Voter ID Has Not Stopped Fraud

[saveliberty]

"Voter ID Has Not Stopped Fraud"

The OP concedes voter fraud occurs, clearly progress when most liberals refuse to even acknowledge that. Maybe if liberals would stop whining about voter IDs, we can move past that and address the vote counting process and protect the value of a valid vote.

 

[Skylar]

It seems the faux right wing neocon propaganda machine has given the rubes marching orders to create a lot of topics about Voter ID in the past few days.

None of the fools has been able to clear the simplest of hurdles. To wit, prove that Voter ID is the only means to stop or prevent the kind of voter fraud which occurs.

It seems to me a true conservative would not just start clamoring for more government regulations and intrusions into our lives without DEMANDING evidence it is necessary and will work.

In this case, they are really falling down on the job and should turn in their conservative credentials for allowing themselves to be led by the nose to call for bigger government and programs paid for out of the taxpayers pockets.

The goal, ladies and gentlemen, is to reduce voter turnout by whatever means necessary. Whether it is by reducing early voting, or reducing access to the polls by demanding particular forms of ID. This is because the GOP does not do well in elections when there is high voter turnout.


As I stated in most of these Voter ID topics, boy are you guys going to be surprised when voter fraud continues to happen in Voter ID states.

So let's get down to it, shall we?

Florida requires a photo ID to vote. Does that stop fraud? Nope.

FEMA official charged in voter fraud case

According to the charging affidavit, Pawlowski signed a voter registration form in which he reported his legal address in St. Augustine Beach and voted by absentee ballot in the general election in November 2010, the presidential primary in January 2012, and the general election last November.

Voter ID never even slowed this guy down!


Top staffer for Florida Democratic Rep. Garcia resigns amid voting fraud probe

Authorities are investigating a sophisticated scheme to manipulate last year's primary elections by submitting hundreds of fraudulent absentee-ballot requests.

I want you to notice that is a Fox News story.

Fox News has been one of the leading propagandists for Voter ID. Isn't it funny they are not pointing out the failure of Voter ID to prevent or stop voter fraud?

Hmmmmm...



Let's go to South Dakota which has one of the strictest Voter ID laws in the country.

Mitchell man arrested on charge of voter fraud

The Daily Republic reports that Craig Guymon was arrested on charges of voter fraud. Police say Guymon voted Tuesday morning at the Mitchell Career and Technical Education Academy and later returned an absentee ballot to the Davison Auditor's Office.

Let's move on to Georgia, which also has some of the oldest and strictest voter ID laws in the country, shall we?

12 former officials indicted for voter fraud

12 former Brooks County officials were indicted for voter fraud. The suspects are accused of illegally helping people vote by absentee ballot.

I could go on all day with more examples from all around the country in states that have photo ID laws.

And the frauds will continue. Anyone with a lick of common sense can see the complete ineffectiveness of Voter ID for the kind of ACTUAL fraud which occurs.

In-person voter fraud is as rare as hen's teeth. Most fraud is not slowed down in the slightest by Voter ID.

Is Fox News or the Washington Times or Rush Limbaugh or CNS News or Breitbart or the Daily Caller or Glenn Beck or Alex Jones reporting on the catastropic failure of Voter ID to prevent fraud? Are they devoting as much air and print time to this fact as they do to bloviate for Voter ID?

Hmmmm...

Of course Voter ID laws didn't stop fraud. They were never meant to. They were meant to make voting more difficult. The only type of voter fraud that Voter ID could prevent was ridiculously, insanely, ludicrously rare. Amounting to about 100 cases per DECADE in the entire nation.

When Pennsylvania was asked to cite the cases of voter fraud their voter ID laws could prevent, they couldn't name 1. When Texas was asked the same thing, they could only name 4 in the last 5 years. Amounting to two actual instances of in person voter ID fraud between them.

In 10 years.

That means of the 54,000,000 votes cast in all Texas elections in the last 10 years, a grand total of 2 of them were Voter ID fraud. Making the odds of a voter ID fraud in the State roughly 1 in 27,000,000.

 

[saveliberty]

...and voter ID is as simple as a driver's license, which most adults need to drive and cash checks. Quit trying to make this sound like a burden liberals.

 

[emilynghiem]

Here's what leftists refuse to understand......

We don't want Voter ID in order to stop Voter Fraud. We know that is an illusive goal that will never be fully accomplished.

We want Voter ID in order to PROSECUTE Voter Fraud.

If dimocrap dirtbag #1 takes her mama's voter ID to the poll station and votes in her stead because she's in prison and she gets caught?

All she has to do is say, "I didn't know! My mama axed me to vote for her while she away!!"

And guess what, MORONS...... No DA in the Country will take that case. Know why?

A conviction would be impossible. Can't be done. Getting a fraud conviction on that person just ain't gonna happen.

And believe me I tell you, that is the basis for virtually all the Voter Fraud going on in this Country.

They know that if they get caught, all they gotta do is say some shit like the excuse I gave you above and -- pfft. No case.

Now, if we insist on a Voter ID, and a person shows an ID claiming to be that Individual and she gets caught?

That's a slam dunk fraud conviction. Party's over, clean out your room, you be going bye-bye.

Period.

Bottom line is this.... There is MASSIVE Voter Fraud in this Country EVERY SINGLE ELECTION. And the vast majority of it is from dimocrap scum. Because....... Well, that's what they are.

They don't what mandatory Voter ID because it would cut their votes down by millions.

I don't care if you believe me or not. It's just a fact.

Okay so what's to stop Democrats for using these same arguments
to say that the health care mandates and taxes are the "most convenient way" for Govt to
make sure people pay for health care.

Neither side is listening or interested in the arguments about "better ways to do it."

They just want THEIR way.

So why can't we show this is equally hypocritical.
The real problem is people don't trust each other.

So they are both proposing laws based on that.

But when it comes to the shoe being on the other foot,
oh SUDDENLY it becomes a matter of what are you going to propose as the alternative.
But they don't agree on that either, so it deadlocks.

Why not solve the problem of why people don't trust each other.
And what will motivate people not to commit fraud in either case.

And what I see coming from this is to separate agenda by PARTY.
If people's votes automatically count toward what they do through their PARTY
then the PARTY itself can police any abuses or fraud that go against the PARTY's best interest.

If we somehow organize this by PARTY where any anomalies only affect that PARTY
then maybe we'll see some accountability. When it actually affects them and
the system isn't about dumping the burdens on someone else they are hostile to.

The burden has to be on the people or parties making the policies
in order for there to be accountable.

Both sides of both issues complain when the policies create a burden on them that the advocates
aren't taking responsibility for.

How can we change this, and put the burden for policies back on to the people who support them?

 

[Carib Gyal]

Any solution that provably allows only one vote per legal citizen is a good one.

 

[boilermaker55]

Sooooo...if there was a law, and let us hope that it never happens, to pass information test to allow you to vote; and your right was taken away. I am sure you would piss your pants and scream the loudest.

What g5 wants is for unrestricted voting by anyone, regardless of legality. That's the only way Liberals win in elections.

That's true. That is what libs need.....the low information voter, and as long as this is true, there will always be voter fraud:

"It's not the people who vote that count. It's the people who count the votes." (Josef Stalin)

 

[emilynghiem]

...and voter ID is as simple as a driver's license, which most adults need to drive and cash checks. Quit trying to make this sound like a burden liberals.

The common factor is there is nothing wrong with voting FOR and AS yourself, with or without proof or ID.

the issue of ID is of concern with people who AREN'T voting as themselves and committing some abuse or fraud.

The factors people argue about is
who is responsible for the costs (of either getting and enforcing ID or NOT having this enforcement
so it creates other problems and costs. who is accepting responsibility for that?)

As with the arguments over gun control, people are arguing who is accepting responsibility for abuses.
Very similar where the sides don't agree what types of regulations or enforcements WOULD prevent the abuses.
So that is another factor.

 

[emilynghiem]

Sooooo...if there was a law, and let us hope that it never happens, to pass information test to allow you to vote; and your right was taken away. I am sure you would piss your pants and scream the loudest.

What g5 wants is for unrestricted voting by anyone, regardless of legality. That's the only way Liberals win in elections.

That's true. That is what libs need.....the low information voter, and as long as this is true, there will always be voter fraud:

"It's not the people who vote that count. It's the people who count the votes." (Josef Stalin)

And I would compare this with why mandates give people who buy insurance an AUTOMATIC exemption
even if there has been NO PROOF this covers what or how many people,
while anyone else who wants an exemption through a state alternative has to PROVE that it meets certain coverage.

So one person who believes in the insurance plan has freedom from an added tax penalty
and thus freedom to choose what they already believe in choosing anyway,
while the other person loses their freedom to choose
and has to jump through hoops, through a complicated UNDEFINED system that keeps changing,
in order to restore their original freedom to choose how to pay for health care that's wasn't fined or taxed before this bill.

I'm not saying one scenario is right or wrong or worse than the other.

I'm saying that BOTH sides are complaining the other is being
hypocritical and INCONSISTENT if you keep justifying regulations people don't consent to
when you don't want your consent violated when the shoe is on the other foot.

No matter what DIFFERENCES are explained back and forth,
people AREN'T changing their minds.

In BOTH cases they want their CONSENT respected and don't agree to laws otherwise.

So why can't this be respected equally?

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Leftist blowhards cant spin the fact that if your too stupid to be able to acquire ID , youre too stupid to vote....

Carry on...

 

[boilermaker55]

Why do you feel regulations are not a good priority?

Sooooo...if there was a law, and let us hope that it never happens, to pass information test to allow you to vote; and your right was taken away. I am sure you would piss your pants and scream the loudest.

What g5 wants is for unrestricted voting by anyone, regardless of legality. That's the only way Liberals win in elections.

That's true. That is what libs need.....the low information voter, and as long as this is true, there will always be voter fraud:

"It's not the people who vote that count. It's the people who count the votes." (Josef Stalin)

And I would compare this with why mandates give people who buy insurance an AUTOMATIC exemption
even if there has been NO PROOF this covers what or how many people,
while anyone else who wants an exemption through a state alternative has to PROVE that it meets certain coverage.

So one person who believes in the insurance plan has freedom from an added tax penalty
and thus freedom to choose what they already believe in choosing anyway,
while the other person loses their freedom to choose
and has to jump through hoops, through a complicated UNDEFINED system that keeps changing,
in order to restore their original freedom to choose how to pay for health care that's wasn't fined or taxed before this bill.

I'm not saying one scenario is right or wrong or worse than the other.

I'm saying that BOTH sides are complaining the other is being
hypocritical and INCONSISTENT if you keep justifying regulations people don't consent to
when you don't want your consent violated when the shoe is on the other foot.

No matter what DIFFERENCES are explained back and forth,
people AREN'T changing their minds.

In BOTH cases they want their CONSENT respected and don't agree to laws otherwise.

So why can't this be respected equally?

 

[BluesLegend]

Democrats are importing millions of welfare bound illegals from other countries. They intend to grant them amnesty and buy their votes with government hand outs to cancel out votes cast by American citizens. Its the biggest voter fraud scheme going on.

 

[boilermaker55]

Too funny!

Democrats are importing millions of welfare bound illegals from other countries. They intend to grant them amnesty and buy their votes with government hand outs to cancel out votes cast by American citizens. Its the biggest voter fraud scheme going on.

 

[emilynghiem]

Why do you feel regulations are not a good priority?

Sooooo...if there was a law, and let us hope that it never happens, to pass information test to allow you to vote; and your right was taken away. I am sure you would piss your pants and scream the loudest.

What g5 wants is for unrestricted voting by anyone, regardless of legality. That's the only way Liberals win in elections.

That's true. That is what libs need.....the low information voter, and as long as this is true, there will always be voter fraud:

"It's not the people who vote that count. It's the people who count the votes." (Josef Stalin)

And I would compare this with why mandates give people who buy insurance an AUTOMATIC exemption
even if there has been NO PROOF this covers what or how many people,
while anyone else who wants an exemption through a state alternative has to PROVE that it meets certain coverage.

So one person who believes in the insurance plan has freedom from an added tax penalty
and thus freedom to choose what they already believe in choosing anyway,
while the other person loses their freedom to choose
and has to jump through hoops, through a complicated UNDEFINED system that keeps changing,
in order to restore their original freedom to choose how to pay for health care that's wasn't fined or taxed before this bill.

I'm not saying one scenario is right or wrong or worse than the other.

I'm saying that BOTH sides are complaining the other is being
hypocritical and INCONSISTENT if you keep justifying regulations people don't consent to
when you don't want your consent violated when the shoe is on the other foot.

No matter what DIFFERENCES are explained back and forth,
people AREN'T changing their minds.

In BOTH cases they want their CONSENT respected and don't agree to laws otherwise.

So why can't this be respected equally?

You're missing my point of why I am comparing these scenarios.

The common factor is whether people AGREE to the regulations who are affected by them.

And the key to solving this is to focus on
A. either AGREED ways to prevent the fraud
B. AGREED ways to revise the regulatory procedures
C. AGREED ways to pay for the costs or burdens of
either implementing the regulations or not implementing them,
so the sides take responsibility for the consequences of either their plans or their objections

What is failing here is using arguments the other side doesn't follow, believe or listen to
and trying to use THAT to justify the regulations.

To get agreement on the rules, the people affected need to agree so they quit blocking and opposing them.

Both sides of both arguments keep pushing their own explanations,
and it is clear that neither is working.

So I am saying we need a different strategy to discuss
regulations and how to prevent the fraud; and
how to cover the costs of either one -- either the regulations if they impose inconvenience or burden, or the cost of the problems if regulations are not implemented or enforced property. How do we agree on assessments so we can agree on policies instead of pushing past and overriding the objections and consent/dissent of people affected.

We can't just "override" objections and push the regulations "anyway", assuming the other side is wrong
and has some ulterior agenda for opposing it.
Because we don't agree to that happening in the other cases where we don't agree to regulations being pushed
against our objections. We may not agree on the reasons, but we have the right to our
objections and need to work those out before expecting people to agree on regulations.

 

[boilermaker55]

There really is not enough evidence to convict or say their is an epidemic of voter fraud..
Please show one voter fraud, which is a felony, case which has been prosecuted.
When there is a problem to address then address the problem.

Why do you feel regulations are not a good priority?

Sooooo...if there was a law, and let us hope that it never happens, to pass information test to allow you to vote; and your right was taken away. I am sure you would piss your pants and scream the loudest.

What g5 wants is for unrestricted voting by anyone, regardless of legality. That's the only way Liberals win in elections.

That's true. That is what libs need.....the low information voter, and as long as this is true, there will always be voter fraud:

"It's not the people who vote that count. It's the people who count the votes." (Josef Stalin)

And I would compare this with why mandates give people who buy insurance an AUTOMATIC exemption
even if there has been NO PROOF this covers what or how many people,
while anyone else who wants an exemption through a state alternative has to PROVE that it meets certain coverage.

So one person who believes in the insurance plan has freedom from an added tax penalty
and thus freedom to choose what they already believe in choosing anyway,
while the other person loses their freedom to choose
and has to jump through hoops, through a complicated UNDEFINED system that keeps changing,
in order to restore their original freedom to choose how to pay for health care that's wasn't fined or taxed before this bill.

I'm not saying one scenario is right or wrong or worse than the other.

I'm saying that BOTH sides are complaining the other is being
hypocritical and INCONSISTENT if you keep justifying regulations people don't consent to
when you don't want your consent violated when the shoe is on the other foot.

No matter what DIFFERENCES are explained back and forth,
people AREN'T changing their minds.

In BOTH cases they want their CONSENT respected and don't agree to laws otherwise.

So why can't this be respected equally?

You're missing my point of why I am comparing these scenarios.

The common factor is whether people AGREE to the regulations who are affected by them.

And the key to solving this is to focus on
A. either AGREED ways to prevent the fraud
B. AGREED ways to revise the regulatory procedures
C. AGREED ways to pay for the costs or burdens of
either implementing the regulations or not implementing them,
so the sides take responsibility for the consequences of either their plans or their objections

What is failing here is using arguments the other side doesn't follow, believe or listen to
and trying to use THAT to justify the regulations.

To get agreement on the rules, the people affected need to agree so they quit blocking and opposing them.

Both sides of both arguments keep pushing their own explanations,
and it is clear that neither is working.

So I am saying we need a different strategy to discuss
regulations and how to prevent the fraud; and
how to cover the costs of either one -- either the regulations if they
impose inconvenience or burden, or the cost of the problems if they are not implements or enforced property.

We can't just "override" objections and push the regulations "anyway", assuming the other side is wrong
and has some ulterior agenda for opposing it.
Because we don't agree to that happening in the other cases where we don't agree to regulations being pushed
against our objections. We may not agree on the reasons, but we have the right to our
objections and need to work those out before expecting people to agree on regulations.

 

[emilynghiem]

There really is not enough evidence to convict or say their is an epidemic of voter fraud..
Please show one voter fraud, which is a felony, case which has been prosecuted.
When there is a problem to address then address the problem.

Why do you feel regulations are not a good priority?

Sooooo...if there was a law, and let us hope that it never happens, to pass information test to allow you to vote; and your right was taken away. I am sure you would piss your pants and scream the loudest.

That's true. That is what libs need.....the low information voter, and as long as this is true, there will always be voter fraud:

"It's not the people who vote that count. It's the people who count the votes." (Josef Stalin)

And I would compare this with why mandates give people who buy insurance an AUTOMATIC exemption
even if there has been NO PROOF this covers what or how many people,
while anyone else who wants an exemption through a state alternative has to PROVE that it meets certain coverage.

So one person who believes in the insurance plan has freedom from an added tax penalty
and thus freedom to choose what they already believe in choosing anyway,
while the other person loses their freedom to choose
and has to jump through hoops, through a complicated UNDEFINED system that keeps changing,
in order to restore their original freedom to choose how to pay for health care that's wasn't fined or taxed before this bill.

I'm not saying one scenario is right or wrong or worse than the other.

I'm saying that BOTH sides are complaining the other is being
hypocritical and INCONSISTENT if you keep justifying regulations people don't consent to
when you don't want your consent violated when the shoe is on the other foot.

No matter what DIFFERENCES are explained back and forth,
people AREN'T changing their minds.

In BOTH cases they want their CONSENT respected and don't agree to laws otherwise.

So why can't this be respected equally?

You're missing my point of why I am comparing these scenarios.

The common factor is whether people AGREE to the regulations who are affected by them.

And the key to solving this is to focus on
A. either AGREED ways to prevent the fraud
B. AGREED ways to revise the regulatory procedures
C. AGREED ways to pay for the costs or burdens of
either implementing the regulations or not implementing them,
so the sides take responsibility for the consequences of either their plans or their objections

What is failing here is using arguments the other side doesn't follow, believe or listen to
and trying to use THAT to justify the regulations.

To get agreement on the rules, the people affected need to agree so they quit blocking and opposing them.

Both sides of both arguments keep pushing their own explanations,
and it is clear that neither is working.

So I am saying we need a different strategy to discuss
regulations and how to prevent the fraud; and
how to cover the costs of either one -- either the regulations if they
impose inconvenience or burden, or the cost of the problems if they are not implements or enforced property.

We can't just "override" objections and push the regulations "anyway", assuming the other side is wrong
and has some ulterior agenda for opposing it.
Because we don't agree to that happening in the other cases where we don't agree to regulations being pushed
against our objections. We may not agree on the reasons, but we have the right to our
objections and need to work those out before expecting people to agree on regulations.

Here is the most cited case I know of.
Ohio Woman Who Voted 6 Times For Obama Convicted Of Felony Voter Fraud -

What upset people the most, is that when she appeared in person
at a political meeting, she was applauded.

So this is why people see even one case as such a problem
because it used to encourage instead of discourage fraud.

It is treated like the riots and property damage in Ferguson as being encouraged and incited as
a justified statement to "send a message" so it has greater implications than just an isolated crime.

If we could break away from the rhetoric, and address issues as isolated crimes,
we might have a chance to discuss and decide based on reason.

But as long as these incidents are taken to "symbolize" things on a larger scale,
such as taking the issues in Ferguson and making global statements out of them,
the emotions and meanings attached go off the scale, and make it almost impossible
to get back to the level of reasoning through the facts on hand.

 

[boilermaker55]

So, we are going to change voters rights and privileges, if she is found guilty, over one individuals wronging the institution.
Is this a precedent to start over any and all rights?

There really is not enough evidence to convict or say their is an epidemic of voter fraud..
Please show one voter fraud, which is a felony, case which has been prosecuted.
When there is a problem to address then address the problem.

Why do you feel regulations are not a good priority?

Sooooo...if there was a law, and let us hope that it never happens, to pass information test to allow you to vote; and your right was taken away. I am sure you would piss your pants and scream the loudest.

And I would compare this with why mandates give people who buy insurance an AUTOMATIC exemption
even if there has been NO PROOF this covers what or how many people,
while anyone else who wants an exemption through a state alternative has to PROVE that it meets certain coverage.

So one person who believes in the insurance plan has freedom from an added tax penalty
and thus freedom to choose what they already believe in choosing anyway,
while the other person loses their freedom to choose
and has to jump through hoops, through a complicated UNDEFINED system that keeps changing,
in order to restore their original freedom to choose how to pay for health care that's wasn't fined or taxed before this bill.

I'm not saying one scenario is right or wrong or worse than the other.

I'm saying that BOTH sides are complaining the other is being
hypocritical and INCONSISTENT if you keep justifying regulations people don't consent to
when you don't want your consent violated when the shoe is on the other foot.

No matter what DIFFERENCES are explained back and forth,
people AREN'T changing their minds.

In BOTH cases they want their CONSENT respected and don't agree to laws otherwise.

So why can't this be respected equally?

You're missing my point of why I am comparing these scenarios.

The common factor is whether people AGREE to the regulations who are affected by them.

And the key to solving this is to focus on
A. either AGREED ways to prevent the fraud
B. AGREED ways to revise the regulatory procedures
C. AGREED ways to pay for the costs or burdens of
either implementing the regulations or not implementing them,
so the sides take responsibility for the consequences of either their plans or their objections

What is failing here is using arguments the other side doesn't follow, believe or listen to
and trying to use THAT to justify the regulations.

To get agreement on the rules, the people affected need to agree so they quit blocking and opposing them.

Both sides of both arguments keep pushing their own explanations,
and it is clear that neither is working.

So I am saying we need a different strategy to discuss
regulations and how to prevent the fraud; and
how to cover the costs of either one -- either the regulations if they
impose inconvenience or burden, or the cost of the problems if they are not implements or enforced property.

We can't just "override" objections and push the regulations "anyway", assuming the other side is wrong
and has some ulterior agenda for opposing it.
Because we don't agree to that happening in the other cases where we don't agree to regulations being pushed
against our objections. We may not agree on the reasons, but we have the right to our
objections and need to work those out before expecting people to agree on regulations.

Here is the most cited case I know of.
Ohio Woman Who Voted 6 Times For Obama Convicted Of Felony Voter Fraud -

What upset people the most, is that when she appeared in person
at a political meeting, she was applauded.

So this is why people see even one case as such a problem
because it used to encourage instead of discourage fraud.

It is treated like the riots and property damage in Ferguson as being encouraged and incited as
a justified statement to "send a message" so it has greater implications than just an isolated crime.

If we could break away from the rhetoric, and address issues as isolated crimes,
we might have a chance to discuss and decide based on reason.

But as long as these incidents are taken to "symbolize" things on a larger scale,
such as taking the issues in Ferguson and making global statements out of them,
the emotions and meanings attached go off the scale, and make it almost impossible
to get back to the level of reasoning through the facts on hand.

 

[g5000]

Here is the most cited case I know of.
Ohio Woman Who Voted 6 Times For Obama Convicted Of Felony Voter Fraud -

Yes, it is the most cited. And what is hilarious about this is OHIO HAS VOTER ID AND IT DID NOT STOP HER.

Thus the topic title is proven. Again.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Then why don't we just do away with ID's altogether? Why have an ID at all?

 

[g5000]

Then why don't we just do away with ID's altogether? Why have an ID at all?

Apples and oranges fallacy.

It can be demonstrated that an ID is the only way to verify someone is old enough to buy liquor. It CANNOT be demonstrated Voter ID is the only means to prevent or stop voter fraud. And so the weak attempts to connect these two things utterly fails.

It never has been demonstrated that Voter ID is the only means to stop or prevent voter fraud. Not even once. Despite the best efforts of Voter ID retards. See the woman who voted six times in Ohio, even though Ohio has strict Voter ID.

And yet the tards scream and demand more government interference in the exercising of their right to vote. They demand more completely ineffective government regulations. And they call themselves conservatives? Really?

More like totalitarian wannabes.

 

[emilynghiem]

Then why don't we just do away with ID's altogether? Why have an ID at all?

Apples and oranges fallacy.

It can be demonstrated that an ID is the only way to verify someone is old enough to buy liquor. It CANNOT be demonstrated Voter ID is the only means to prevent or stop voter fraud. And so the weak attempts to connect these two things utterly fails.

It never has been demonstrated that Voter ID is the only means to stop or prevent voter fraud. Not even once. Despite the best efforts of Voter ID retards. See the woman who voted six times in Ohio, even though Ohio has strict Voter ID.

And yet the tards scream and demand more government interference in the exercising of their right to vote. They demand more completely ineffective government regulations. And they call themselves conservatives? Really?

More like totalitarian wannabes.

Dear g5000 thanks again for explaining what is wrong with this picture.
Now, instead of using this issue to harp on conservatives about "other means
and more effective ways" to police or prevent fraud, what about using this issue
to HELP conservatives argue for other means of covering health care and assuring
people don't dump costs or get stuck without coverage.

so this should help in several ways

1. it should help more liberals understand the arguments against insurance mandates as the "only way" instead of allowing other options deemed equally if not more effective

2. it could help more conservatives understand the voting issue when
compared to the health care issue

3. and where both sides still cannot accept each other's arguments
then the people who CAN see neither side consents should not have to be
subject to contested regulations we don't agree to either. we can still argue
our rights are violated by this conflict going on.

so g5000 the beauty of this argument is I DON'T have to AGREE with you
to defend your arguments on the grounds of discriminating against you on the basis
of creed. Just because I don't mind voter ID laws doesn't mean I consent to these laws
imposed on you when you have political beliefs otherwise. I can see that other people
don't get your arguments and are pushing their own beliefs on what is the best way.

what I WOULD back instead is allowing people like you who want a different way
to set that up and fund it. if it is more effective it should work better and cost less
without imposing fear of diminishing voting rights and access. what i suggest is
shifting more programs to parties to manage the funding and policies, so there
is less fear of fraud by conflicts of interest and political gains from voting abuses.

if more policies were passed by consensus as the standard, then the quality of the
policies and their passage would depend on public support of their content and wording
independent of who is in office. so more focus would be on what is in the laws and
how effective are the solutions in order for the public to agree on them.

the dependence on using one party to smash the other would diminish
and what would be rewarded is how effective the solutions and laws are.

so voter fraud would be less of a factor or issue in that approach to policies.

how can we work together to bring this issue to the attention of both parties
as an example of rising above partisan biases and focusing on practical solutions that work for both sides?