conservatives don't mind showing id at the ballot box !!!

[Teals_Of_Wonder]

every state should have their voting records/vacant home records/dead records/counts etc, all figured out 4 or 5 months before the election. and not have a few thousand mystery ballots coming in the mail all voting for O'Bozo! oh..but they will take all the ballots in the Obama Blue Voter Fraud States !!

 

[Salt Jones]

I am not sure. Can you answer? Seriously...can you tell us?

.0000000001%, now prove me wrong.

Is that the percent of Mr. Obama's votes that were, in fact, tried and found to be fraudulent?

I'll take your word for it.

What about the number of cases tried in the last 30 and 10 years?

Read:

Political Animal - The ‘evidence’ bolstering voter-fraud allegations

 

[Zander]

Really?

Should we have a national ID card?

Nope. Eye scans or finger scans at the voting booths.

I'm really sick of these fraud cases showing up in court.

Instant scan authenticates the voter and gets a fraud the minute he or she thinks they can get away with destroying the United States of America's privilege of 1 man, 1 vote.

It's gotten to be so run of the mill, it's like treason imho.

How many voter fraud cases hiave been tried in the past 30 years? How many in the past 10 years?

What percentage of those votes for Obama in 2008 were fraudulent?

If voter fraud is such a non-issue, then you should have nothing to worry about by requiring voters to show ID.

 

[Lovebears65]

Since Obama wants us to all force health care insurance on us and tax us ( not if the courts get their way) 2000 dollars if we dont but its not ok to say everyone over the age of 18 should be required to have a valid picture ID .. Shoot my kids had pictures ID at age 10 to go on the military bases its not an issue here in our house ever. If you dont have nothing to hide then why not have an ID even if they give the first one free I dont care .

 

[candycorn]

.0000000001%, now prove me wrong.

Is that the percent of Mr. Obama's votes that were, in fact, tried and found to be fraudulent?

I'll take your word for it.

What about the number of cases tried in the last 30 and 10 years?

Read:

Political Animal - The ‘evidence’ bolstering voter-fraud allegations

Okay...311 cases. That is what is documented. Would you agree that there are a great many more that are not brought to light? After all, in the 311 cases your website lists, there were at least two parties involved, the voter and the complainant. No complainant, no case; right?

And of the people who voted for Mr. Obama, 311 will not make any difference at all. But, what about the down-ticket races which historically have a much lower vote count? What about off year elections when the vote counts are much smaller and, therefore, fraud is magnified since it will be a larger percentage?

Additionally, if the number of cases is 311, and those are tossed out, aren't the number of persons who are going to be potentially disenfranchised also infinitesimally small as well? If the benefit is so small as you state, the hazard is also microscopic.

Finally, why not do whatever you reasonably can to ensure the elections are decided by persons who are legitimately registered to vote in their district, precinct, county, state, and yes, country? It was suggested by some here that we should have fingerprint scans and some sort of retinal imaging. Such silly arguments are neither here nor there but to ask someone presenting themselves to muster a card and a photo ID is not much of a requirement at all.

Some say "if you have nothing to hide....why are you afraid?". Again, this argument is as uncharitable as it is silly. You may owe child support, or back taxes, or are wanted for skipping jury duty. There are hundreds of reasons why you may be hesitant to show your ID. I, myself, got a letter from the IRS the other day stating that I didn't file my taxes properly. I have voted in an election since I filed in January and got the letter last week so my surrender of my ID and registration card did not result in my immediate arrest...as a tax cheat I suppose but I can understand why some would be hesitant.

To them, I would simply state that there are no perfect systems and there are no perfect persons. There will always be a segment that is not served well by all rules and regulations as well as the rule makers and the regulators. I, however, think that our elections are sacred enough to err on the side of generating the purest form of democracy we can reasonably hope for. Making all who wish to vote furnish a card and a photo ID presents no unreasonable barrier between the citizen and casting a ballot.

 

[Dreamingwolf]

Political people are against making id's a rule, cause every politician uses this weakness to their good. Be it someone who would vote for them anyways or someone they know isnt gonna vote. The most disturbing thing to me is it seems people have just accepted corruption as a way of doing business, I guess really I should feel naive thinking that groups of people can avoid corruption.

 

[Sarah G]

Nope. Eye scans or finger scans at the voting booths.

I'm really sick of these fraud cases showing up in court.

Instant scan authenticates the voter and gets a fraud the minute he or she thinks they can get away with destroying the United States of America's privilege of 1 man, 1 vote.

It's gotten to be so run of the mill, it's like treason imho.

How many voter fraud cases hiave been tried in the past 30 years? How many in the past 10 years?

What percentage of those votes for Obama in 2008 were fraudulent?

If voter fraud is such a non-issue, then you should have nothing to worry about by requiring voters to show ID.

If the id's are free and the way to obtain them is clear, no problem. Repubs are so slimey about everything though, it will be hard for them to get something like this organized.

The Democrats will probably have to take this over too.

 

[The Professor]

Consevatives bend over and take it up the arse a lot, but that's not the point it's against the U.S. Constitution.

I will ignore your eloquent but erroneous assessment of conservatives. However, I will not ignore your ignorance of the Constitution.

The truth, Truthseeker, is that there is no provision in the U.S. Constitution that forbids the use of voter-ID. I don't know where you got that idea, but I suggest you seek more reliable sources. Amendment XV states, “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” Article XIX provides, “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.” Amendment XXVI provides, “The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.” All three amendments contain the following provision: “The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.” These Constitutional protections for voting citizens are very specific and are thus limited.

The Constitution does impose restrictions on voting such as age and citizenship but does not address how the eligibility of voters is to be determined. Voter-ID would be unconstitutional only if it were shown to be discriminatory based upon race, age or sex. The mere fact that it may be inconvenient would hardly prove it to be discriminatory. I would love to hear someone argue that Black American citizens are more burdened by the requirement of voter-ID than White American citizens, or that women citizens are more burdened by this requirement than men citizens.

Please don't use the argument that voter-ID laws are racially discriminatory because lower-income Americans cannot afford to comply with these laws, and Blacks are disproportionally in the lower income bracket. Anyone who cares to check will find that every single state with a photo-ID requirement allows voters to obtain a government-issued photo ID at no charge. If they're too lazy to get one, that is their problem.

Now I am going to tell you something that may shock you and a lot of other people. Contrary to the belief of many - if not most - people, THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT FOR THE PUBLIC TO VOTE FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

Unlike most people, I have read the Constitution again and again, and I can assure you that there is no provision within that document that grants the public a right to vote for a person to be President. Oh, there are laws which grant such a right, but there is nothing to be found within the pages of the Constitution which speaks of such a right.

The constitution, specifically Article II, provides that the President and Vice President will be elected by Electors appointed by the Legislator, and Amendment XII reaffirms the same process. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say anything about the public voting for President or Vice President. You probably didn't know that. If you had listened to Neal Boortz or some of the other non-liberal talk show hosts or newsmen you would have known it. At any rate, now you know. Don't bother to thank me. I'm here to inform you because, after all, truth matters.

OK, I'm done here.

 

[Sirkarl101]

conservatives support everyone showing id at the ballot box !!! and said conservatives express this opinion from rich to poor !!! thats because we only want to vote once !!! libbs are against a level playing field !!! it's not like libbs are the only ones required to show id !!everyone should rich or poor left or right !!! so where is the suppression libbs always like to bitch ,whine,and scream racism about !!

All the studies and analysis has been done and you are well aware that the new laws target a demographic group that by a great majority tend to vote Democratic. The amount of voter fraud is so minute that this ploy was proven to be politically motivated. Most are well aware that the right would stand a fair chance but would more than likely lose if they did not deprive voters on the left of their right to vote. It is an example of the republicans knowing that their actions or inaction in congress is hurting their chances at elections.

Myself will never accept the results of the elections either way if people are deprived of their right to vote. You go ahead and justify iy any way you want, you know it is wrong. I have a feeling though that the Democrats have a legal means of stopping such an outrage.
I invite you to go to fact check and research the issue and I am sure you will be person enough to state your being wrong.

 

[Zander]

How many voter fraud cases hiave been tried in the past 30 years? How many in the past 10 years?

What percentage of those votes for Obama in 2008 were fraudulent?

If voter fraud is such a non-issue, then you should have nothing to worry about by requiring voters to show ID.

If the id's are free and the way to obtain them is clear, no problem. Repubs are so slimey about everything though, it will be hard for them to get something like this organized.

The Democrats will probably have to take this over too.

Yeah, the whole concept of proof of Identity is just a "slimy" republican thing...got it.

 

[yidnar]

anyone with a brain can see libbs want to vote and vote often at the ballot box !!

 

[mosten11]

As a Democrat, I personally don't care if I will be asked to show my I.D. As a first time voter in 2012, I hope they will ask to see my I.D., because I have no problem showing it, but I do plan to ask to see their I.D. just to be a smartass ;D.

 

[cheetah440]

This reminds me of a classic from my state, a blue state, a state filled with a hoard of bleeding heart liberals.

Martha Coakley" Technically it's not illegal to be illegal in Massachusetts-"

Can't be true you say? Nobody would ever be so fucking stupid to say such a thing it has to be a misquote?

OK, listen yourself then.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRiXYvsrGV4]Coakley on Illegal Immigrants - -Technically it's not illegal to be illegal in Massachusetts- - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Salt Jones]

Is that the percent of Mr. Obama's votes that were, in fact, tried and found to be fraudulent?

I'll take your word for it.

What about the number of cases tried in the last 30 and 10 years?

Read:

Political Animal - The ‘evidence’ bolstering voter-fraud allegations

Okay...311 cases. That is what is documented. Would you agree that there are a great many more that are not brought to light? After all, in the 311 cases your website lists, there were at least two parties involved, the voter and the complainant. No complainant, no case; right?

And of the people who voted for Mr. Obama, 311 will not make any difference at all. But, what about the down-ticket races which historically have a much lower vote count? What about off year elections when the vote counts are much smaller and, therefore, fraud is magnified since it will be a larger percentage?

Additionally, if the number of cases is 311, and those are tossed out, aren't the number of persons who are going to be potentially disenfranchised also infinitesimally small as well? If the benefit is so small as you state, the hazard is also microscopic.

Finally, why not do whatever you reasonably can to ensure the elections are decided by persons who are legitimately registered to vote in their district, precinct, county, state, and yes, country? It was suggested by some here that we should have fingerprint scans and some sort of retinal imaging. Such silly arguments are neither here nor there but to ask someone presenting themselves to muster a card and a photo ID is not much of a requirement at all.

Some say "if you have nothing to hide....why are you afraid?". Again, this argument is as uncharitable as it is silly. You may owe child support, or back taxes, or are wanted for skipping jury duty. There are hundreds of reasons why you may be hesitant to show your ID. I, myself, got a letter from the IRS the other day stating that I didn't file my taxes properly. I have voted in an election since I filed in January and got the letter last week so my surrender of my ID and registration card did not result in my immediate arrest...as a tax cheat I suppose but I can understand why some would be hesitant.

To them, I would simply state that there are no perfect systems and there are no perfect persons. There will always be a segment that is not served well by all rules and regulations as well as the rule makers and the regulators. I, however, think that our elections are sacred enough to err on the side of generating the purest form of democracy we can reasonably hope for. Making all who wish to vote furnish a card and a photo ID presents no unreasonable barrier between the citizen and casting a ballot.

You didn't read the full article, did you? From my link:

"What’s more, the RNLA is dishonestly representing their data when they describe it as “in the past decade”: A quick gander at the website’s evidence shows citations going as far back as 1997. Although they claim to have evidence of 46 states with voter fraud prosecutions in the last decade, their website only lists 44 states. For two of those 44, there are only examples from the 1990s up to 2000, bringing the state count down to 42. To be clear, that’s eight states where they identified no instances of voter fraud in the last decade."

"Further, the RNLA brags: “The RNLA webpage presents evidence that there were at least seventeen cases involving prosecutions for non-citizen voting in 2005 just in one state: Florida.” However, according to the Department of Justice, at least four of the seventeen cases they list were dismissed."

 

[candycorn]

Read:

Political Animal - The ‘evidence’ bolstering voter-fraud allegations

Okay...311 cases. That is what is documented. Would you agree that there are a great many more that are not brought to light? After all, in the 311 cases your website lists, there were at least two parties involved, the voter and the complainant. No complainant, no case; right?

And of the people who voted for Mr. Obama, 311 will not make any difference at all. But, what about the down-ticket races which historically have a much lower vote count? What about off year elections when the vote counts are much smaller and, therefore, fraud is magnified since it will be a larger percentage?

Additionally, if the number of cases is 311, and those are tossed out, aren't the number of persons who are going to be potentially disenfranchised also infinitesimally small as well? If the benefit is so small as you state, the hazard is also microscopic.

Finally, why not do whatever you reasonably can to ensure the elections are decided by persons who are legitimately registered to vote in their district, precinct, county, state, and yes, country? It was suggested by some here that we should have fingerprint scans and some sort of retinal imaging. Such silly arguments are neither here nor there but to ask someone presenting themselves to muster a card and a photo ID is not much of a requirement at all.

Some say "if you have nothing to hide....why are you afraid?". Again, this argument is as uncharitable as it is silly. You may owe child support, or back taxes, or are wanted for skipping jury duty. There are hundreds of reasons why you may be hesitant to show your ID. I, myself, got a letter from the IRS the other day stating that I didn't file my taxes properly. I have voted in an election since I filed in January and got the letter last week so my surrender of my ID and registration card did not result in my immediate arrest...as a tax cheat I suppose but I can understand why some would be hesitant.

To them, I would simply state that there are no perfect systems and there are no perfect persons. There will always be a segment that is not served well by all rules and regulations as well as the rule makers and the regulators. I, however, think that our elections are sacred enough to err on the side of generating the purest form of democracy we can reasonably hope for. Making all who wish to vote furnish a card and a photo ID presents no unreasonable barrier between the citizen and casting a ballot.

You didn't read the full article, did you? From my link:

"What’s more, the RNLA is dishonestly representing their data when they describe it as “in the past decade”: A quick gander at the website’s evidence shows citations going as far back as 1997. Although they claim to have evidence of 46 states with voter fraud prosecutions in the last decade, their website only lists 44 states. For two of those 44, there are only examples from the 1990s up to 2000, bringing the state count down to 42. To be clear, that’s eight states where they identified no instances of voter fraud in the last decade."

"Further, the RNLA brags: “The RNLA webpage presents evidence that there were at least seventeen cases involving prosecutions for non-citizen voting in 2005 just in one state: Florida.” However, according to the Department of Justice, at least four of the seventeen cases they list were dismissed."

Yes, I did read the entire article. Did you read my response? Care to comment?

 

[Salt Jones]

Okay...311 cases. That is what is documented. Would you agree that there are a great many more that are not brought to light? After all, in the 311 cases your website lists, there were at least two parties involved, the voter and the complainant. No complainant, no case; right?

And of the people who voted for Mr. Obama, 311 will not make any difference at all. But, what about the down-ticket races which historically have a much lower vote count? What about off year elections when the vote counts are much smaller and, therefore, fraud is magnified since it will be a larger percentage?

Additionally, if the number of cases is 311, and those are tossed out, aren't the number of persons who are going to be potentially disenfranchised also infinitesimally small as well? If the benefit is so small as you state, the hazard is also microscopic.

Finally, why not do whatever you reasonably can to ensure the elections are decided by persons who are legitimately registered to vote in their district, precinct, county, state, and yes, country? It was suggested by some here that we should have fingerprint scans and some sort of retinal imaging. Such silly arguments are neither here nor there but to ask someone presenting themselves to muster a card and a photo ID is not much of a requirement at all.

Some say "if you have nothing to hide....why are you afraid?". Again, this argument is as uncharitable as it is silly. You may owe child support, or back taxes, or are wanted for skipping jury duty. There are hundreds of reasons why you may be hesitant to show your ID. I, myself, got a letter from the IRS the other day stating that I didn't file my taxes properly. I have voted in an election since I filed in January and got the letter last week so my surrender of my ID and registration card did not result in my immediate arrest...as a tax cheat I suppose but I can understand why some would be hesitant.

To them, I would simply state that there are no perfect systems and there are no perfect persons. There will always be a segment that is not served well by all rules and regulations as well as the rule makers and the regulators. I, however, think that our elections are sacred enough to err on the side of generating the purest form of democracy we can reasonably hope for. Making all who wish to vote furnish a card and a photo ID presents no unreasonable barrier between the citizen and casting a ballot.

You didn't read the full article, did you? From my link:

"What’s more, the RNLA is dishonestly representing their data when they describe it as “in the past decade”: A quick gander at the website’s evidence shows citations going as far back as 1997. Although they claim to have evidence of 46 states with voter fraud prosecutions in the last decade, their website only lists 44 states. For two of those 44, there are only examples from the 1990s up to 2000, bringing the state count down to 42. To be clear, that’s eight states where they identified no instances of voter fraud in the last decade."

"Further, the RNLA brags: “The RNLA webpage presents evidence that there were at least seventeen cases involving prosecutions for non-citizen voting in 2005 just in one state: Florida.” However, according to the Department of Justice, at least four of the seventeen cases they list were dismissed."

Yes, I did read the entire article. Did you read my response? Care to comment?

Sure. Voter ID laws aren't being used to fight the minuscule number of fraud cases, they are being used to try to stop the massive turnout of black, Hispanic and young voters. Hence, states allowing hunting licenses to be used but not college ids. What next a poll tax or a literacy test?

 

[candycorn]

You didn't read the full article, did you? From my link:

"What’s more, the RNLA is dishonestly representing their data when they describe it as “in the past decade”: A quick gander at the website’s evidence shows citations going as far back as 1997. Although they claim to have evidence of 46 states with voter fraud prosecutions in the last decade, their website only lists 44 states. For two of those 44, there are only examples from the 1990s up to 2000, bringing the state count down to 42. To be clear, that’s eight states where they identified no instances of voter fraud in the last decade."

"Further, the RNLA brags: “The RNLA webpage presents evidence that there were at least seventeen cases involving prosecutions for non-citizen voting in 2005 just in one state: Florida.” However, according to the Department of Justice, at least four of the seventeen cases they list were dismissed."

Yes, I did read the entire article. Did you read my response? Care to comment?

Sure. Voter ID laws aren't being used to fight the minuscule number of fraud cases, they are being used to try to stop the massive turnout of black, Hispanic and young voters. Hence, states allowing hunting licenses to be used but not college ids. What next a poll tax or a literacy test?

How do you know that? Why not ensure that only those registered to vote in a precinct/district/state are voting in a particular election?

Nothing is keeping a black person, a Hispanic person, or a young voter from getting an ID card or registering to vote.

Nobody is discussing a poll tax or literacy test.

 

[Mr. H.]

I don't mind showing id, ego, OR super ego.

 

[Salt Jones]

Yes, I did read the entire article. Did you read my response? Care to comment?

Sure. Voter ID laws aren't being used to fight the minuscule number of fraud cases, they are being used to try to stop the massive turnout of black, Hispanic and young voters. Hence, states allowing hunting licenses to be used but not college ids. What next a poll tax or a literacy test?

How do you know that? Why not ensure that only those registered to vote in a precinct/district/state are voting in a particular election?

Nothing is keeping a black person, a Hispanic person, or a young voter from getting an ID card or registering to vote.

Nobody is discussing a poll tax or literacy test.

Because I study. Isn't a state college ID an ID card? What does curtailing early voting have to do with ID laws? Because the states that are pushing voter ID laws are also limiting early voting. Research the percentage of black voters who used early voting in the 2008 presidential election.

 

[Moonglow]

I certainly do not mind proving that I am who I say I am. I do it all the time, it's what normal people do.

the left will use the cowardly tactic of racism and disenfranchisement of the poor to keep from showing id at the voting booth !!! the reason is very clear !!! like they said in 08 vote democrat and vote often !!

even in states that do not have a voter ID on the books you must show proof of who you are, both libs and conservatives, so your illogical fallacy of libs only doesn't work.