraging people from voting.

I fail to see how anything other than physical violence or intimidation can discourage anyone form exercising their right to vote. This does not constitute either if you are a valid citizen.

(08-17-2013 10:03 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(08-17-2013 03:39 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-17-2013 11:42 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(08-17-2013 11:13 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(08-17-2013 11:04 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  What fact(s) support that?

"fact of the matter" and "less likely" in the same sentence is a pathetic troll attempt.

You're response is pure spin.

Loser.

You live in Mississippi, right? That seems to me that would make YOU the loser.

Man, did you just hit 'perception' square in the head. I know what you're trying to say. Just as you exhibited, everyone is biased to some degree.

This isn't about black/white even though people like you wish it was.

You are right. It isn't about black or white and it isn't about voter fraud either.

It's about discouraging people from voting.

I fail to see how anything other than physical violence or intimidation can discourage anyone form exercising their right to vote. This does not constitute either if you are a valid citizen.

1. Make people that have been registered for years make multiple trips to gather documents in an effort to get an ID card that will be acceptable under the new voter ID law. If you don't drive and live far away from the county seat this discouraging.
2. Require potential voters without a drivers license to travel to the DMV and wait in long lines for hours to get a state non-driver ID. In the DMV office that serves my area there is one person working there because of budget cuts. There are always lines there. Every time someone applies for their license the DMV worker has to lock the office and go out with the applicant for a road test.
3. Limit the types of ID that are acceptable to prove identity. Don't accept college ID, county or municipal worker ID, ID's issued to those receiving government services or expired DL of those that no longer drive unless they are over 70 years old.
4. Don't allow someone that arrives at the wrong precinct to cast a provisional ballot. Voter districts change regularly and often the voter can live much closer to the incorrect one and mistakenly go there. If a voter has waited in line for hours and then finds that they are at the incorrect precinct there may not be enough time to get to the correct precinct before the polls close. Casting a provisional ballot allows all the votes that aren't affected by the different precinct to be counted.
2.

(08-17-2013 11:00 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(08-17-2013 10:03 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(08-17-2013 03:39 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-17-2013 11:42 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(08-17-2013 11:13 AM)RobertN Wrote:  You live in Mississippi, right? That seems to me that would make YOU the loser.

Man, did you just hit 'perception' square in the head. I know what you're trying to say. Just as you exhibited, everyone is biased to some degree.

This isn't about black/white even though people like you wish it was.

You are right. It isn't about black or white and it isn't about voter fraud either.

It's about discouraging people from voting.

I fail to see how anything other than physical violence or intimidation can discourage anyone form exercising their right to vote. This does not constitute either if you are a valid citizen.

1. Make people that have been registered for years make multiple trips to gather documents in an effort to get an ID card that will be acceptable under the new voter ID law. If you don't drive and live far away from the county seat this discouraging.
2. Require potential voters without a drivers license to travel to the DMV and wait in long lines for hours to get a state non-driver ID. In the DMV office that serves my area there is one person working there because of budget cuts. There are always lines there. Every time someone applies for their license the DMV worker has to lock the office and go out with the applicant for a road test.
3. Limit the types of ID that are acceptable to prove identity. Don't accept college ID, county or municipal worker ID, ID's issued to those receiving government services or expired DL of those that no longer drive unless they are over 70 years old.
4. Don't allow someone that arrives at the wrong precinct to cast a provisional ballot. Voter districts change regularly and often the voter can live much closer to the incorrect one and mistakenly go there. If a voter has waited in line for hours and then finds that they are at the incorrect precinct there may not be enough time to get to the correct precinct before the polls close. Casting a provisional ballot allows all the votes that aren't affected by the different precinct to be counted.
2.

Being inconvenienced does not constitute stopping people from exercising their right to vote. All of these concerns can be addressed. I oppose any changes BTW until the potential problems are ironed out. I agree that some exist at this point.

Prove ID, or lose your vote.

(08-17-2013 11:35 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(08-17-2013 11:00 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(08-17-2013 10:03 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(08-17-2013 03:39 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-17-2013 11:42 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  Man, did you just hit 'perception' square in the head. I know what you're trying to say. Just as you exhibited, everyone is biased to some degree.

This isn't about black/white even though people like you wish it was.

You are right. It isn't about black or white and it isn't about voter fraud either.

It's about discouraging people from voting.

I fail to see how anything other than physical violence or intimidation can discourage anyone form exercising their right to vote. This does not constitute either if you are a valid citizen.

1. Make people that have been registered for years make multiple trips to gather documents in an effort to get an ID card that will be acceptable under the new voter ID law. If you don't drive and live far away from the county seat this discouraging.
2. Require potential voters without a drivers license to travel to the DMV and wait in long lines for hours to get a state non-driver ID. In the DMV office that serves my area there is one person working there because of budget cuts. There are always lines there. Every time someone applies for their license the DMV worker has to lock the office and go out with the applicant for a road test.
3. Limit the types of ID that are acceptable to prove identity. Don't accept college ID, county or municipal worker ID, ID's issued to those receiving government services or expired DL of those that no longer drive unless they are over 70 years old.
4. Don't allow someone that arrives at the wrong precinct to cast a provisional ballot. Voter districts change regularly and often the voter can live much closer to the incorrect one and mistakenly go there. If a voter has waited in line for hours and then finds that they are at the incorrect precinct there may not be enough time to get to the correct precinct before the polls close. Casting a provisional ballot allows all the votes that aren't affected by the different precinct to be counted.
2.

Being inconvenienced does not constitute stopping people from exercising their right to vote. All of these concerns can be addressed. I oppose any changes BTW until the potential problems are ironed out. I agree that some exist at this point.

I agree but we were talking about discouraging people not out and out stopping them. It is about chipping away on the margins. It is a very effective strategy. Democrats at the grassroots level will spend the next three years trying to make sure everyone has the proper ID so that there are as few turned away at the polls as possible. So instead of campaigning, prepping for the election, spending money to promote the party and it's candidates, a majority of the manpower and financial resources will be diverted to this effort. Again, it is a brilliant political maneuver. Hats off to the GOP from a political perspective. It just isn't about voter fraud.

(08-18-2013 09:18 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(08-17-2013 11:35 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(08-17-2013 11:00 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(08-17-2013 10:03 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(08-17-2013 03:39 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  You are right. It isn't about black or white and it isn't about voter fraud either.

It's about discouraging people from voting.

I fail to see how anything other than physical violence or intimidation can discourage anyone form exercising their right to vote. This does not constitute either if you are a valid citizen.

1. Make people that have been registered for years make multiple trips to gather documents in an effort to get an ID card that will be acceptable under the new voter ID law. If you don't drive and live far away from the county seat this discouraging.
2. Require potential voters without a drivers license to travel to the DMV and wait in long lines for hours to get a state non-driver ID. In the DMV office that serves my area there is one person working there because of budget cuts. There are always lines there. Every time someone applies for their license the DMV worker has to lock the office and go out with the applicant for a road test.
3. Limit the types of ID that are acceptable to prove identity. Don't accept college ID, county or municipal worker ID, ID's issued to those receiving government services or expired DL of those that no longer drive unless they are over 70 years old.
4. Don't allow someone that arrives at the wrong precinct to cast a provisional ballot. Voter districts change regularly and often the voter can live much closer to the incorrect one and mistakenly go there. If a voter has waited in line for hours and then finds that they are at the incorrect precinct there may not be enough time to get to the correct precinct before the polls close. Casting a provisional ballot allows all the votes that aren't affected by the different precinct to be counted.
2.

Being inconvenienced does not constitute stopping people from exercising their right to vote. All of these concerns can be addressed. I oppose any changes BTW until the potential problems are ironed out. I agree that some exist at this point.

I agree but we were talking about discouraging people not out and out stopping them. It is about chipping away on the margins. It is a very effective strategy. Democrats at the grassroots level will spend the next three years trying to make sure everyone has the proper ID so that there are as few turned away at the polls as possible. So instead of campaigning, prepping for the election, spending money to promote the party and it's candidates, a majority of the manpower and financial resources will be diverted to this effort. Again, it is a brilliant political maneuver. Hats off to the GOP from a political perspective. It just isn't about voter fraud.

It will be interesting to see just how many people actually have a problem obtaining the proper ID. This is one of the things I also think is being overblown. I expect lesser numbers than the Democrats claim.

(08-18-2013 09:27 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(08-18-2013 09:18 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(08-17-2013 11:35 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(08-17-2013 11:00 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(08-17-2013 10:03 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  I fail to see how anything other than physical violence or intimidation can discourage anyone form exercising their right to vote. This does not constitute either if you are a valid citizen.

1. Make people that have been registered for years make multiple trips to gather documents in an effort to get an ID card that will be acceptable under the new voter ID law. If you don't drive and live far away from the county seat this discouraging.
2. Require potential voters without a drivers license to travel to the DMV and wait in long lines for hours to get a state non-driver ID. In the DMV office that serves my area there is one person working there because of budget cuts. There are always lines there. Every time someone applies for their license the DMV worker has to lock the office and go out with the applicant for a road test.
3. Limit the types of ID that are acceptable to prove identity. Don't accept college ID, county or municipal worker ID, ID's issued to those receiving government services or expired DL of those that no longer drive unless they are over 70 years old.
4. Don't allow someone that arrives at the wrong precinct to cast a provisional ballot. Voter districts change regularly and often the voter can live much closer to the incorrect one and mistakenly go there. If a voter has waited in line for hours and then finds that they are at the incorrect precinct there may not be enough time to get to the correct precinct before the polls close. Casting a provisional ballot allows all the votes that aren't affected by the different precinct to be counted.
2.

Being inconvenienced does not constitute stopping people from exercising their right to vote. All of these concerns can be addressed. I oppose any changes BTW until the potential problems are ironed out. I agree that some exist at this point.

I agree but we were talking about discouraging people not out and out stopping them. It is about chipping away on the margins. It is a very effective strategy. Democrats at the grassroots level will spend the next three years trying to make sure everyone has the proper ID so that there are as few turned away at the polls as possible. So instead of campaigning, prepping for the election, spending money to promote the party and it's candidates, a majority of the manpower and financial resources will be diverted to this effort. Again, it is a brilliant political maneuver. Hats off to the GOP from a political perspective. It just isn't about voter fraud.

It will be interesting to see just how many people actually have a problem obtaining the proper ID. This is one of the things I also think is being overblown. I expect lesser numbers than the Democrats claim.

It will have a lot to do with how well organized the Democratic Party effort to get people the proper ID is and how committed the state of NC is in educating and providing the services to help. The DMV is underfunded as it is and this is going to put additional pressure on that department. There will also be unfunded demands on county resources.

College ID isn't an acceptable form of ID in order to vote in NC. Here is a good News & Observer column regarding that provision.

http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/08/17/3...qus_thread

(08-18-2013 11:07 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  College ID isn't an acceptable form of ID in order to vote in NC. Here is a good News & Observer column regarding that provision.

http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/08/17/3...qus_thread

I wonder what percentage of NC College students do not have a valid NCDL or NCID card? It seems pretty hard to believe there are any these days. I guess we will see how this shakes out.

I am against that one provision that stops young people from pre registering at age 16 to 17. I do however believe they should be registered as unaffiliated at first. This would allow them the freedom to choose either primary in their first voting experience. They could change its afterwards if they wish. Too many people in NC do not know about being able to register as unaffiliated and having this option. This is why I favor it myself. Not being a gang member in NC has a distinct advantage for individual voter freedom IMO. I have always wondered why more folks don't do it.

Here in Texas ( A republican state) it is estimated that 700,000 people will be discouraged from voting by voter ID.

When a long line is enough to discourage someone from voting, no one should down play the effects of a voter ID.