(10-28-2013 03:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 03:33 PM)itsbraille49 Wrote:  The argument is that the people doing it now would still do it. You know, like how criminals in Chicago still shoot people even though they have strict gun laws.

Understood.

But the argument has previously been that people are not doing it now and therefore no law was needed. This is a shift, an admission that it is happening now, and I just want to be sure that I am getting it correctly.

Well that was my first post in the thread. I think it would decrease the number of valid votes while failing to curb the number of invalid votes, thus making the problem worse, statistically, while at the same time costing the taxpayers more money and time.

(10-28-2013 03:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 03:33 PM)itsbraille49 Wrote:  The argument is that the people doing it now would still do it. You know, like how criminals in Chicago still shoot people even though they have strict gun laws.

Understood.

But the argument has previously been that people are not doing it now and therefore no law was needed. This is a shift, an admission that it is happening now, and I just want to be sure that I am getting it correctly.

I think the argument has always been that the amount was negligible, not that it wasn't happening. So saying these people will still commit fraud is not a shift.

John is certainly getting slapped around with his ridiculous theory but keeps getting up and dusting himself off, thinking he is 'winning.'

Try reading this. The Brennan Center bills itself as non-partisan and concerned with issues having to do with civics. Even though they are very sympathetic with the disenfranchisement argument, even they can find little evidence that voter ID laws affect turnout. Take the non partisan with a grain of salt, though as they are at the NYU School of Law.

http://www.brennancenter.org/sites/defau...t%20al.pdf

Quote:DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
We are highly sensitive to those who are improperly and unjustifiably denied their right to vote; however, there is limited available data on the incidence of actual exclusion from voting due to the lack of proper identification. This is not to say that actually requiring a more strict form of identification is not on its face discriminatory; it is, and the laws deserve to be scrutinized. But, our question is whether these laws have significantly reduced turnout. Based on our analysis, they have not.

Quote:At every level of analysis, and with multiple forms of data, we have consistently demonstrated that voter-identification laws appear to be a much smaller piece to the voting behavior puzzle than are factors such as the kinds of issues on a state ballot, the competitiveness of campaigns, the institutional structures of a particular election, socioeconomic factors, and individual-level motivational factors such as interest in politics. This is not to say that the rules of voting are unimportant or that there is no potential for disenfranchisement; rather our findings suggest that voter-ID laws have had no systematic effect on turnout thus far, and that some rules (voter-ID laws) do not affect turnout as much as others (same-day registration in Minnesota, a state with historically high turnout).

While voter-ID laws appear to have little to no main effects on turnout (see Alvarez, Bailey, and Katz 2007), our central argument is that other individual-level motivations such as interest in politics (Berinsky 2005), types of elections (Gronke, Galenas-Rosenbaum, and Miller 2007), and social issues (Tolbert, Grummel, and Smith 2001) would mediate any impacts related to ID rules. While strict ID requirements have the potential to burden some members of the electorate, our analyses suggest that these numbers are small. What’s more, actions taken by state governments, interest groups, and political parties are likely strong enough to induce those who are interested in voting, but have no more strict form of ID, to take action to ensure their voice is heard. This form of political resilience is the type we expect, and have seen from racial minorities, women, and other oppressed groups in America’s history.

Until there is systematic, empirical evidence of discrimination in the administration or availability of required forms of identification, there is little reason to suspect voter identification laws will significantly affect turnout. Thus, we fail to reject the null hypothesis that voter-ID laws do not significantly affect turnout. While all state-level voting laws should be heavily scrutinized as efforts to stop voter disenfranchisement are paramount, it is time we give some credit to the electorate and as Berinsky (2005) suggests, spend more time searching for ways to increase citizens’ interest in politics.

There is also an AJC article that shows that minority turnout has actually RISEN after Georgia's new voter ID laws went into effect. I'd link it but it crashed my browser twice. Google it.

I voted a couple of hours ago. I had to state my name and physical address. Then I had to sign a statement that was also witnessed and signed by an elections board worker. A bar code was scanned on that document and on my ballot. Only then was I given the ballot and allowed to vote. I think the over site that is in place works perfectly well and don't see the need for requiring an ID check as well. I proved my identity when I registered to vote years ago. If I lie in order to get a ballot I face serious criminal charges.

(10-28-2013 05:09 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  If I lie in order to get a ballot I face serious criminal charges.

That is IF you are caught. With one side of the aisle denying that fraud happens (and co-incidentally often controlling the Sec. of State offices in those states) and denying to investigate alleged fraud, chances have been pretty low that you'll be caught.

Then, if you were caught, the line will be that 'these cases are SO rare.'

(10-28-2013 05:25 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 05:09 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  If I lie in order to get a ballot I face serious criminal charges.

That is IF you are caught. With one side of the aisle denying that fraud happens (and co-incidentally often controlling the Sec. of State offices in those states) and denying to investigate alleged fraud, chances have been pretty low that you'll be caught.

Then, if you were caught, the line will be that 'these cases are SO rare.'

Fraud doesn't really happen in the way those pushing for voter ID laws claim it happens. People do not go to the polls with a false name and address and get a ballot. Are there zero instances, no, but the number is miniscule. It isn't logical or effective. Fraud happens from the inside.

(10-28-2013 05:41 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  Fraud doesn't really happen in the way those pushing for voter ID laws claim it happens. People do not go to the polls with a false name and address and get a ballot. Are there zero instances, no, but the number is miniscule. It isn't logical or effective. Fraud happens from the inside.

And you know this because?

(10-28-2013 06:15 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 05:41 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  Fraud doesn't really happen in the way those pushing for voter ID laws claim it happens. People do not go to the polls with a false name and address and get a ballot. Are there zero instances, no, but the number is miniscule. It isn't logical or effective. Fraud happens from the inside.

And you know this because?

Life experience, common sense, research data, and elections board investigations into allegations of fraud. Fraud happens but it is an inside job or involves vote buying. It is not a conspiracy involving people walking into the polling place with the name and address of dead persons still on the rolls or a person that hasn't voted in a number of cycles. It just doesn't work effectively and the likelihood of getting caught goes up substantially as the number of those involved goes up enough to make a difference.

Putting money in the hands of certain people can change close elections at the local level. I have seen that done. I know a couple of people that are scum of the earth. They will take money from whomever is willing to give it to them on the promise of getting them a certain number of votes. Those votes are all cast by registered voters.

(10-27-2013 11:48 PM)Jedi Master Sipho-Dyas Wrote:  

(10-27-2013 09:49 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(10-27-2013 07:50 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  why should they be grandfathered in?
why can't they get an ID especially if there is a credit to cover the cost for someone who can't afford one?
Being too lazy to take care of your business (getting an ID) is not a good excuse.

Brazil requires a photo ID.
Canada requires a photo ID.
Germany requires a photo ID.
The Netherlands requires a photo ID.
France requires a photo ID.
England requires a photo ID.
Etc.

I can continue and list other industrialized countries...but you can see by the list that other countries require photo IDs. Are they disenfranchising voters in each of those countries? You libs always want to point to Europe and Canada as models we should follow — why not follow them in requiring photo IDs?

And every single one of those countries has automatic voter registration for all citizens. AND several of those countries require you to change your voter card every time you move (I lived in one of them and worked in politics in another).

What the GOP wants is more hassels for Dem voters.

How is it more of a hassle for dem voters than GOP voters?

dems must be dumber or lazier. those are the only logical explanations.

(10-28-2013 12:31 PM)itsbraille49 Wrote:  One of the arguments against gun control laws is that restrictions only hinder the citizen and not the criminal. What makes anyone think that the people already trying to sway elections (1 in 60,000) won't find a way around these laws? It's not like anyone has ever gotten a fake ID to buy beer, I think it is safe to assume that the people who would go through the ineffective trouble of committing voter fraud from the outside wouldn't be deterred by ID laws at all. Any voter fraud with the power to sway in election would come from the inside, and these laws just made the inside a lot more cloudier via big government.

While in the mean time there will in fact be more valid voters turned away due to technicalities. These laws are just adding government bulk to the voting process. Without all the rhetoric about the ease of obtaining IDs this gives local governments more power to sway elections, to whichever party they want.

You do know that anyone who shows up at the polls and runs into a discrepancy with their registration, can fill out a provisional ballot, which is verified shortly after the election but before the vote total is certified and the vote counts. No one is disenfranchised.

Most countries in Europe (Germany, the Netherlands, etc.) and our neighbors to the north, Canada, both require Photo IDs to vote! Do you think Americans are dumber or lazier than Canadians?

(10-28-2013 06:49 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 12:31 PM)itsbraille49 Wrote:  One of the arguments against gun control laws is that restrictions only hinder the citizen and not the criminal. What makes anyone think that the people already trying to sway elections (1 in 60,000) won't find a way around these laws? It's not like anyone has ever gotten a fake ID to buy beer, I think it is safe to assume that the people who would go through the ineffective trouble of committing voter fraud from the outside wouldn't be deterred by ID laws at all. Any voter fraud with the power to sway in election would come from the inside, and these laws just made the inside a lot more cloudier via big government.

While in the mean time there will in fact be more valid voters turned away due to technicalities. These laws are just adding government bulk to the voting process. Without all the rhetoric about the ease of obtaining IDs this gives local governments more power to sway elections, to whichever party they want.

You do know that anyone who shows up at the polls and runs into a discrepancy with their registration, can fill out a provisional ballot, which is verified shortly after the election and the vote counts. No one is disenfranchised.

Most countries in Europe (Germany, the Netherlands, etc.) and our neighbors to the north, Canada, both require Photo IDs to vote! Do you think Americans are dumber or lazier than Canadians?

Not exactly. The new voter ID law passed in NC this year actually makes it much more difficult to cast and have counted a provisional ballot. The voter has to show proof within six days that they are who they say they are and that they live where they say they live. If it isn't resolved to the elections board's satisfaction within that time frame the provisional ballot is thrown out. County Boards of Elections are composed of three member, two from the party of the governor and the other from the party out of the governor's mansion. Also in the new law, if you go to the wrong polling place you can not cast a provisional ballot there.

There is a lot more to the voter ID laws than just showing an ID. Many of these other provisions are more disturbing than the ID requirement itself.

(10-28-2013 03:55 PM)itsbraille49 Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 03:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 03:33 PM)itsbraille49 Wrote:  The argument is that the people doing it now would still do it. You know, like how criminals in Chicago still shoot people even though they have strict gun laws.

Understood.

But the argument has previously been that people are not doing it now and therefore no law was needed. This is a shift, an admission that it is happening now, and I just want to be sure that I am getting it correctly.

Well that was my first post in the thread. I think it would decrease the number of valid votes while failing to curb the number of invalid votes, thus making the problem worse, statistically, while at the same time costing the taxpayers more money and time.

Why would presenting a valid ID decrease the number of valid votes? People need to present a valid ID to do just about anything anymore — get married, buy booze, get a job, join the military, get government benefits.

(10-28-2013 05:41 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 05:25 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 05:09 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  If I lie in order to get a ballot I face serious criminal charges.

That is IF you are caught. With one side of the aisle denying that fraud happens (and co-incidentally often controlling the Sec. of State offices in those states) and denying to investigate alleged fraud, chances have been pretty low that you'll be caught.

Then, if you were caught, the line will be that 'these cases are SO rare.'

Fraud doesn't really happen in the way those pushing for voter ID laws claim it happens. People do not go to the polls with a false name and address and get a ballot. Are there zero instances, no, but the number is miniscule. It isn't logical or effective. Fraud happens from the inside.

How do you know how many? Most states don't go looking for election fraud very hard or thoroughly.

(10-28-2013 06:42 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 06:15 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 05:41 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  Fraud doesn't really happen in the way those pushing for voter ID laws claim it happens. People do not go to the polls with a false name and address and get a ballot. Are there zero instances, no, but the number is miniscule. It isn't logical or effective. Fraud happens from the inside.

And you know this because?

Life experience, common sense, research data, and elections board investigations into allegations of fraud. Fraud happens but it is an inside job or involves vote buying. It is not a conspiracy involving people walking into the polling place with the name and address of dead persons still on the rolls or a person that hasn't voted in a number of cycles. It just doesn't work effectively and the likelihood of getting caught goes up substantially as the number of those involved goes up enough to make a difference.

Putting money in the hands of certain people can change close elections at the local level. I have seen that done. I know a couple of people that are scum of the earth. They will take money from whomever is willing to give it to them on the promise of getting them a certain number of votes. Those votes are all cast by registered voters.

If you know people committing election fraud did you turn them in? If you know and don't turn them in you are complicit.

(10-28-2013 06:52 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 06:49 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 12:31 PM)itsbraille49 Wrote:  One of the arguments against gun control laws is that restrictions only hinder the citizen and not the criminal. What makes anyone think that the people already trying to sway elections (1 in 60,000) won't find a way around these laws? It's not like anyone has ever gotten a fake ID to buy beer, I think it is safe to assume that the people who would go through the ineffective trouble of committing voter fraud from the outside wouldn't be deterred by ID laws at all. Any voter fraud with the power to sway in election would come from the inside, and these laws just made the inside a lot more cloudier via big government.

While in the mean time there will in fact be more valid voters turned away due to technicalities. These laws are just adding government bulk to the voting process. Without all the rhetoric about the ease of obtaining IDs this gives local governments more power to sway elections, to whichever party they want.

You do know that anyone who shows up at the polls and runs into a discrepancy with their registration, can fill out a provisional ballot, which is verified shortly after the election and the vote counts. No one is disenfranchised.

Most countries in Europe (Germany, the Netherlands, etc.) and our neighbors to the north, Canada, both require Photo IDs to vote! Do you think Americans are dumber or lazier than Canadians?

Not exactly. The new voter ID law passed in NC this year actually makes it much more difficult to cast and have counted a provisional ballot. The voter has to show proof within six days that they are who they say they are and that they live where they say they live. If it isn't resolved to the elections board's satisfaction within that time frame the provisional ballot is thrown out. County Boards of Elections are composed of three member, two from the party of the governor and the other from the party out of the governor's mansion. Also in the new law, if you go to the wrong polling place you can not cast a provisional ballot there.

There is a lot more to the voter ID laws than just showing an ID. Many of these other provisions are more disturbing than the ID requirement itself.

Maybe some of these other problem voting laws would go away if everyone had to show a valid ID when they voted, know?

(10-28-2013 07:03 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 06:52 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 06:49 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 12:31 PM)itsbraille49 Wrote:  One of the arguments against gun control laws is that restrictions only hinder the citizen and not the criminal. What makes anyone think that the people already trying to sway elections (1 in 60,000) won't find a way around these laws? It's not like anyone has ever gotten a fake ID to buy beer, I think it is safe to assume that the people who would go through the ineffective trouble of committing voter fraud from the outside wouldn't be deterred by ID laws at all. Any voter fraud with the power to sway in election would come from the inside, and these laws just made the inside a lot more cloudier via big government.

While in the mean time there will in fact be more valid voters turned away due to technicalities. These laws are just adding government bulk to the voting process. Without all the rhetoric about the ease of obtaining IDs this gives local governments more power to sway elections, to whichever party they want.

You do know that anyone who shows up at the polls and runs into a discrepancy with their registration, can fill out a provisional ballot, which is verified shortly after the election and the vote counts. No one is disenfranchised.

Most countries in Europe (Germany, the Netherlands, etc.) and our neighbors to the north, Canada, both require Photo IDs to vote! Do you think Americans are dumber or lazier than Canadians?

Not exactly. The new voter ID law passed in NC this year actually makes it much more difficult to cast and have counted a provisional ballot. The voter has to show proof within six days that they are who they say they are and that they live where they say they live. If it isn't resolved to the elections board's satisfaction within that time frame the provisional ballot is thrown out. County Boards of Elections are composed of three member, two from the party of the governor and the other from the party out of the governor's mansion. Also in the new law, if you go to the wrong polling place you can not cast a provisional ballot there.

There is a lot more to the voter ID laws than just showing an ID. Many of these other provisions are more disturbing than the ID requirement itself.

Maybe some of these other problem voting laws would go away if everyone had to show a valid ID when they voted, know?

I worked at a polling place my senior year of high school (2004 elections), in the training they gave us it was pretty clear that provisional ballots are there for the purpose to keep a person from being irate about not being able to vote.

(10-28-2013 06:44 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(10-27-2013 11:48 PM)Jedi Master Sipho-Dyas Wrote:  

(10-27-2013 09:49 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(10-27-2013 07:50 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  why should they be grandfathered in?
why can't they get an ID especially if there is a credit to cover the cost for someone who can't afford one?
Being too lazy to take care of your business (getting an ID) is not a good excuse.

Brazil requires a photo ID.
Canada requires a photo ID.
Germany requires a photo ID.
The Netherlands requires a photo ID.
France requires a photo ID.
England requires a photo ID.
Etc.

I can continue and list other industrialized countries...but you can see by the list that other countries require photo IDs. Are they disenfranchising voters in each of those countries? You libs always want to point to Europe and Canada as models we should follow — why not follow them in requiring photo IDs?

And every single one of those countries has automatic voter registration for all citizens. AND several of those countries require you to change your voter card every time you move (I lived in one of them and worked in politics in another).

What the GOP wants is more hassels for Dem voters.

How is it more of a hassle for dem voters than GOP voters?

dems must be dumber or lazier. those are the only logical explanations.

Let's talk about the gun control laws of those countries while we're using them as an example for when it's okay for the government to have more power.

(10-28-2013 07:13 PM)itsbraille49 Wrote:  Let's talk about the gun control laws of those countries while we're using them as an example for when it's okay for the government to have more power.

While we're at it, let's be sure to include the impact of those laws.

You know, like what were their gun death rates before they had those laws, compared to what they were after they had those laws.

(10-28-2013 05:09 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  I voted a couple of hours ago. I had to state my name and physical address. Then I had to sign a statement that was also witnessed and signed by an elections board worker. A bar code was scanned on that document and on my ballot. Only then was I given the ballot and allowed to vote. I think the over site that is in place works perfectly well and don't see the need for requiring an ID check as well. I proved my identity when I registered to vote years ago. If I lie in order to get a ballot I face serious criminal charges.

Damn, I would have rather just shown an ID and gotten on with it.

(10-28-2013 05:09 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  I voted a couple of hours ago. I had to state my name and physical address. Then I had to sign a statement that was also witnessed and signed by an elections board worker. A bar code was scanned on that document and on my ballot. Only then was I given the ballot and allowed to vote. I think the over site that is in place works perfectly well and don't see the need for requiring an ID check as well. I proved my identity when I registered to vote years ago. If I lie in order to get a ballot I face serious criminal charges.

And exactly how did the person working at the polls know that you were the same person who proved that identity years ago?