(09-05-2012 12:12 PM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  

(08-31-2012 07:19 AM)Rebel Wrote:  It should be very telling which party and members of that party are adamantly opposed to the idea of having to prove a person is eligible to vote before they actually vote. Yeah, they're not crooks. No, they're not trying to stomp all over you legal voter's rights. Nahhhhh.

Yes.. it is very telling which party doesn't want all American's to vote. It's pathetic, and our forefathers would be ashamed of your desire to keep the poor out of the voting booth. It's disgusting and simply Un-American.

Ummm in 1790 only property owners could vote and some states had religious prerequisites for voting. It was not until 1850 that all land ownership requirements were dropped.

I'm pretty sure if you could talk to one of the founding fathers and say "we let everyone vote, but they need a picture ID" that you would not get the stink eye.

(08-30-2012 06:10 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  I don't believe for a second that voter fraud has had any impact on an election. I would concentrate on "mistakes"...not fraud.

For decades, we've had lax elections standards. This is how tens of thousands of dead voters are still on the voting rolls in state after state, how one city has 30,000 dead voters still on the rolls. Fraud can occur because how will anybody know if no photo ID is required to vote that the dead person who just voted isn't who he/she claimed to be.

There have been cases where students are bused into a city where they don't live and vote again. Some have admitted it. Same with folks with a second home in a second state - nobody checks whether or not these folks vote in two different states. There are problems with mail in ballots, absentee ballots, etc.

As a nation, despite our laws, for years we just operated on a sort of honor system and we haven't felt the need to investigate fraud claims or even talk about it. We know that voting fraud occurs, just hard to investigate it and often the political will to prosecute isn't there. But since one party is committed to opposing voter photo ID (but you need one to enter their convention) and claims it will hurt the poor, nothing gets done.

Voting integrity is central to a free and fair election. The left is hypocritical on this issue. They require it for their own internal affairs but insist it isn't fair for national elections. The real reason is that dem voting fraud is one of their largest and most successful unseen industries and they have it down to an art form. They surely do not want to see their advantage disappear.

The whole disenfranchisement argument is simply a political red herring meant to divert the discussion to what might happen if people would need to present a photo ID in order to vote (oh, the HORROR!). How about what might or maybe already HAS happened by letting ineligible voters cast a ballot? Doesn't seem to bother libs to even consider that scenario. Probably because they know that their side has benefitted by it and don't want to lose that edge.

(09-05-2012 06:31 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  And you miss the point entirely. The point isn't those things are as important as voting. The point is it is next to impossible to function in America without photo ID.

I didn't miss your point; I just didn't think it was very good.

Your basic contention still requires you to lump the act of voting with random and arbitrary daily activity that someone my choose or avoid to act upon for their immediate comfort, convenience, and/or happiness. Except that it isn't that same everyday thing at all: We don't have daily/weekly/ monthly elections to seat public officials or enact referendums, nor is it easy to immediately unseat those persons or eliminate those laws if the public loses favor with them.

You're not stupid--you can see this built-in scarcity makes elections specifically important. Blood has been spilled to prevent AND protect the free exercise. But to simply ignore the Constitutional protections on voting rights for the sake of your argument--similar to the legal argument of several GOP attorney generals--that is stupid. Subsequently, there isn't some specific, politically calculated movement to reduce the number of drivers, Bud Light drinkers, airplane boarders, and etc.--because those are pretty inefficient ways to reduce the influence of an electorate. (None of those activities have much in the way of specific Constitutional protection either, lest you obstinately miss my point.)

And as I've noted before, it goes beyond the issue of photo ID. It's just the most notable part of a distinct push by state Republicans to reduce voter turnout this November, particularly in big electoral states like Ohio and Florida. They've needlessly tried to dick with get-out-the-vote campaigns and flexible voting hours for the public.

(09-05-2012 06:31 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  Ergo the still remaining unproven assertion by liberals that voter ID laws hurt minorities and the poor is fallacious at best.

Competent journalism and several judges disagree with you.

(09-05-2012 12:46 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(09-05-2012 12:12 PM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  

(08-31-2012 07:19 AM)Rebel Wrote:  It should be very telling which party and members of that party are adamantly opposed to the idea of having to prove a person is eligible to vote before they actually vote. Yeah, they're not crooks. No, they're not trying to stomp all over you legal voter's rights. Nahhhhh.

Yes.. it is very telling which party doesn't want all American's to vote. It's pathetic, and our forefathers would be ashamed of your desire to keep the poor out of the voting booth. It's disgusting and simply Un-American.

Still waiting on you to substantiate this belief with some evidence outside of how you feel.

Granted I don't expect to get it, cause it doesn't exist.

---

(09-05-2012 06:31 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  We know voter fraud happens. It's a proven fact. Every ID law I've seen provides a free ID to those who need it.

You were saying something about missing the point? Texas' law had supposedly free IDs too...
http://csnbbs.com/showthread.php?tid=584...pid8205317

(09-05-2012 12:21 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(09-05-2012 12:12 PM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  

(08-31-2012 07:19 AM)Rebel Wrote:  It should be very telling which party and members of that party are adamantly opposed to the idea of having to prove a person is eligible to vote before they actually vote. Yeah, they're not crooks. No, they're not trying to stomp all over you legal voter's rights. Nahhhhh.

Yes.. it is very telling which party doesn't want all American's to vote. It's pathetic, and our forefathers would be ashamed of your desire to keep the poor out of the voting booth. It's disgusting and simply Un-American.

How do you determine if they're Americans or even eligible to cast that vote? You idiots keep dodging that question.

...waiting...

...waiting...

I didn't re-read the thread, or I would have replied sooner. The same way we have the last 200 years I imagine, seemed to be humming along fine.

And by all means, if you want to pay for every American to have ID so they can vote, I'm all for it. The problem is you don't want to pay for it, which means you're intentionally excluding the poor. That's simply Un-American.

(09-06-2012 01:35 PM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  I didn't re-read the thread, or I would have replied sooner. The same way we have the last 200 years I imagine, seemed to be humming along fine.

And by all means, if you want to pay for every American to have ID so they can vote, I'm all for it. The problem is you don't want to pay for it, which means you're intentionally excluding the poor. That's simply Un-American.

Ummm I believe a huge majority of the conservatives here have said they are fine with providing the ID for free. But yea, you keep telling us what we want.

(09-06-2012 12:35 PM)BlazerUnit Wrote:  I didn't miss your point; I just didn't think it was very good.

Given the below, it's clear you did.

Quote:Your basic contention still requires you to lump the act of voting with random and arbitrary daily activity that someone my choose or avoid to act upon for their immediate comfort, convenience, and/or happiness. Except that it isn't that same everyday thing at all: We don't have daily/weekly/ monthly elections to seat public officials or enact referendums, nor is it easy to immediately unseat those persons or eliminate those laws if the public loses favor with them.

Irrelevant. People can choose to do many things, including going to a precinct in which they aren't registered. Maybe they like that location better. A person's personal preference of what they choose to do couldn't be less relevant.

Quote:you can see this built-in scarcity makes elections specifically important.

The frequency of elections has zero to do with their importance. If an election was held every week, it would not lose importance.

Quote:Blood has been spilled to prevent AND protect the free exercise. But to simply ignore the Constitutional protections on voting rights for the sake of your argument--similar to the legal argument of several GOP attorney generals--that is stupid.

Blood has been spilled to ensure that our elections are free and FAIR. The ease with which voter fraud occurs in this country explicitly calls into question the fairness of our election system.

Quote:Subsequently, there isn't some specific, politically calculated movement to reduce the number of drivers, Bud Light drinkers, airplane boarders, and etc.--because those are pretty inefficient ways to reduce the influence of an electorate. (None of those activities have much in the way of specific Constitutional protection either, lest you obstinately miss my point.)

You are incorrectly making a comparison I did not. You are comparing the activities, I'm not. I'm stating that there is zero proof that a huge number of minorities or the poor don't have, or cant' get, a photo ID. My point is given the inability to function effectively in our country without one it's fairly unreasonable to assume there these huge numbers of minorities or poor that don't have one or cant' get one.

Quote:Competent journalism and several judges disagree with you.

Your first link acknowledges that fraud exists but claims it's no big deal. Since you clearly agree with that sentiment I guess you support not passing laws to make it more difficult to commit insider trading. In 2011 the SEC filed 57 insider trading cases. The total number of crimes committed in the US in 2011 was approximately 11.9 million. That is .00048% of all crimes committed. Compare that with the number of voter fraud cases based on your article (2,068 cases, 146 million registered voters) and we get a rate of .0014%. So voter fraud occurs more than insider trading. Guess you advocate not prosecuting it or passing laws to make it more difficult?

Your article is also seems a little dishonest in its assessment of the 758k it claims don't have the proper ID because they didn't bother to research of that 758k how many are registered voters, or have EVER voted. At least not that I can tell based on the way they wrote it.

Your second article found one guy who didn't have an ID, but then promptly voted out that he actually could vote by signing an affidavit. Every ID law provides a mechanism to cast a provisional ballot. So no one is denied the right to cast their vote.

Voter ID makes sense because we know voter fraud happens. It's proven. And it's entirely possible the Minnesota Senate election that saw Al Franken elected was turned that way due to fraud. 1,100 convicted felons voted in an election decided by around 300 votes. Let me guess, no big deal, that's 1 election out of thousands?

Still zero proof and ID law hurts minorities or the poor. The best you've given is a judge's opinion and two articles, neither of which proved your point.

(09-06-2012 01:35 PM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  I didn't re-read the thread, or I would have replied sooner. The same way we have the last 200 years I imagine, seemed to be humming along fine.

And by all means, if you want to pay for every American to have ID so they can vote, I'm all for it. The problem is you don't want to pay for it, which means you're intentionally excluding the poor. That's simply Un-American.

Well what's more important to a poor person, voting or one less tall 40? If voting is so important and people die protecting our right to vote, then at least a person can make an effort, especially when they're voting themselves more benefits.