(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.