Yes, because we only have a handful of resources to go around. We can't actually go around making jobs by hiring people to swipe ID's to check whether or not that person is in the local system.
I mean, why on Earth would we make voting just as hard as checking out library books?
You have a constitutional right to vote. The verification comes at the time of registration. Voting fraud is not an issue, as Republicans have publicly admitted, it's voter suppression.
The real problem is the voting machines, that's where the effort should be targeted.
The Following User Says Thank You to OutofDate1980 For This Useful Post:
What I am saying is there is voter fraud. Apparently, much of it has to do with Acorn. So we start by beating out confessions, getting employees to hang it on Acorn and then use the RICO Act to put them away for life. ...
Requiring an ID to exercise your constitutional right to vote is fundamentally un American. The statistics on voter fraud do not merit such drastic action. These laws have been enacted for one reason only, to suppress the vote of the working poor and minorities. Even if the ID itself were available at no charge, the documents needed to obtain one most often are not. This constitutes a hidden poll tax, and us therefore unconstitutional.
Imagine this scenario if you will. It's 7:00p.m. the Monday before the election. You're late leaving the office because you needed to get some work out of the way so you could take time to go to the polls. You head out to you car and are held up and robbed at gunpoint. You're wallet, along with your I'D is stolen. No way you can get a replacement before the polls close the next day. Too bad for you, I guess you won't be exercising your constitutional right to vote. Maybe you shouldn't have supported that voter ID law after all.
Yes, that was a bit facetious, but a plausible scenario, and yet another mark against these laws.
Imagine this scenario if you will. It's 7:00p.m. the Monday before the election. You're late leaving the office because you needed to get some work out of the way so you could take time to go to the polls. You head out to you car and are held up and robbed at gunpoint. You're wallet, along with your I'D is stolen. No way you can get a replacement before the polls close the next day. Too bad for you, I guess you won't be exercising your constitutional right to vote. Maybe you shouldn't have supported that voter ID law after all.
Yes, that was a bit facetious, but a plausible scenario, and yet another mark against these laws.
Ok, so lets suppose you are knocked out and you are now in a coma. So we should perhaps keep the polls open until you recover? Crap happens that prevents people from voting. This is just how it has always been.
You can float all kinds of ideas and "what ifs." Fact remains, you should have ID to prove who you are before you are allowed to vote.
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided
Thanks: 66
Thanked 968 Times in 703 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmybliss
Requiring an ID to exercise your constitutional right to vote is fundamentally un American. The statistics on voter fraud do not merit such drastic action. These laws have been enacted for one reason only, to suppress the vote of the working poor and minorities. Even if the ID itself were available at no charge, the documents needed to obtain one most often are not. This constitutes a hidden poll tax, and us therefore unconstitutional.
Imagine this scenario if you will. It's 7:00p.m. the Monday before the election. You're late leaving the office because you needed to get some work out of the way so you could take time to go to the polls. You head out to you car and are held up and robbed at gunpoint. You're wallet, along with your I'D is stolen. No way you can get a replacement before the polls close the next day. Too bad for you, I guess you won't be exercising your constitutional right to vote. Maybe you shouldn't have supported that voter ID law after all.
Yes, that was a bit facetious, but a plausible scenario, and yet another mark against these laws.
In that case you'd just cast a provisional ballot. After the fact they'd verify you were who you say you were and your vote would count. Same thing as if you show up at the poll and you haven't registered to vote.
The Washington Post did a poll on the issue. It looks like minorities themselves largely (~65%) aren't persuaded by the argument that they are being disenfranchised by these laws. You can break the results down by sex, race, party ID, etc.
Yeah... and the Black Panthers standing outside a polling location, playing with billy clubs, had NO effect!
>It appears Voter Fraud... is nonexistent<
You've made this statement several times. On what are you basing it?
Especially since we have credible reports from the last election of people bused to different polling places all over Milwaukee, and several places in Wisconsin where the vote totals actually exceeded the number of registered voters
Yeah... and the Black Panthers standing outside a polling location, playing with billy clubs, had NO effect!
>It appears Voter Fraud... is nonexistent<
You've made this statement several times. On what are you basing it?
Especially since we have credible reports from the last election of people bused to different polling places all over Milwaukee, and several places in Wisconsin where the vote totals actually exceeded the number of registered voters
Just because one writes something, doesn't make it true. Have any source ? I provided links to my source. Try reading them.
The Washington Post did a poll on the issue. It looks like minorities themselves largely (~65%) aren't persuaded by the argument that they are being disenfranchised by these laws. You can break the results down by sex, race, party ID, etc.
You might want to look at question 1. How much have you heard or read about some states putting in place new photo-identification requirements for voters -- a lot, some, not much or nothing at all?
All Adults
**NET A lot/Some** .................48%
A lot .......................................21
Some ......................................27
**NET Not much/Nothing at all** 51
Not much ................................15
Nothing at all ...........................36
No opinion ................................*
Please find me one instance where a Republican said "Yep, we're doing this thing to keep poor black people from voting."
In most cases, folks don't proclaim from the roof top that they are committing crimes. The Republicans are both attempting to suppress legal voting and manipulate vote counting. We have one Republican addressing voter suppression.
We call it a poll tax but how taxing is it? I honestly don't know anyone who doesn't have at least an ID card.
Every job I've ever had, including the low wage crap jobs I worked in high school, required two forms of ID as part of the hiring process.
In SC, where I live, ID cards are free if you are 17 or older so the only cost involved is actually going and getting one and ALL of the DMVs are on bus routes which cost less than $1 to ride all day. So much for a poll tax. A state issued ID is good for 10 years in SC.
So either you live near a bus line and can go to the DMV for less than $1 or you live far from a bus line and need to drive places in which case, you have to have a drivers license anyway.
It was a joke. I do that sometimes. You linked to the same page, aka a circular link.
As stated in my post. In SC, there is no charge for photo IDs. There is one for a drivers license. The only "barrier" is getting to the DMV but this can also be said of getting to the polling place.
The point was made that verification happens at registration so it need not be done again at execution (voting).
Let's explore that.
Go to the airport and buy a plane ticket to anywhere you like. The only caveat is that it has to be for at least 2 months from the date of purchase.
I promise you will be required to show ID at the time of purchase (registration).
Now, go to the airport to board your flight and enjoy your trip but tell the TSA employee that you don't have to show your ID at execution (flight time) because you showed it at registration (purchase).
Your cited examples are not a requisite to vote, a certain type of ID mandated by the government which one must pay for is.
1. Being there is a requisite to vote. Unless, of course, you cast an absentee ballot but then you have to put a stamp on the envelope and that costs money and OH GOD! It's a poll tax (even though it isn't).
2. Are you just ignoring the fact that I have stated multiple times that, at least in my state which is the one I am most familiar with, the required ID is free of charge to anyone of voting age? All you need to do is walk into the DMV and say "I want an ID card" and they give you one.
Not sure why I bothered: you'll disregard whatever disagrees with your beliefs anyway. I've seen that a number of times, on both sides of the political spectrum...
In that case you'd just cast a provisional ballot. After the fact they'd verify you were who you say you were and your vote would count. Same thing as if you show up at the poll and you haven't registered to vote.
In the 2004 US Presidential Election, controversy arose out of arguments regarding the interpretation of the criteria for determining the eligibility of voters using provisional ballots. Many allege that these discrepancies of interpretations, particularly in Ohio, may have been a deciding factor in the outcome of the election. In the 2004 election, at least 1.9 million provisional ballots were cast, and 676,000 were never counted due to various states' rules on counting provisional ballots.[5]
Studies of the use of provisional ballots in the 2006 general election in the United States show that around 21% of provisional ballots were rejected, where the majority of rejected ballots were cast by registered voters and the majority of rejections were for reasons that were preventable.[6]
I know what sampling is. I asked you to substantiate your statement about how many people I know. Alternatively, you could admit you may have mistaken about that point.
In the 2004 US Presidential Election, controversy arose out of arguments regarding the interpretation of the criteria for determining the eligibility of voters using provisional ballots. Many allege that these discrepancies of interpretations, particularly in Ohio, may have been a deciding factor in the outcome of the election. In the 2004 election, at least 1.9 million provisional ballots were cast, and 676,000 were never counted due to various states' rules on counting provisional ballots.[5]
Studies of the use of provisional ballots in the 2006 general election in the United States show that around 21% of provisional ballots were rejected, where the majority of rejected ballots were cast by registered voters and the majority of rejections were for reasons that were preventable.[6]
Not sure what your point is how this is relevant given that there were no voter ID laws in Ohio in 2004.
Not sure why I bothered: you'll disregard whatever disagrees with your beliefs anyway. I've seen that a number of times, on both sides of the political spectrum...
From the WP citation.
"Abigail Thernstrom, a commission member and a senior fellow at the conservative Manhattan Institute, called it "small potatoes" and said conservatives should pursue more important issues against the Obama administration. The case, she pointed out, invokes a narrow and rarely used provision of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which has been used successfully to prosecute only three times since its passage.
"If you want to criticize [Attorney General] Eric Holder, there are lots of grounds on which to criticize him," she said. "Why waste your breath on this one?"
Thernstrom said that she did not find Adams's testimony convincing and that the facts of the case raised doubts in her mind, noting that the Black Panthers were standing in front of a majority-black precinct that had voted overwhelmingly for Democrats in previous elections -- not a prime spot for intimidating white voters.""
From the Blaze citation.
"UPDATE: The Right Scoop notes this important piece of information, which casts extraordinary doubt on the call:
This doesn’t make the call fraudulent, but it does make it unverifiable and therefore moot. Chris Plante reported in the following segment that caller ‘Mike’ did not stay on the line during the break for Plante to get his phone number."
I know what sampling is. I asked you to substantiate your statement about how many people I know. Alternatively, you could admit you may have mistaken about that point.
You used the term "all the people I know", therefore sample size is irrelevant.
You can keep on digging or read the Wikipedia citation. We are talking about a national population, which requires a national sample within a defined period of time.
You used the term "all the people I know", therefore sample size is irrelevant.
You can keep on digging or read the Wikipedia citation. We are talking about a national population, which requires a national sample within a defined period of time.
Not to nitpick but "all the people I know" is a phrase, not a term.
More importantly, the problem is that you stated something as a fact without having a factual base for it.
For all you know, I could have spent my summers in college traveling the country taking polls in shopping malls. If I included all of those people in "all the people I know" because I had met them, learned their names and spoken with them for a few minutes, then my sample size would be significant, national and within the time that I was in college.
OR
I could be using random, anecdotal evidence.
The problem is that you don't know which of the two is the case but you stated your position on my statement as an absolute without verifying first.
You also haven't responded to the free ID thing yet. Should I just assume we're going to ignore that because it disproves your argument about poll taxes? The money (tax) is removed from the equation so it can't be a poll tax but you need it to be a poll tax in order for your argument to make sense so we won't talk about the actual facts?
Is that how this debate works?
I'm not trying to be difficult. I'm new to the forum. I'm just trying to learn the rules.
1. Being there is a requisite to vote. Unless, of course, you cast an absentee ballot but then you have to put a stamp on the envelope and that costs money and OH GOD! It's a poll tax (even though it isn't).
Absentee voting is not a requirement for voting. You sure your state doesn't give absentee voters a postage paid return envelope ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Techgeek81
2. Are you just ignoring the fact that I have stated multiple times that, at least in my state which is the one I am most familiar with, the required ID is free of charge to anyone of voting age? All you need to do is walk into the DMV and say "I want an ID card" and they give you one.
South Carolina required ID is blocked. You may need to do more that "I want an ID card", but you can always supply a link.
Voter ID is a distraction on a nonexistent problem to avoid the real issue of voter machine fraud, which none of the Voter ID scaremongers are willing or able to address.
Not to nitpick but "all the people I know" is a phrase, not a term.
More importantly, the problem is that you stated something as a fact without having a factual base for it.
For all you know, I could have spent my summers in college traveling the country taking polls in shopping malls. If I included all of those people in "all the people I know" because I had met them, learned their names and spoken with them for a few minutes, then my sample size would be significant, national and within the time that I was in college.
OR
I could be using random, anecdotal evidence.
The problem is that you don't know which of the two is the case but you stated your position on my statement as an absolute without verifying first.
You also haven't responded to the free ID thing yet. Should I just assume we're going to ignore that because it disproves your argument about poll taxes? The money (tax) is removed from the equation so it can't be a poll tax but you need it to be a poll tax in order for your argument to make sense so we won't talk about the actual facts?
Is that how this debate works?
I'm not trying to be difficult. I'm new to the forum. I'm just trying to learn the rules.
Let's keep focused. You did make this statement Voting Fraud
This is a statement, not a phase or term, stop flip-flopping.
Notice the pronoun "I", "I" selected the criteria of people "I" know to reach the conclusion that voter ID is not a suppression of citizens voting.
I replied, "The people you know are not a representative sample of the population."
Therefore the sample of the population you provided, now you have expanded, people "I know", to shopping malls across all 50 states I polled still has bias and random sampling issues. Therefore is not representative, much less any basis in reality.
Device(s): Nexus 4, Nexus 7 3G, HTC One X, Wildfire S
Carrier: Orange UK
Thanks: 9,580
Thanked 9,925 Times in 5,699 Posts
I'm convinced, at this point, of many things. One of those is that certain people haven't read the rules. Whilst they're slightly relaxed in the PCA section and we encourage healthy debate, members are still expected to to attack issues, not each other.
Keep that last sentence in mind before posting please.
According to THIS WEBSITE, these states require photo ID. Here are links to those states websites which talk about the fees/costs/poll taxes involved in obtaining said photo ID. Note: in every state, the fee is waived for ID only for voting purposes.
If people aren't actually being charged or paying for the ID, how exactly is it a poll tax?
"If you are a registered voter and do not have a government-issued photo ID, the Department of Safety and Homeland Security will provide you with a photo ID at no charge."
Early voting started off a wildly popular, bipartisan element of voting reform. Indeed, of all the voting reforms this country has seen over the last decades, early voting is easily the most unassailable. It makes voting more convenient for the public and makes Election Day easier for election officials. Because it generally happens at board of elections offices, it takes notoriously unreliable volunteer poll workers out of the picture.
But Republican leaders cooled on the idea after 2008. "It just so happened that this was the first time that early voting had been used in large numbers to mobilize African American and Latino voters," said Wendy Weiser, who directs the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law.
According to THIS WEBSITE, these states require photo ID. Here are links to those states websites which talk about the fees/costs/poll taxes involved in obtaining said photo ID. Note: in every state, the fee is waived for ID only for voting purposes.
If people aren't actually being charged or paying for the ID, how exactly is it a poll tax?
"If you are a registered voter and do not have a government-issued photo ID, the Department of Safety and Homeland Security will provide you with a photo ID at no charge."
Link to the form that waives the fee for a voter ID card
Again, the scaremongers refuse to address the real problem, counting the vote, rather they are attempting to sow fear of a bogeyman to deny working class citizens of their right to vote.
Many locations to obtain the voter ID cards are part time, only opened a few week days during business hours a week. Some are open only one day every 2 months.
It's not unusual to spend an entire day to obtain, plus the expense of obtaining supporting documents.
How much are states spending on voter education on voter ID ?
The Republicans are spending a lot of taxpayers money on lawyers to suppress citizens right to vote.
"Remember, all of this money is being spent to defend a law that solves a problem that has been proven not to exist. With South Carolina leaders attempting to balance the state budget on the backs of its workers, fiscal conservatives should be asking themselves whether such an unnecessary expense is really worth it."
Again, the scaremongers refuse to address the real problem, counting the vote, rather they are attempting to sow fear of a bogeyman to deny working class citizens of their right to vote.
You called it a poll tax. A poll tax is any money charged for voting. I posted links proving that no money is charged for the necessary ID in the states that require it. How does that make me a scaremonger?
Quote:
Originally Posted by OutofDate1980
Many locations to obtain the voter ID cards are part time, only opened a few week days during business hours a week. Some are open only one day every 2 months.
It's not unusual to spend an entire day to obtain, plus the expense of obtaining supporting documents.
You can only vote for president for 12 hours one day every four years. During the last presidential election, I stood on line to cast my ballot for 5 hours due to high turn out because of the highly motivated electorate. They were motivated by the left. According to your logic, the system AND the left are both infringing on my right to vote.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OutofDate1980
How much are states spending on voter education on voter ID ?
The Republicans are spending a lot of taxpayers money on lawyers to suppress citizens right to vote.
"Remember, all of this money is being spent to defend a law that solves a problem that has been proven not to exist. With South Carolina leaders attempting to balance the state budget on the backs of its workers, fiscal conservatives should be asking themselves whether such an unnecessary expense is really worth it."
The article doesn't say there has not been ANY fraud. It says there hasn't been much.
So, according to the same logic, airport security is not necessary because there isn't THAT MUCH airline hijacking. Sure there was that whole 9/11 thing but that was 11 years ago. Why should we still have to take our shoes off and sandwich bag our toothpaste in 2012? Right?
As to cost, everything costs money. Voter ID laws cost money. Elections cost money. President Obama's daughter's taxpayer funded class trips to Mexico cost money. Bill Clinton pardoning Marc Rich cost money...
The list goes on. Until waste stops on both sides, arguing about money seems kind of silly.
Last edited by Techgeek81; August 20th, 2012 at 01:56 PM.
Reason: Correcting a minor typo
Yes, I have. You're honestly comparing checking ID to Jim Crow laws? Wow...
Quote:
Originally Posted by OutofDate1980
Again, the scaremongers refuse to address the real problem, counting the vote, rather they are attempting to sow fear of a bogeyman to deny working class citizens of their right to vote.
You have yet to show any real reason how this will stop any working class citizen from voting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OutofDate1980
Many locations to obtain the voter ID cards are part time, only opened a few week days during business hours a week. Some are open only one day every 2 months.
It's not unusual to spend an entire day to obtain, plus the expense of obtaining supporting documents.
I don't know about other states, but in FL you just have to stroll into a DMV. While not the most pleasant experience in life, its not horrible. As long as you don't stroll in during peak hours (like right before they close on Friday) they can have you out in two hours or less. I did it just 4 weeks ago to have the address on my license changed. They're open 5 days a week save for major holidays and open from 9-6 I believe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OutofDate1980
How much are states spending on voter education on voter ID ?
The Republicans are spending a lot of taxpayers money on lawyers to suppress citizens right to vote.
How much do they need to spend to educate people to the fact that "You need ID to vote". I suppose however much it takes to translate to spanish "Usted necesita una tarjeta de identificación para votar."
Quote:
Originally Posted by OutofDate1980
"Remember, all of this money is being spent to defend a law that solves a problem that has been proven not to exist. With South Carolina leaders attempting to balance the state budget on the backs of its workers, fiscal conservatives should be asking themselves whether such an unnecessary expense is really worth it.
That's an intentional mischaracterization at best. This is what I said Voting Fraud
Quote:
Originally Posted by Techgeek81
A poll tax is any money charged for voting. I posted links proving that no money is charged for the necessary ID in the states that require it. How does that make me a scaremonger? ...
Voter fraud is a near nonexistent problem, yet you keep repeating it's a problem with absolutely no evidence, that's called scaremongering. Yet you just ignore the real problem of voting machine fraud. You want to waste the government and citizens money and time for nothing. TN permits gun permits, but not student ID, wonder why ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Techgeek81
You can only vote for president for 12 hours one day every four years. During the last presidential election, I stood on line to cast my ballot for 5 hours due to high turn out because of the highly motivated electorate. They were motivated by the left. According to your logic, the system AND the left are both infringing on my right to vote. ...
Other citizens exercising their right to vote infringes YOUR rights. That's sad and pathetic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Techgeek81
The article doesn't say there has not been ANY fraud. It says there hasn't been much. ...
In South Caroline, there was none, from the cited article; "A nationwide analysis of voting data found exactly 10 reports of in-person voter fraud since 2000 — about one case of fraud for every 15 million voters. That’s a rate of .83 cases of voter fraud per year in the U.S., or about .016 cases per state per year. If we apply that to the $1 million South Carolina is spending to defend its voter ID law, we find that the state is spending at a rate of $62.5 million per case of alleged fraud. (No actual cases of voter fraud have been found in South Carolina, however, so this is still a moot point.)"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Techgeek81
So, according to the same logic, airport security is not necessary because there isn't THAT MUCH airline hijacking. Sure there was that whole 9/11 thing but that was 11 years ago. Why should we still have to take our shoes off and sandwich bag our toothpaste in 2012? Right?...
You know as much about logic as you know about statistics. Brings to mind the unofficial SC Education Department's motto, "Thank God for Mississippi or we'd be dead last".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Techgeek81
... Voter ID laws cost money. ...
A waste of money to fix a near nonexistent problem.
These voter suppression laws which were written by Right Wing Nut Paul Weyrich's American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), who infamously said "our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down." is nothing less than the Republican Party's attempt to overthrow American Democracy, by lying about voter fraud.
Getting too personal in here so I'm closing this thread as a pre-emptive action. If anyone disagrees or can give me a reasonable position as to why it should be reopened, please pm me.
Steven
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Steven58 For This Useful Post:
9Likes
