Rigged Elections and Voter Fraud - how common is fraud? Not very.

[Tilly]

Like whites, almost 80% of non-white people support voter ID. They clearly aren't buying the lefts condescending racist disenfranchisement conspiracy theory. Good on them

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Blah, blah, blah, blah, typical regressive double speak and situational bullshit.

If a conservative mentions all the minorities on welfare, the left charges out, pointing at more whites being on welfare rolls than minorities.

Now a proposal is made that would effect ALL poor people exactly the same, but no, it's suddenly racist and disproportionately effects only poor minorities.

It doesn't effect all poor people the same because not all poor people have the same issues with ID's and birth certificates. As one article pointed out minorities are substantially more effected, and when you add in the fact that the ID's they are more likely to have, are not on that very narrow list of "acceptable" ID's - you compound the problem for those groups.

I got to give it to you - you guys did a hellacious job in trying to disenfranchise voters. This has been the most successful effort since the poll tax.

Right, it took a total of 45 minutes and 10 dollars to get my mother-in-law, who move here from out of state, an ID acceptable for voting. 5 minutes on the phone and a 5 dollar charge for her birth certificate and about 40 minutes and 5 dollars at the drivers license bureau. If she had been indigent, the ID would have been free. Your arguments are a joke. We live in a rural area BTW.

Oh right. Because it was so easy for your mother-in-law it MUST be easy for everyone! Now why didn't I think of that?

Are you saying minorities are too stupid to follow a simple two step process?

It is really patronising and racist, isn't it?
A Gallup poll in fact shows that more or less as many non whites support voter ID as whites. Most people seem to prefer the idea that fraud is kept to a minimum - even non whites!. Who'd a thunk it?!!!


Though many of the arguments for early voting and against voter ID laws frequently cite minorities' voting access, nonwhites' views of the two policies don't differ markedly from those of whites. Seventy-seven percent of nonwhites favor both policies, while whites favor each at 81%.

Americans' Support for Election Law Policies, by Party
Do you favor or oppose each of the following election law policies? (% Favor)
Early voting Photo ID requirement Automatic voter registration
% % %
Republicans 74 95 51
Independents 80 83 58
Democrats 85 63


Four in Five Americans Support Voter ID Laws, Early Voting

This is why we’re a Constitutional Republic and not a democracy: citizens are subject to the rule of law, not ‘majority rule.’

Thankfully, what the ‘majority’ might believe is Constitutionally irrelevant.

It is a fact that voter ‘fraud’ by identity is so exceedingly rare as to be virtually non-existent.

Because there is no objective, documented evidence in support of voter ‘ID’ laws, where voter ‘fraud’ by identity has not changed the outcome of any election, laws requiring specific types of identity have been appropriately invalidated as un-Constitutional by the courts, manifesting as an undue burden to the right to vote.

Voter ‘ID’ laws which pass Constitutional muster will allow voters to identify themselves with a comprehensive range of documents – such as a utility bill, a student ID, or a paycheck stub.

 

[Ame®icano]

You're trying so hard for a mostly non-existent problem, meanwhile the fraud goes on.

Mostly non-existent problem, how you call it, is still a problem.

Let's make it completely non-existent.

Only those who support fraud would be against it. Do you agree?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It doesn't effect all poor people the same because not all poor people have the same issues with ID's and birth certificates. As one article pointed out minorities are substantially more effected, and when you add in the fact that the ID's they are more likely to have, are not on that very narrow list of "acceptable" ID's - you compound the problem for those groups.

I got to give it to you - you guys did a hellacious job in trying to disenfranchise voters. This has been the most successful effort since the poll tax.

Really? Because Tilly posted some great articles about how states with Voter-ID's didn't see any disenfranchisement at all.

Yes really. Different laws in different states - the ones with the most restrictive laws (such as Texas and NC) were slammed by the courts. They also had the poorest educational and outreach efforts to try and assist people in getting id's and letting them know what ID's would work. One the worst things is that they also had the fewest number of acceptable ID's (and, amazingly - those were the types of state ID's largely used by Republicans and whites such as handgun permits and military ID's) - other forms of state ID (such as student ID's) were not allowed. Indiana's law seems to be working well - Indiana also did a lot of work to provide free ID's for people that didn't have then, to provide education and information well ahead, so that may have have helped.

But there are significant problems with older and poor people, especially minorities who might not have a birth certificate, for example - or the means to get to the places they might have to go in order to get the documentation or ID's if they don't have a car, live in a state where locations are open only a few days a month and are far away. They probably would just give up and not vote (which I think is what some desire).

I would have less of a problem with Voter ID if they were less restrictive in what was allowed for an ID, and if the cost was covered for the voter of any documentation and transportation needed to get that ID. If people can transport voters to polling places, they can do so for ID's.

So why are you regressives spending so much on lawyers trying to kill these laws, couldn't you put those same funds helping people get their IDs?

Why are you regressives trying so hard to prevent your opponents from voting?

Clearly this is rhetorical.

 

[Coyote]

The public doesn’t support restrictive voter ID laws, but many new ones will be in force in 2016

Defenders of photo ID laws regularly cite public opinion polls that show widespread support for their arguments. Yet these polls reveal no such support, and they prove nothing about this new restrictive legislation because the polls’ questions cover a far broader range of IDs than the actual laws accept as proof of identity. Many of the new laws do not accept a college student ID, for example, or an out-of-state driver’s license; but the polls drawing favorable responses encompass such IDs. As always, the devil is in the details.​

Well...imagine that.

The Texas photo ID law and recent polls in Texas offer a telling example of the disparity between the laws’ actual content and what poll respondents can assume are in them. The only photo IDs that qualify in Texas are a specially issued Texas voter ID or personal ID card, a Texas driver’s license, a Texas gun license, a U.S. passport, a U.S. citizenship-naturalization certificate or a military ID. Texas does not accept a student photo ID or a photo ID from any other federal, public or private entity. Although it does allow a religious accommodation and a disability exemption — almost all states do — the Texas law does not exempt voters who are elderly, indigent or in a nursing home, as do other states.


Texas public opinion polls on voter IDs are not as narrowly focused as the law. In 2011 and 2012, they asked only about a nonspecific “government-issued photo identification,” and in 2014, about “Texas’ voter identification law which requires people to present state-approved photo identification in order to vote.” Under the 2011 and 2012 polls’ description, a photo ID from any federal, state, county, city or other government entity could qualify. The 2014 question seemed even broader. It appeared to include any photo ID that Texas has approved, whether the ID is from Texas or elsewhere, and even if it was issued by a private organization, like a college or professional association

...The generality of the questions in the three Texas polls is also not unusual. To determine the kinds of voter ID laws that poll respondents were asked about elsewhere, I examined 34 other national and state polls conducted between 2006 and 2014 by 20 organizations; most were taken from 2013 to 2015. Because a polling organization usually asks the same question in its successive polls — 10 times by a Wisconsin pollster — the polls mentioned only about 12 different kinds of ID.

Photo ID Non-Photo ID
“A driver’s license or other photo ID” “A form of government-issued ID”
“An official or government-issued photo ID” “A valid state- or federally issued ID”
“A valid photo ID” “A birth certificate”
“A photo ID” “ID”
“A state-issued photo ID” “Proof of identity”
“A state-approved photo ID”
“A photo identification or Social Security card to prove U.S. citizenship . . . to register to vote.”
The most commonly asked question was about a government or official photo ID – at least 21 times (including the Wisconsin 10). Questions about other types of ID were used only once or occasionally twice.
​

Looking at that list of ID's - I could support voter ID - it's broad enough that almost everyone should be able to get something, and for those that can't assistance can be provided. But - that is not the list of acceptable ID's in the laws themselves, particularly the more restrictive ones that are being championed.

 

[Ame®icano]

Because there is no objective, documented evidence in support of voter ‘ID’ laws, where voter ‘fraud’ by identity has not changed the outcome of any election, laws requiring specific types of identity have been appropriately invalidated as un-Constitutional by the courts, manifesting as an undue burden to the right to vote.

Voter ‘ID’ laws which pass Constitutional muster will allow voters to identify themselves with a comprehensive range of documents – such as a utility bill, a student ID, or a paycheck stub.

If "voter fraud", as you say, has not changed the outcome of any election, I don't see a reason why would anyone be against voter ID law, to make sure it stays that way in the future.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

What blows my mind about the voter fraud issue is that the RW didn't even care about this issue before repubs in office expressed faux outrage over it in the 2012 election. For some bizarre reason, USMB cons believe everything republicans in office tell them.

So what are these Republicans telling us?

Look......some of us here have presented multiple stories of voter fraud evidence. I have an entire folder of links. Voter fraud is real.

If you want to talk about what those in office tell us, it's your party that made this into a nonexistent racial thing when race was not even a subject. The reason Democrats do this is because race is such a sensitive issue and expect most to cave in on it.

This has nothing to do with race. It has nothing to do with party. One law fits all. How much more fair can it be than that?

The problem of race is less that it's deliberately racist (other than trying to affect those who tend to vote democrat) then that it's effectively racist (in that those affected by the laws are disproportionately minorities).

One law fits all. Well, that's what the poll tax was, but it was struck down.

Correct.

Voter ‘ID’ laws also violate a fundamental tenet of American jurisprudence: presumption of innocence.

The state is assuming everyone is ‘guilty’ of ‘fraud,’ and must first prove their innocence by providing a specific form of ID to exercise their right to vote.

If elections officials believe a particular voter is attempting to commit fraud, that should be dealt with on a case by case basis.

Citizens verify their identity and that they’re eligible to vote when they register to vote; as long as a citizen remains eligible to vote and active on the voter registration rolls, however, there’s no just cause to compel that voter to meet an unnecessary and un-Constitutional requirement because the state ‘thinks’ that the citizen ‘might’ be attempting to commit voter ‘fraud.’

 

[OKTexas]

Really? Because Tilly posted some great articles about how states with Voter-ID's didn't see any disenfranchisement at all.

Yes really. Different laws in different states - the ones with the most restrictive laws (such as Texas and NC) were slammed by the courts. They also had the poorest educational and outreach efforts to try and assist people in getting id's and letting them know what ID's would work. One the worst things is that they also had the fewest number of acceptable ID's (and, amazingly - those were the types of state ID's largely used by Republicans and whites such as handgun permits and military ID's) - other forms of state ID (such as student ID's) were not allowed. Indiana's law seems to be working well - Indiana also did a lot of work to provide free ID's for people that didn't have then, to provide education and information well ahead, so that may have have helped.

But there are significant problems with older and poor people, especially minorities who might not have a birth certificate, for example - or the means to get to the places they might have to go in order to get the documentation or ID's if they don't have a car, live in a state where locations are open only a few days a month and are far away. They probably would just give up and not vote (which I think is what some desire).

I would have less of a problem with Voter ID if they were less restrictive in what was allowed for an ID, and if the cost was covered for the voter of any documentation and transportation needed to get that ID. If people can transport voters to polling places, they can do so for ID's.

So why are you regressives spending so much on lawyers trying to kill these laws, couldn't you put those same funds helping people get their IDs?

Why are you regressives trying so hard to prevent your opponents from voting?

Only the ineligible and illegal, that's not regressive at all.

Nothing regressive in insisting that all eligible voters are able to vote either. So why are you throwing around "regressive regressive regressive"?

Feel free to point out any quote from me that said eligible voters shouldn't be voting. I just want them to prove eligibility. Just like we make you prove you're eligible to buy alcohol, cigarettes, drive, cash a check, open a bank account or any of the thousands of other activities that require proof of eligibility.

 

[Billy000]

Yes really. Different laws in different states - the ones with the most restrictive laws (such as Texas and NC) were slammed by the courts. They also had the poorest educational and outreach efforts to try and assist people in getting id's and letting them know what ID's would work. One the worst things is that they also had the fewest number of acceptable ID's (and, amazingly - those were the types of state ID's largely used by Republicans and whites such as handgun permits and military ID's) - other forms of state ID (such as student ID's) were not allowed. Indiana's law seems to be working well - Indiana also did a lot of work to provide free ID's for people that didn't have then, to provide education and information well ahead, so that may have have helped.

But there are significant problems with older and poor people, especially minorities who might not have a birth certificate, for example - or the means to get to the places they might have to go in order to get the documentation or ID's if they don't have a car, live in a state where locations are open only a few days a month and are far away. They probably would just give up and not vote (which I think is what some desire).

I would have less of a problem with Voter ID if they were less restrictive in what was allowed for an ID, and if the cost was covered for the voter of any documentation and transportation needed to get that ID. If people can transport voters to polling places, they can do so for ID's.

So why are you regressives spending so much on lawyers trying to kill these laws, couldn't you put those same funds helping people get their IDs?

Why are you regressives trying so hard to prevent your opponents from voting?

Only the ineligible and illegal, that's not regressive at all.

Nothing regressive in insisting that all eligible voters are able to vote either. So why are you throwing around "regressive regressive regressive"?

Feel free to point out any quote from me that said eligible voters shouldn't be voting. I just want them to prove eligibility. Just like we make you prove you're eligible to buy alcohol, cigarettes, drive, cash a check, open a bank account or any of the thousands of other activities that require proof of eligibility.

Christ stop pretending this issue ever mattered to you prior to 2012 when republican officials starting whining about it.

 

[OKTexas]

It doesn't effect all poor people the same because not all poor people have the same issues with ID's and birth certificates. As one article pointed out minorities are substantially more effected, and when you add in the fact that the ID's they are more likely to have, are not on that very narrow list of "acceptable" ID's - you compound the problem for those groups.

I got to give it to you - you guys did a hellacious job in trying to disenfranchise voters. This has been the most successful effort since the poll tax.

Right, it took a total of 45 minutes and 10 dollars to get my mother-in-law, who move here from out of state, an ID acceptable for voting. 5 minutes on the phone and a 5 dollar charge for her birth certificate and about 40 minutes and 5 dollars at the drivers license bureau. If she had been indigent, the ID would have been free. Your arguments are a joke. We live in a rural area BTW.

Oh right. Because it was so easy for your mother-in-law it MUST be easy for everyone! Now why didn't I think of that?

Are you saying minorities are too stupid to follow a simple two step process?

It is really patronising and racist, isn't it?
A Gallup poll in fact shows that more or less as many non whites support voter ID as whites. Most people seem to prefer the idea that fraud is kept to a minimum - even non whites!. Who'd a thunk it?!!!


Though many of the arguments for early voting and against voter ID laws frequently cite minorities' voting access, nonwhites' views of the two policies don't differ markedly from those of whites. Seventy-seven percent of nonwhites favor both policies, while whites favor each at 81%.

Americans' Support for Election Law Policies, by Party
Do you favor or oppose each of the following election law policies? (% Favor)
Early voting Photo ID requirement Automatic voter registration
% % %
Republicans 74 95 51
Independents 80 83 58
Democrats 85 63


Four in Five Americans Support Voter ID Laws, Early Voting

This is why we’re a Constitutional Republic and not a democracy: citizens are subject to the rule of law, not ‘majority rule.’

Thankfully, what the ‘majority’ might believe is Constitutionally irrelevant.

It is a fact that voter ‘fraud’ by identity is so exceedingly rare as to be virtually non-existent.

Because there is no objective, documented evidence in support of voter ‘ID’ laws, where voter ‘fraud’ by identity has not changed the outcome of any election, laws requiring specific types of identity have been appropriately invalidated as un-Constitutional by the courts, manifesting as an undue burden to the right to vote.

Voter ‘ID’ laws which pass Constitutional muster will allow voters to identify themselves with a comprehensive range of documents – such as a utility bill, a student ID, or a paycheck stub.

Damn, you have a way of making total bullshit look so pretty. Of course it doesn't alter the fact that it's bullshit.

 

[OKTexas]

What blows my mind about the voter fraud issue is that the RW didn't even care about this issue before repubs in office expressed faux outrage over it in the 2012 election. For some bizarre reason, USMB cons believe everything republicans in office tell them.

So what are these Republicans telling us?

Look......some of us here have presented multiple stories of voter fraud evidence. I have an entire folder of links. Voter fraud is real.

If you want to talk about what those in office tell us, it's your party that made this into a nonexistent racial thing when race was not even a subject. The reason Democrats do this is because race is such a sensitive issue and expect most to cave in on it.

This has nothing to do with race. It has nothing to do with party. One law fits all. How much more fair can it be than that?

The problem of race is less that it's deliberately racist (other than trying to affect those who tend to vote democrat) then that it's effectively racist (in that those affected by the laws are disproportionately minorities).

One law fits all. Well, that's what the poll tax was, but it was struck down.

Correct.

Voter ‘ID’ laws also violate a fundamental tenet of American jurisprudence: presumption of innocence.

The state is assuming everyone is ‘guilty’ of ‘fraud,’ and must first prove their innocence by providing a specific form of ID to exercise their right to vote.

If elections officials believe a particular voter is attempting to commit fraud, that should be dealt with on a case by case basis.

Citizens verify their identity and that they’re eligible to vote when they register to vote; as long as a citizen remains eligible to vote and active on the voter registration rolls, however, there’s no just cause to compel that voter to meet an unnecessary and un-Constitutional requirement because the state ‘thinks’ that the citizen ‘might’ be attempting to commit voter ‘fraud.’

So do no fly list and terrorist watch list for citizens, but you defend them. But requiring proof of eligibility to vote is no different than providing prof of eligibility to buy a gun.

 

[Coyote]

Yes really. Different laws in different states - the ones with the most restrictive laws (such as Texas and NC) were slammed by the courts. They also had the poorest educational and outreach efforts to try and assist people in getting id's and letting them know what ID's would work. One the worst things is that they also had the fewest number of acceptable ID's (and, amazingly - those were the types of state ID's largely used by Republicans and whites such as handgun permits and military ID's) - other forms of state ID (such as student ID's) were not allowed. Indiana's law seems to be working well - Indiana also did a lot of work to provide free ID's for people that didn't have then, to provide education and information well ahead, so that may have have helped.

But there are significant problems with older and poor people, especially minorities who might not have a birth certificate, for example - or the means to get to the places they might have to go in order to get the documentation or ID's if they don't have a car, live in a state where locations are open only a few days a month and are far away. They probably would just give up and not vote (which I think is what some desire).

I would have less of a problem with Voter ID if they were less restrictive in what was allowed for an ID, and if the cost was covered for the voter of any documentation and transportation needed to get that ID. If people can transport voters to polling places, they can do so for ID's.

So why are you regressives spending so much on lawyers trying to kill these laws, couldn't you put those same funds helping people get their IDs?

Why are you regressives trying so hard to prevent your opponents from voting?

Only the ineligible and illegal, that's not regressive at all.

Nothing regressive in insisting that all eligible voters are able to vote either. So why are you throwing around "regressive regressive regressive"?

Feel free to point out any quote from me that said eligible voters shouldn't be voting. I just want them to prove eligibility. Just like we make you prove you're eligible to buy alcohol, cigarettes, drive, cash a check, open a bank account or any of the thousands of other activities that require proof of eligibility.

If all you want is to prove eligibility, then greatly expand the list of allowable ID's.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

What blows my mind about the voter fraud issue is that the RW didn't even care about this issue before repubs in office expressed faux outrage over it in the 2012 election. For some bizarre reason, USMB cons believe everything republicans in office tell them.

So what are these Republicans telling us?

Look......some of us here have presented multiple stories of voter fraud evidence. I have an entire folder of links. Voter fraud is real.

If you want to talk about what those in office tell us, it's your party that made this into a nonexistent racial thing when race was not even a subject. The reason Democrats do this is because race is such a sensitive issue and expect most to cave in on it.

This has nothing to do with race. It has nothing to do with party. One law fits all. How much more fair can it be than that?

The problem of race is less that it's deliberately racist (other than trying to affect those who tend to vote democrat) then that it's effectively racist (in that those affected by the laws are disproportionately minorities).

One law fits all. Well, that's what the poll tax was, but it was struck down.

Correct.

Voter ‘ID’ laws also violate a fundamental tenet of American jurisprudence: presumption of innocence.

The state is assuming everyone is ‘guilty’ of ‘fraud,’ and must first prove their innocence by providing a specific form of ID to exercise their right to vote.

If elections officials believe a particular voter is attempting to commit fraud, that should be dealt with on a case by case basis.

Citizens verify their identity and that they’re eligible to vote when they register to vote; as long as a citizen remains eligible to vote and active on the voter registration rolls, however, there’s no just cause to compel that voter to meet an unnecessary and un-Constitutional requirement because the state ‘thinks’ that the citizen ‘might’ be attempting to commit voter ‘fraud.’

Excuse me, but can you point out the unconstitutional part about proving who you are when you vote?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Voter ‘ID’ laws which pass Constitutional muster will allow voters to identify themselves with a comprehensive range of documents – such as a utility bill, a student ID, or a paycheck stub.

Any of which can be scanned by a $30.00 printer, manipulated to change the name and address, and use to vote; well, I don't know about the student ID, but I can forge the other two documents.

 

[Coyote]

Voter ‘ID’ laws which pass Constitutional muster will allow voters to identify themselves with a comprehensive range of documents – such as a utility bill, a student ID, or a paycheck stub.

Any of which can be scanned by a $30.00 printer, manipulated to change the name and address, and use to vote; well, I don't know about the student ID, but I can forge the other two documents.

Drivers licenses can be forged too. Believe me...I know, working among underage students in a college town on game night

 

[Coyote]

The thing is - why would people go to so much trouble to forge id just to vote?

You've said that those who have trouble getting the right ID are too lazy, but you seem to think people are willing to go to a lot of trouble to fake an id - just to cast one vote?

 

[OKTexas]

So why are you regressives spending so much on lawyers trying to kill these laws, couldn't you put those same funds helping people get their IDs?

Why are you regressives trying so hard to prevent your opponents from voting?

Only the ineligible and illegal, that's not regressive at all.

Nothing regressive in insisting that all eligible voters are able to vote either. So why are you throwing around "regressive regressive regressive"?

Feel free to point out any quote from me that said eligible voters shouldn't be voting. I just want them to prove eligibility. Just like we make you prove you're eligible to buy alcohol, cigarettes, drive, cash a check, open a bank account or any of the thousands of other activities that require proof of eligibility.

Christ stop pretending this issue ever mattered to you prior to 2012 when republican officials starting whining about it.

Since I've only been on this board since 2012, you have no idea what I've said on the subject prior to that, do you? So just quit talking out of your ass. The TX ID law was passed in 2011 and we were talking about it years before that.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The problem of race is less that it's deliberately racist (other than trying to affect those who tend to vote democrat) then that it's effectively racist (in that those affected by the laws are disproportionately minorities).

One law fits all. Well, that's what the poll tax was, but it was struck down.

No, because a poll tax eliminated people that had no ability to pay. Voter-ID is something everybody can obtain. It may require you to take some effort on your part, but it's far from impossible.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Drivers licenses can be forged too. Believe me...I know, working among underage students in a college town on game night

I dare you to try to forge one of our drivers licenses here in Ohio. How does one forge a plastic card compared to a paper utility bill? Or do you have paper drivers licenses where you live?

 

[Ame®icano]

Correct.

Voter ‘ID’ laws also violate a fundamental tenet of American jurisprudence: presumption of innocence.

Every law does that.

Just because some people hijacked the plane, there is no reason they should search me when entering the airport.

The state is assuming everyone is ‘guilty’ of ‘fraud,’ and must first prove their innocence by providing a specific form of ID to exercise their right to vote.

Actually, the voter is assuming that state, or those in power are "guilty" of fraud and enabling the fraud, therefore voters are calling for voter ID laws.

If elections officials believe a particular voter is attempting to commit fraud, that should be dealt with on a case by case basis.

Unless, election officials are enabling or committing the fraud. Voter ID law would remove that possibility from them.

Citizens verify their identity and that they’re eligible to vote when they register to vote; as long as a citizen remains eligible to vote and active on the voter registration rolls, however, there’s no just cause to compel that voter to meet an unnecessary and un-Constitutional requirement because the state ‘thinks’ that the citizen ‘might’ be attempting to commit voter ‘fraud.’

Citizens alone cannot commit the voter fraud on the large scale. That could be done only by the election officials and by those who are in power over ballot boxes/voting machines/vote counts. That's why voter ID laws are necessary to make sure that only registered voters with proper ID can cast only one vote. Stuffing boxes would be impossible.