Voter Fraud

[Zoom-boing]

Oh yeah ... my hubs never got his DL till he was 25 but when he turned 18 he went an got and ID card because he needed it for so many things ... and this was back in the late '70s.

All the people who will supposedly be disenfranchised by having to get a photo ID ... how are they managing in life without one? Do they not have any type of bank account or ever buy alcohol or smokes or cash any type of check? Do you need a photo ID to get a cashier's check? I can't figure that the numbers they're giving (is it 9% in PA?) for folks without DL means that those 9%(?) don't have any type of a photo ID right now.

Oh and my son's ID was free of charge, he had to sign a form saying he didn't have any other type of valid photo ID and there was no charge. Had he had to pay for it the cost was $13.50.

 

[Foxfyre]

Oh yeah ... my hubs never got his DL till he was 25 but when he turned 18 he went an got and ID card because he needed it for so many things ... and this was back in the late '70s.

All the people who will supposedly be disenfranchised by having to get a photo ID ... how are they managing in life without one? Do they not have any type of bank account or ever buy alcohol or smokes or cash any type of check? Do you need a photo ID to get a cashier's check? I can't figure that the numbers they're giving (is it 9% in PA?) for folks without DL means that those 9%(?) don't have any type of a photo ID right now.

Oh and my son's ID was free of charge, he had to sign a form saying he didn't have any other type of valid photo ID and there was no charge. Had he had to pay for it the cost was $13.50.

I don't have any problem with people who can show they are indigent being provided free photo ID. I don't mind my tax dollars going for that purpose. But as you point out, you can be required to have photo ID to buy a plane ticket, to be served in a bar, to buy a bottle of wine, to buy a pack of cigarettes, to enter a courthouse or certain other venues, to drive any kind of motorized vehicle on a public road, to apply for a passport, to check a book out of a public library, to apply for food stamps, social security, or some other programs, to collect a welfare check, or simply because you fit a suspect's description and are detained momentarily by the police.

Seems to me that the very very few citizens who don't have a photo ID would be blessed by the requirement that they get one. But I'm not buying the argument that tens of thousands of people would be disenfranchised by a requirement of Voter I.D. It just won't happen,.

 

[Ernie S.]

Oh yeah ... my hubs never got his DL till he was 25 but when he turned 18 he went an got and ID card because he needed it for so many things ... and this was back in the late '70s.

All the people who will supposedly be disenfranchised by having to get a photo ID ... how are they managing in life without one? Do they not have any type of bank account or ever buy alcohol or smokes or cash any type of check? Do you need a photo ID to get a cashier's check? I can't figure that the numbers they're giving (is it 9% in PA?) for folks without DL means that those 9%(?) don't have any type of a photo ID right now.

Oh and my son's ID was free of charge, he had to sign a form saying he didn't have any other type of valid photo ID and there was no charge. Had he had to pay for it the cost was $13.50.

I don't have any problem with people who can show they are indigent being provided free photo ID. I don't mind my tax dollars going for that purpose. But as you point out, you can be required to have photo ID to buy a plane ticket, to be served in a bar, to buy a bottle of wine, to buy a pack of cigarettes, to enter a courthouse or certain other venues, to drive any kind of motorized vehicle on a public road, to apply for a passport, to check a book out of a public library, to apply for food stamps, social security, or some other programs, to collect a welfare check, or simply because you fit a suspect's description and are detained momentarily by the police.

Seems to me that the very very few citizens who don't have a photo ID would be blessed by the requirement that they get one. But I'm not buying the argument that tens of thousands of people would be disenfranchised by a requirement of Voter I.D. It just won't happen,.

But but but LoneLaugher says he has addressed that in the past, Foxy. It's apparently an off limits argument.
I, personally, don't recall he, or anyone providing a cogent refutation of this argument and he refuses to link or restate his argument.
His comment is:

Bullshit.

Sounds like he doesn't want to subject his argument to scrutiny. Whatcha think?

 

[Foxfyre]

Oh yeah ... my hubs never got his DL till he was 25 but when he turned 18 he went an got and ID card because he needed it for so many things ... and this was back in the late '70s.

All the people who will supposedly be disenfranchised by having to get a photo ID ... how are they managing in life without one? Do they not have any type of bank account or ever buy alcohol or smokes or cash any type of check? Do you need a photo ID to get a cashier's check? I can't figure that the numbers they're giving (is it 9% in PA?) for folks without DL means that those 9%(?) don't have any type of a photo ID right now.

Oh and my son's ID was free of charge, he had to sign a form saying he didn't have any other type of valid photo ID and there was no charge. Had he had to pay for it the cost was $13.50.

I don't have any problem with people who can show they are indigent being provided free photo ID. I don't mind my tax dollars going for that purpose. But as you point out, you can be required to have photo ID to buy a plane ticket, to be served in a bar, to buy a bottle of wine, to buy a pack of cigarettes, to enter a courthouse or certain other venues, to drive any kind of motorized vehicle on a public road, to apply for a passport, to check a book out of a public library, to apply for food stamps, social security, or some other programs, to collect a welfare check, or simply because you fit a suspect's description and are detained momentarily by the police.

Seems to me that the very very few citizens who don't have a photo ID would be blessed by the requirement that they get one. But I'm not buying the argument that tens of thousands of people would be disenfranchised by a requirement of Voter I.D. It just won't happen,.

But but but LoneLaugher says he has addressed that in the past, Foxy. It's apparently an off limits argument.
I, personally, don't recall he, or anyone providing a cogent refutation of this argument and he refuses to link or restate his argument.
His comment is:

Bullshit.

Sounds like he doesn't want to subject his argument to scrutiny. Whatcha think?

"Bullshit" is code for "I have an absolutely breathtakingly marvelous astounding rebuttal for your comments, but I just can't quite seem to recall it at the moment."

 

[Ernie S.]

He'll likely start quoting TDM soon.

 

[kiwiman127]

Earlier in this thread I posted the results of two studies on voter fraud. The conclusion is that a person is more likely to hit by lightening that voter fraud being committed.
The penalty for voter fraud are very stiff, $10,000 fine and jail time.
This voter fraud scare is a fraud within its self.
The League of Women's Voter estimates millions of legal voters will become disenfranchised. That is un-American.

 

[Rozman]

If people spent half their time going about getting their paperwork together instead of bitching about
having to do this.They would have been done with this already.

The race card is the favorite card that the left likes to play.
Their second favorite is the victim card.

 

[Ernie S.]

Earlier in this thread I posted the results of two studies on voter fraud. The conclusion is that a person is more likely to hit by lightening that voter fraud being committed.
The penalty for voter fraud are very stiff, $10,000 fine and jail time.
This voter fraud scare is a fraud within its self.
The League of Women's Voter estimates millions of legal voters will become disenfranchised. That is un-American.

I won't go back and read your studies. I've read most at one time or another and all one really needs to do is research the source to know what the study will say.
The fact remains is there may, or may not be a significant amount of people voting in place of others, living or dead. We will never really know seeing that dead people rarely bitch that somone has voted in their place.
Next, we have dozens of cases of ACORN, SEIU and others submitting thousands of fraudulent voter registrations. Yes many have been caught and many named culled, but do you really think all of the bad registrations have been removed from the rolls?. I'd bet less than half have been removed. So, these "non people" aren't going to be complaining either. There now becomes literally thousands of opportunities for fraudulent votes with zero chance of anyone being caught.
The only way we would even know someone voted fraudulently is if he was stupid enough to be voting in place of the poll worker's dead mother.

As to your LWV statistics, bullshit! Both Foxfire and I have covered that quite adequately. I suggest you go back a few pages and catch up.

 

[Billo_Really]

but do you really think all of the bad registrations have been removed from the rolls?

I don't know about that.

But I do know you're removing more of the good ones than the bad.

 

[Ernie S.]

but do you really think all of the bad registrations have been removed from the rolls?

I don't know about that.

But I do know you're removing more of the good ones than the bad.

No you don't. Your opinion is not fact

 

[freedombecki]

but do you really think all of the bad registrations have been removed from the rolls?

I don't know about that.

But I do know you're removing more of the good ones than the bad.

Link, please.

 

[Foxfyre]

And examining 2000 ballots is a valid way to determine voter fraud? In the two different cases of voter fraud I have personally witnessed, so far as I know, no arrest was ever made. The ONLY way it was caught was that somebody signing in noticed the signature on the page and identifed one of them as a person who had died weeks before; the other as a person who was out of the country. For every one of those that is discovered, how many are never ever reported? NM now has photo I.D. and I suspect such incidents will be much reduced.

And in rebuttal to Kiwiman's 'studies'--noting somebody has probably already posted this:

"The electoral system cannot inspire public confidence if no safeguards exist to deter or detect fraud or to confirm the identity of voters." That was the conclusion of the bipartisan Commission on Federal Election Reform, headed by former president Jimmy Carter and former secretary of State James Baker. The commission recommended stronger photo-identification requirements at the polls. Its logic was straightforward and convincing: Americans must show photo identification for all kinds of day-to-day activities, such as cashing checks or entering government buildings. The many photo ID requirements we encounter in our daily lives are legitimate, effective security measures. Securing the ballot box is just as important.

The U.S. Supreme Court agrees. In 2008, the court recognized the threat posed by voter fraud and ruled that Indiana's photo ID requirement was a legitimate, non-discriminatory means of protecting the integrity of elections. The Supreme Court upheld Indiana's law despite no concrete evidence of fraud in Indiana's elections.

In Texas, evidence of voter fraud abounds. In recent years, my office has secured more than 50 voter fraud convictions. Those include a woman who voted in place of her dead mother, a political operative who cast ballots for two people, and a city councilmember who registered foreign nationals to vote in an election decided by 19 votes. Voter fraud is hard to detect, so cases like these are just the tip of the iceberg.

In 2011, Texas enacted a photo-identification requirement modeled after Indiana's. Our Legislature agreed with the Supreme Court that this requirement is a simple, effective way to prevent fraud. History also shows that voter turnout has increased after voter ID laws were enacted, and because Texas provides voter ID cards free of charge, no Texan's voting rights will be affected.
In Texas, evidence of voter fraud abounds

 

[Billo_Really]

Link, please.

Here's one example that shows 35% of the people purged from the registration list, were legally registered to vote.

1) An internal analysis conducted by the Tennessee Democratic Party and the Democratic National Committee's voter protection team has found that more than 11,000 voters statewide, who are still active on the voter file, have had parts of their voting history disappear.

2) In new investigative research by BLACK BOX VOTING, examining what actually happens to voters wrongfully classified as "inactive", it was found that 35 percent of these were actually purged (cancelled from the voter rolls).

 

[Billo_Really]

No you don't. Your opinion is not fact

It's not my opinion, it's what I have found when I researched this issue.

 

[Ernie S.]

Yeah TN Democratic Party and the DNC. Real trustworthy data there. Did they hire ACORN to run the numbers for them?

 

[copsnrobbers]

I think you meant to say 'here are the facts on voter fraud as presented by my side of the aisle.'

There is not, and has not been, enough voter fraud to legitimize disenfranchising huge numbers of legitimate voters.

So here's the deal. Unless they can be refuted by a credible source, Rottweiler has posted some substantial numbers backing up his O.P.

So I'm going to have to ask you to support how Voter I.D. disenfranchises huge numbers of legitimate voters.

According to Al Sharpton on last night's Block the Vote sermon on MSNBC, PA's new law will impact almost 260K voters who don't have the voter ID required. That's something like 9.1% of the registered voters in that state alone.

I don't agree with Sharpton as a rule, but it seems to me that affecting 260K potential voters to scare off the 9 fraudulent votes per million cast (WA state, 4 votes in 10 million per Ohio's study) can only be considered an effort to keep voters away from polls.

If there's a real problem impacting our election process, where is the data to show it's impact? If we accept that there are 9 frauds per million votes, in a state like Fla we're talking about less than 3 wrongfully cast votes in an election where they get 100% turnout. How many hanging chads were there in the Bush election?

The only thing Sharpten ever said that wasn't a lie was.. "Of course he's a (Obama) Socialist". Was said to Heraldo Rivera on Fox about a year ago.

 

[Ernie S.]

Where does the 260K number come from? Did Al pull it out of his ass like Duke Lacrosse and Tawana Brawley?
Are there really 260 K people in PA that can't cash a check or buy a beer? That have never held a job or collected welfare?

 

[freedombecki]

Link, please.

Here's one example that shows 35% of the people purged from the registration list, were legally registered to vote.

1) An internal analysis conducted by the Tennessee Democratic Party and the Democratic National Committee's voter protection team has found that more than 11,000 voters statewide, who are still active on the voter file, have had parts of their voting history disappear.

2) In new investigative research by BLACK BOX VOTING, examining what actually happens to voters wrongfully classified as "inactive", it was found that 35 percent of these were actually purged (cancelled from the voter rolls).

You skipped the part about voter participation, "Did not vote in last two federal elections."

That means, if you don't vote for two consecutive important elections, you will have to reactivate your registration sometime between now and the next election.

Maybe it is considered a responsibility in the great state of Tennessee.

And that's how they teach responsibility there to irresponsible voters who play hookey from the polls while getting that free day off.

I'd leave them alone on that one. The lawsuit mentioned? I'd like to see the court outcome.

 

[Billo_Really]

You skipped the part about voter participation, "Did not vote in last two federal elections."

That means, if you don't vote for two consecutive important elections, you will have to reactivate your registration sometime between now and the next election.

Maybe it is considered a responsibility in the great state of Tennessee.

And that's how they teach responsibility there to irresponsible voters who play hookey from the polls while getting that free day off.

I'd leave them alone on that one. The lawsuit mentioned? I'd like to see the court outcome.

The problem is, records have shown that they DID VOTE in the last two elections, yet were still re-classified as "inactive".

Records show that this set of 1,638 voters deemed inactive in 2006 HAD voted in the 2004 general election; also, they had not moved, died, been convicted of a felony, been duplicates, had incorrect social security numbers, or changed name or any other information. Thus, these voters did not qualify for transfer to "Inactive" status in 2006, which led directly to purge processes in 2007 and 2009.

So they didn't play "hookey", as you tried to make it seem. They voted. They participated. They did their civic duty and what did they get in return? Your bullshit plan for voter suppression!

 

[freedombecki]

You skipped the part about voter participation, "Did not vote in last two federal elections."

That means, if you don't vote for two consecutive important elections, you will have to reactivate your registration sometime between now and the next election.

Maybe it is considered a responsibility in the great state of Tennessee.

And that's how they teach responsibility there to irresponsible voters who play hookey from the polls while getting that free day off.

I'd leave them alone on that one. The lawsuit mentioned? I'd like to see the court outcome.

The problem is, records have shown that they DID VOTE in the last two elections, yet were still re-classified as "inactive".

Records show that this set of 1,638 voters deemed inactive in 2006 HAD voted in the 2004 general election; also, they had not moved, died, been convicted of a felony, been duplicates, had incorrect social security numbers, or changed name or any other information. Thus, these voters did not qualify for transfer to "Inactive" status in 2006, which led directly to purge processes in 2007 and 2009.

So they didn't play "hookey", as you tried to make it seem. They voted. They participated. They did their civic duty and what did they get in return? Your <Stage I Freudian adjective omitted> plan for voter suppression!

I wrote no plan for Tennesee's voter issues or any other state for that matter.

I'm a woman of the cloth. Quilt cloth, that is.