not understanding the voter ID issue...

[gallantwarrior]

Oh well heck we should definitely deny them their right to vote since they might not want it.



I've not made such an assumption.

But you seem to be making an assumption that if they are required to produce a positive ID to vote that they will be denied their right to vote.

If they don't have that ID and the governent requires it - yes, they would be.

Then maybe they should go get that ID if they want to vote.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

As a precinct worker twice, and as a voter once, I have witnessed people coming in to vote who saw the name of a deceased person signing in.

Ooo! I've got a plan! Let's remove the name of deceased persons from the voter rolls! Then no one can vote in their name, no matter how good the fake ID is! Problem solved. That might take some effort, though, so nevermind!

One was the wife of a man who had died 30 days before, and she almost fainted when she saw that her husband was signed in. It was really cruel. For years when the margin was very close, and was in favor of the Republican, a missing ballot box was magically found with just enough votes to swing the election the other way. Were the votes in the ballot box legitimate? There was no way to know.

Want to tell me how voter ID laws are going to prevent someone on the inside from stuffing a ballot box?

Since we went to a voter ID system and tightened up other procedures, there have been almost no incidents of voter fraud.

You mean none that you know of. Someone could still be voting in the name of dead people, all they need is a fake ID with the dead person's name on it.

A more full proof method of preventing people from voting in the name of the dead would be to set up a system whereby state death records are cross-checked with the voter rolls just before the election. But hey, why use a method that is more effective at preventing fraud and results in less disenfranchisement of those who are eliible voters?


So far every voter fraud you've mentioned either

a) can be prevented through other means that are both more effective at stopping the fraud and result in less denial of legal votes or

b) would not be prevented by voter ID laws at all.

BTW - how much training were you given on how to spot fake IDs? Did they test you on your ability by sending in secret fakers?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

But you seem to be making an assumption that if they are required to produce a positive ID to vote that they will be denied their right to vote.

If they don't have that ID and the governent requires it - yes, they would be.

Then maybe they should go get that ID if they want to vote.

Should they have to jump when you tell them to jump, as well?

 

[Claudette]

Folks have no problem getting ID for social services, banks and any number of other things.
Who says they couldn't use that same ID at the voting booth??

You seem to think thousands wouldn't bother to get that ID. That thousands wouldn't want to spend any money to get an ID.

f they can't be bothered to get ID then perhaps they wouldn't bother to vote either.

I can see no valid reason why anyone would object to a voter ID. Common Sense 101.

 

[Foxfyre]

Oh well heck we should definitely deny them their right to vote since they might not want it.



I've not made such an assumption.

But you seem to be making an assumption that if they are required to produce a positive ID to vote that they will be denied their right to vote.

If, for whatever stupid reason, a person hasn't bothered to get an ID, why would we think they'd go out of their way to register and vote?

The left seems to think that the way to deny people something is by expecting them to do something on their own. Encouraging initiative and independence is not the liberal way.

We are supposed to go to people's houses and register them to vote, then help them fill out the ballot or we are denying them.

Just like we are supposed to hand over birth control to women, like Fluke, or we are denying them contraceptives.

The ones who buy into the hype about voter ID disenfranchising voters are those who can't imagine doing anything on their own without the aid of big brother.

Or who don't want to take any chance that Big Brother will be hindered in any way from keeping the gravy trains going and they don't give a damn whether that is good or bad for either the people or the country.

Not only does ACORN (or whatever they call themselves these days) get a signature on the registration form, it will be a signature no questions asked. And the dishonest among us will hope that at least some illegal registrations will get through. They will all be registered Democrats of course. I suspect Republican registrations probably never make it past the nearest waste receptacle.

And then they round up folks on election day, promise them $5 and maybe a sandwich if they'll agree to be transported to the polls, they are given a slip of paper with the person they are to vote for--it will be printed in large black letters so they can't miss matchng it to the right name on the ballot--and voila, we elect a candidate. Fair and square, right?

And if the election STILL doesn't go the right way, then we can also go to the hanging chads method or challenge any votes cast by somebody who MIGHT have accidentally voted for Pat Buchanan.

Honestly. Let's go back to the old system. People who are qualified to vote WILL go to the city clerk's office, show their identification and proof of residence, and will register to vote. And they'll most likely then go to an assigned precinct location on election day to vote. And we will begin to fix a system that is badly damaged if not broken.

People who aren't willing to make the effort on their own do not deserve the privilege of voting.

 

[Annie]

If they don't have that ID and the governent requires it - yes, they would be.

Then maybe they should go get that ID if they want to vote.

Should they have to jump when you tell them to jump, as well?

No. Just get the ID.

 

[Foxfyre]

I would like for the anti-voter-ID folks to give me one good reason why positive ID to vote is a bad idea.

The probability that anybody who can legally register to vote would not have a photo ID or cannot get a photo ID has already been debunked by at least a dozen people on this thread. (Of course the debunking has been religiously ignored.)

And in the unlikely event that they actually know somebody with a legitimate address who honestly does not have a photo ID, maybe they'll explain why they haven't given that person a ride down to the DMV and given them the $5 to get a photo ID.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Folks have no problem getting ID for social services, banks and any number of other things.
Who says they couldn't use that same ID at the voting booth??

Not everyone needs social services or to open an bank account. I don't need to open a bank account, for instance. I've already got one.

You seem to think thousands wouldn't bother to get that ID. That thousands wouldn't want to spend any money to get an ID.

Its the right wing that is suggseting life is oppresively hard if you don't have an ID. If that's true its hard to imagine that hundreds of thousands of people without ID's wouldn't have already tried - and failed - to obtain one.

f they can't be bothered to get ID then perhaps they wouldn't bother to vote either.

Maybe we should require they say the pledge and jump through a hoop, too. If they can't be bothered to jump through a hoop why should they be bothered to vote?

I can see no valid reason why anyone would object to a voter ID. Common Sense 101.

Because at best it wouldn't stop much voter fraud that can't be prevented more effectively by other means and at worst millions of eligible voters will be turned away at the polls.

If you don't think that's a valid reason then you're just stupid.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Then maybe they should go get that ID if they want to vote.

Should they have to jump when you tell them to jump, as well?

No. Just get the ID.

Why?
Eligible voters, by definition, aren't voting illegally. They've done nothing wrong. And many have voted for years without having to satisfy a photo ID requirement. So why, exactly, should they have to satisfy a new requirement? cuz you say so?


What if the poll worker knows the voter personally and knows for a fact they are who they say they are? Would they be allowed to vote then?

 

[Annie]

Folks have no problem getting ID for social services, banks and any number of other things.
Who says they couldn't use that same ID at the voting booth??

Not everyone needs social services or to open an bank account. I don't need to open a bank account, for instance. I've already got one.

You seem to think thousands wouldn't bother to get that ID. That thousands wouldn't want to spend any money to get an ID.

Its the right wing that is suggseting life is oppresively hard if you don't have an ID. If that's true its hard to imagine that hundreds of thousands of people without ID's wouldn't have already tried - and failed - to obtain one.

f they can't be bothered to get ID then perhaps they wouldn't bother to vote either.

Maybe we should require they say the pledge and jump through a hoop, too. If they can't be bothered to jump through a hoop why should they be bothered to vote?

I can see no valid reason why anyone would object to a voter ID. Common Sense 101.

Because at best it wouldn't stop much voter fraud that can't be prevented more effectively by other means and at worst millions of eligible voters will be turned away at the polls.

If you don't think that's a valid reason then you're just stupid.

Whenever you opened your bank account, even 25 years ago, you needed to produce positive ID. Want a library card? Need pic ID +2 utility bills or mortgage bill. Want to buy liquor or cigarettes? Must have State Issued ID, with pic: DL, Military ID, Passport. That's it.

 

[gallantwarrior]

1. You had to get yourself to the city clerk's office to register to vote. And yes, you did have to show ID that included some proof that you lived where you lived in order to register. Conscientious citizens did that.

Sorry but you don't need to show voter ID to register in most states. I can't imagine they'd make me show an ID just because I happened to show up in person. I think you're mostly full of shit on this one. If you want to talk about the old days, even fewer people had photo IDs.

2. You had to register at least six weeks prior to the election in order to vote. This was so that the list of registered voters who had established residency and citizenship could be assembled and printed and sent out to the various precincts. Conscientious citizens did that.

You still have to do that as far as I know.

Then you'll be happy to know that in many poor, minority precincts you still have to wait for hours in line. At the Xavier University of Louisiana precint, the line was 8 hours long in 2004.

And in those days we were electing a far site higher caliber of politicians than we have been seeing lately with voting requirements relaxed and, in some cases, being practically eliminated.

I already know you support denying suffrage to more people than already have it, no need to remphasize.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that anybody who doesn't have that ID who shows up to vote is probably mostly likley voting illegally and dishonestly.

Oh, Well if you say so, it must be true. Objective reality is irrelevant. Nevermind there's absolutely no evidence to support your claim. We'll go ahead and deny suffrage to hundreds of thousands or millions because FOX News says there's massive voter fraud in this country.


I have yet to see anyone elabortate on how this will actually prevent fradulent voting. Sorry but no one has ever shown up to vote in my place - or if they did, it must not have been before I got there!

Has ANYONE here shown up to vote and been told they've already voted? What fradulent votes will an ID law actually prevent?

Of course, you ignore the fact that there is no evidence to support your claim that hundreds of thousands of legal citizens will be denied their vote if ID is required.

 

[Annie]

Should they have to jump when you tell them to jump, as well?

No. Just get the ID.

Why?
Eligible voters, by definition, aren't voting illegally. They've done nothing wrong. And many have voted for years without having to satisfy a photo ID requirement. So why, exactly, should they have to satisfy a new requirement? cuz you say so?


What if the poll worker knows the voter personally and knows for a fact they are who they say they are? Would they be allowed to vote then?

Say one of the New Black Panthers or Tea Party Member? Nope, thanks.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I would like for the anti-voter-ID folks to give me one good reason why positive ID to vote is a bad idea.

We already have.

Now you give me one reason its a good idea.

So far every type of fraud named in this thread either a) can be better prevented using another method or b) would not at all be prevented by ID laws.

So I fail to see why its a good idea.

The probability that anybody who can legally register to vote would not have a photo ID or cannot get a photo ID has already been debunked by at least a dozen people on this thread. (Of course the debunking has been religiously ignored.)

Debunked how? By saying "Oh, no way, you can't live without an ID!" Do you know what "debunk" means?

And in the unlikely event that they actually know somebody with a legitimate address who honestly does not have a photo ID

Sorry, but I don't routinely ask my friends and families to provide photo identification, so I wouldn't even know. I guess you do? That's fucked.

, maybe they'll explain why they haven't given that person a ride down to the DMV and given them the $5 to get a photo ID.

No one has asked me to. I always help out friends and family when I can. They'll need more than $5 where I live.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

No. Just get the ID.

Why?
Eligible voters, by definition, aren't voting illegally. They've done nothing wrong. And many have voted for years without having to satisfy a photo ID requirement. So why, exactly, should they have to satisfy a new requirement? cuz you say so?


What if the poll worker knows the voter personally and knows for a fact they are who they say they are? Would they be allowed to vote then?

Say one of the New Black Panthers or Tea Party Member? Nope, thanks.

So if someone walks in to vote, and they have no ID, but the poll worker knows for a fact who they are - they should be allowed to vote but only if they are not a New Black Panther or Tea Party member?

 

[Annie]

Why?
Eligible voters, by definition, aren't voting illegally. They've done nothing wrong. And many have voted for years without having to satisfy a photo ID requirement. So why, exactly, should they have to satisfy a new requirement? cuz you say so?


What if the poll worker knows the voter personally and knows for a fact they are who they say they are? Would they be allowed to vote then?

Say one of the New Black Panthers or Tea Party Member? Nope, thanks.

So if someone walks in to vote, and they have no ID, but the poll worker knows for a fact who they are - they should be allowed to vote but only if they are not a New Black Panther or Tea Party member?

Sorry, but if there is ID law, no exceptions. Everyone, especially poll workers should be aware. I mean the whole purpose would be for less chance of fraud from any source.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

1. You had to get yourself to the city clerk's office to register to vote. And yes, you did have to show ID that included some proof that you lived where you lived in order to register. Conscientious citizens did that.

Sorry but you don't need to show voter ID to register in most states. I can't imagine they'd make me show an ID just because I happened to show up in person. I think you're mostly full of shit on this one. If you want to talk about the old days, even fewer people had photo IDs.


You still have to do that as far as I know.

Then you'll be happy to know that in many poor, minority precincts you still have to wait for hours in line. At the Xavier University of Louisiana precint, the line was 8 hours long in 2004.


I already know you support denying suffrage to more people than already have it, no need to remphasize.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that anybody who doesn't have that ID who shows up to vote is probably mostly likley voting illegally and dishonestly.

Oh, Well if you say so, it must be true. Objective reality is irrelevant. Nevermind there's absolutely no evidence to support your claim. We'll go ahead and deny suffrage to hundreds of thousands or millions because FOX News says there's massive voter fraud in this country.


I have yet to see anyone elabortate on how this will actually prevent fradulent voting. Sorry but no one has ever shown up to vote in my place - or if they did, it must not have been before I got there!

Has ANYONE here shown up to vote and been told they've already voted? What fradulent votes will an ID law actually prevent?

Of course, you ignore the fact that there is no evidence to support your claim that hundreds of thousands of legal citizens will be denied their vote if ID is required.

COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) — An Election Commission update shows nearly 217,000 registered voters in South Carolina lack the photo identification needed to vote under the state's new law. That's almost 40,000 additional voters than previously thought.

Commission spokesman Chris Whitmire said Tuesday that 216,596 voters lack a driver's license or photo ID issued by the Department of Motor Vehicles.

That's up from 178,000 voters without the ID in January 2010. The commission initially compared its voter lists with DMV records at legislators' request. It re-compared the lists to comply with the law signed in May, which requires each of those voters to be notified. The update also answers a question from the U.S. Department of Justice, which is reviewing the law.

About 217,000 SC residents lack photo ID to vote

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Say one of the New Black Panthers or Tea Party Member? Nope, thanks.

So if someone walks in to vote, and they have no ID, but the poll worker knows for a fact who they are - they should be allowed to vote but only if they are not a New Black Panther or Tea Party member?

Sorry, but if there is ID law, no exceptions. Everyone, especially poll workers should be aware. I mean the whole purpose would be for less chance of fraud from any source.

So its acceptable knowingly deny an eligible voter his or her vote in order to prevent a possible fraudulent vote?


How exactly would this "no exceptions" rule be enforced? Would another poll worker stand over the shoulder of the ID checker, making sure they are actually checking the ID?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Picture ID requirements to open a bank account are a relatively new thing.

Picture ID is reasonably new. Does the constitution specify picture ID? No, photography didn't exist.

What it DOES say is;

{Clause 1: The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators. }

The states are fully within the constitution to outlaw fraud, despite the false claims otherwise from the democrats.

If you've already got one opened you don't need an ID.

In fact you do. Go into a bank and tell them that "I don't need no stinken ID," and see what happens...

Most old folks have had the same bank account for decades.

Most old folks have ID.

And I've never been asked for photo ID to set up a direct deposit.

If you did it through work, you showed ID for I-9 verification.

You need to have an ID to breathe, eat, and defacate? Who would have known.

In this society, you virtually do. You can't eat without a source of food - all sources of food require ID. Want welfare? Show ID. Want a job? Show ID.

It may come as a surprise to you that you don't have to believe something for it to be true.

You say what you say to protect voter fraud. Nothing you post is rational nor true. The absurdity of your claims is beyond the pale.

According to you, but in reality 217,000 people in South Carolina are doing just that.
Not everyone drives or needs ID to buy alcohol. I'm hardly ever asked for ID when I buy alcohol. In fact other than driving and flying I can't think of the last time I needed my ID.

How many of those are dead voters who simply weren't purged from the roles? How many have ID's issued by other states or the military?

Again, you toss out absurd bullshit in hopes of continuing election fraud. Clearly, fraud is a huge part of your parties election strategy.

There's another reason to oppose voter ID laws. To prevent eligible voters from being denied the ability to vote.

Shown to be bullshit.

So the ONLY reason is fraud.

But you don't want to argue against that reason, because you're incapable of it, so instead you decide for me what my reasoning is, and argue based on that.

I've already demonstrated that bigfoot, the abominable snowman, and millions without ID are fantasies.

This leaves us the fact, opposition to voter ID is based on a desire for election fraud, which is clearly a major element in the DNC campaign.

 

[Annie]

Everyone needs to follow the law. It would be wrong for me to allow my neighbor to get around, when I deny someone I didn't know. Due process and all that nonsense.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I have no idea why anyone would think Voter ID is a bad thing.

Because it stops fraud and they depend on fraud to win elections.

Everyone should have ID to prove that they are who they are. A picture ID proves that you are who you say you are. Good idea in my book.

When voting we are fullfilling the greatest right that we have and it should be done legally in all States.

Anyone who thinks there is no voter fraud out there is living in la la land.

Yep.