[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by nonhuman

So that's horrible and all, but how would requiring people to present photo ID to vote have prevented that?

Well, it wouldn't have.

My point wasn't that it would have. My point was that I know what it means to be truly disenfranchised. And all it would have taken was me keeping a single piece of paper. So I keep it, now.

So how much harder would it be for someone to have a driver's license or photo ID as the "card" that they show to vote?

Or, how about this:

Why is the main opposition to this from the left, yet the main proponent of "Motor Voter" legislation the very same people? And is that ironic, or just Alanis-ironic?

Can we agree that the goal is to get the most accurate count of eligible, legal voters?

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

Well, it wouldn't have.

My point wasn't that it would have. My point was that I know what it means to be truly disenfranchised. And all it would have taken was me keeping a single piece of paper. So I keep it, now.

So how much harder would it be for someone to have a driver's license or photo ID as the "card" that they show to vote?

Or, how about this:

Why is the main opposition to this from the left, yet the main proponent of "Motor Voter" legislation the very same people? And is that ironic, or just Alanis-ironic?

Can we agree that the goal is to get the most accurate count of eligible, legal voters?

Yes, definitely the goal is to get the most accurate count. I just don't see that this legislation will help with that. All the cases of voter fraud that I'm aware of (such as yours) have to do with the people working the polls rather than the people voting. And yet the proposed 'solution' to voter fraud completely fails to address this. No significant voter fraud does or even can happen on the individual level (at least not unless you're using a Diebold voting machine...); this legislation is, as usual, nothing but feel-good fluff that will do more harm than good.

Voting is a right, not a privilege. People should not be required to pay a fee exercise their rights.

[itai195]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

What's wrong with the goal of preventing voter fraud?

Besides, who needs proof? Your "side" is the one who just says "Diebold, who has ties to the Bush administration" and expect everyone to just draw the connections and know that it means there is cheating.

I think you're getting your logic twisted up into some loops. We're talking about the photo ID requirement. Do you think it's necessary to demonstrate evidence of significant voter fraud before instituting a measure that, as OAW showed, may disenfranchise thousands of voters?

[OAW]

This is getting tiresome so I will say this one last time and exit the thread unless someone addresses these fundamental issues:

Fact #1: The voter fraud rate (i.e, dead people voting, voting more than once, ineligible voters voting) is infinitesimal. No one in favor of this legislation has produced any evidence or statistics that show otherwise.

Fact #2: Given #1, shenanigans encountered in the voting process are predominantly centered in the area of vote suppression (i.e., eligible voters "mysteriously" being dropped from the voter registration rolls, voter intimidation at the polling place in the form of partisan activists challenging the eligibility voters on election day in precincts that tend to vote for the other party, burdensome and onerous voter registration rules and deadlines, the "mysterious" lack of adequate, and functional voting machines in certain precincts resulting in massively long lines and large numbers of people abandoning the process in order to get back to work, pick up children, etc.)

A Photo ID requirement does little to nothing to address #1 because A) there isn't much of a problem to address, and B) someone determined to vote fraudulently can easily get a fake ID. And it does nothing to address #2 and will in fact exacerbate the problem by adding additional burdens and expense to the honest and eligible poor, elderly, disabled, and/or minority segments of the population.

OAW

PS: Let me put this into another context that we can probably all relate to. The Photo ID requirement is analogous to DRM. It does little to nothing to stop a determined pirate, but it adds a lot of unnecessary expense and hassle to people who are honest and willing to pay for the product.

[davesimondotcom]

So, you guys are saying that we shouldn't ask people to prove who they are before we let them vote?

First, you were concerned about the "expense" for the poor. Which was silly.

Then it was concern for those who are old enough not to have birth certificates. Which was silly, too, because many of them have driver's licenses and such, anyway.

Now, you are saying that asking someone to show ID before voting shouldn't be done because some people will fake IDs? Hmmm...

OK, let's just let people vote as much or as little as they want. Who cares if I voted 10 times? After all, if we put regulations in to prevent it, I'll just break those rules anyway... (I'm kidding, of course.)

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

So, you guys are saying that we shouldn't ask people to prove who they are before we let them vote?

First, you were concerned about the "expense" for the poor. Which was silly.

Then it was concern for those who are old enough not to have birth certificates. Which was silly, too, because many of them have driver's licenses and such, anyway.

Now, you are saying that asking someone to show ID before voting shouldn't be done because some people will fake IDs? Hmmm...

OK, let's just let people vote as much or as little as they want. Who cares if I voted 10 times? After all, if we put regulations in to prevent it, I'll just break those rules anyway... (I'm kidding, of course.)

Do you have any evidence that any of those things are happening? Do you have any evidence at all that there is a problem caused by people not being required to show photo ID when they vote? If not, why should we waste the time and money to implement such a plan especially when it may very well serve to disenfranchise many legitimate voters?

[OAW]

Unfortunately, some people simply refuse to listen and persist with these ridiculous straw-man arguments. It would be helpful if you would respond to what was actually stated instead of arguing with yourself.

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

So, you guys are saying that we shouldn't ask people to prove who they are before we let them vote?

No. That's what you are saying. As I've stated on several occasions, the issue is "having ID" vs. "having Photo ID". When I go to vote in Missouri I have to show either A) my voter registration card or B) a photo ID. The Photo ID is not required, and regardless they are going to compare either A or B against the rolls of registered voters in the precinct anyway.

Besides, having a photo ID doesn't prove that I am who I say I am. It only proves that I have a document with my picture on it. Now having said that, the process where I live is based upon the presumption that if I have in my possession a voter registration card OR a photo ID, then I am most likely who I say I am. And then that information is checked against the list of registered voters for the precinct. You then have to sign the list to ensure that no one else votes under that name.

So the fundamental question to you and those in your camp is, is the requirement for a voter registration card OR a photo ID good enough? If not, why? And what evidence can you present to show that it is not?

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

First, you were concerned about the "expense" for the poor. Which was silly.

Well I suppose some people would consider it to be silly when it impacts someone else.

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

Then it was concern for those who are old enough not to have birth certificates. Which was silly, too, because many of them have driver's licenses and such, anyway.

Some do. Some don't. The issue is how a photo ID requirement would affect those that don't.

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

Now, you are saying that asking someone to show ID before voting shouldn't be done because some people will fake IDs? Hmmm...

No. That's what you are saying. See above.

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

OK, let's just let people vote as much or as little as they want. Who cares if I voted 10 times? After all, if we put regulations in to prevent it, I'll just break those rules anyway... (I'm kidding, of course.)

Well I certainly hope you are kidding.

The bottom line for me boils down to simple mathematics. Namely, does a Photo ID requirement prevent significantly more ineligible people from voting than it prevents eligible people from voting. If it does then we have a net positive and I would say go for it. But my position is that I don't see how that would be the case given the negligible voter fraud rate and the thousands ... and in some states hundreds of thousands ... of eligible voters who would be negatively impacted by this legislation. And it seems to me that the advocates of this legislation should bring to bear some sort of evidence that shows it would be a net positive before proceeding.

OAW

[davesimondotcom]

The difference between a photo ID and any other form of ID is just tying the person holding it to the ID.

A Social Security Card, as opposed to a driver's license, has no link to the person who claims it as theirs. It has a name on it, but nothing to prove that person is the actual person given the SS#.

Which is why stealing someone's identity is so easy with a SS#. My wife has had hers stolen and still has problems with her credit.

However, if, when that person started claiming herself as my wife, she would have been required to show picture ID - there is a higher percentage chance that she wouldn't have been able to open accounts in my wife's name.

Can photo IDs be faked? Sure. But it's a heck of a lot harder than to copy a piece of paper with a number on it.

Turn it around: Instead of thinking about voter fraud as someone cheating to get more votes, think of it as someone voting in someone else's name.

I'd rather people prove that they are who they say they are with a PHOTO ID than have someone lose their vote because someone voted in their name.

It's the same thing as when I write a check (which I hardly ever do anymore) and someone asks to see my ID. They do so for two reasons: to protect themselves and to protect me. Is it possible that someone steals my checkbook and creates a fake ID in my name? Yes. Of course. But that's a lot less likely than someone just getting the checkbook.

I'd be the first to get behind a program to make sure that the people who you (OAW) seem to think that are in the hundreds of thousands can aquire a legal photo ID for free.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by nonhuman

Do you have any evidence that any of those things are happening? Do you have any evidence at all that there is a problem caused by people not being required to show photo ID when they vote? If not, why should we waste the time and money to implement such a plan especially when it may very well serve to disenfranchise many legitimate voters?

I have about as much evidence that there is voter fraud as you have that photo IDs disenfranchise legitimate voters.

However, if we want to both go out and waste our time to do research, I'm sure I would find more. After all, your contention is pure speculation on what MIGHT happen.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

Turn it around: Instead of thinking about voter fraud as someone cheating to get more votes, think of it as someone voting in someone else's name.

I'll address this part since I have to run off to an appt. I hear what you are saying on this, but again ... when I vote I have to sign the voter registration list at the precinct to show that I've already voted. Preventing someone from voting in someone else's name is a laudable and proper goal. But if I've already voted and signed the list no one can come in after me with a copy of my voter registration card and vote. And if I come in and there is already a signature next to my name, I'm going to raise a stink about it because there is an obvious discrepancy right there. And again, how often do people go to vote and we get "Hey ... somebody already voted in my name! " reports?

I mean ... seriously. This really seems like at best a solution in search of a problem, and at worst a cynical ploy to suppress a few percentage points of the vote in communities most likely to not vote Republican.

OAW

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

I have about as much evidence that there is voter fraud as you have that photo IDs disenfranchise legitimate voters.

However, if we want to both go out and waste our time to do research, I'm sure I would find more. After all, your contention is pure speculation on what MIGHT happen.

Surely the people who wrote this bill, discussed it, and subsequently decided it was a good idea must have done some research into the matter, mustn't they? And surely, that research, having yielded the results to justify making this law, must have turned up some statistics on how common voter fraud is on the individual level, right?

So there should be plenty of evidence out there already found and just waiting for you to use it.

[davesimondotcom]

Without even doing research, I can give you some anecdotal examples of voter fraud that would be prevented by this.

It's well-known in Montana that, especially in the Nixon-Kennedy election, that there were people who voted in Butte who were known to be dead. People simply went in and voted in their names.

During the election in 2000, in Wisconsin, students at Marquette were seen taking as many as 10 ballots at a time. A survey of 1000 students later showed that 174 admitted to having voted more than once. “Students said that identification was rarely checked (and) they picked up extra ballots or were handed multiple ballots and voted on all of them.”

I simply believe that requiring photo ID is a step in the right direction towards the goal of an accurate count of all votes from legitimate and qualified voters.

Other steps include:

*Clear ballots where marking one's intent is easy and clear
*Vote counts that are accurate via machine and verifiable through a hand count WITHOUT ALTERING the ballots. This is one of the big problems with punchcard ("chad") ballots - they fall out when you handle the cards.

I'd like to see some sort of "double blind" hand recounts where the intent of the vote is obvious but the counter doesn't know which candidate is which, eliminating the natural human bias.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

Without even doing research, I can give you some anecdotal examples of voter fraud that would be prevented by this.

It's well-known in Montana that, especially in the Nixon-Kennedy election, that there were people who voted in Butte who were known to be dead. People simply went in and voted in their names.

During the election in 2000, in Wisconsin, students at Marquette were seen taking as many as 10 ballots at a time. A survey of 1000 students later showed that 174 admitted to having voted more than once. “Students said that identification was rarely checked (and) they picked up extra ballots or were handed multiple ballots and voted on all of them.”

I simply believe that requiring photo ID is a step in the right direction towards the goal of an accurate count of all votes from legitimate and qualified voters.

Other steps include:

*Clear ballots where marking one's intent is easy and clear
*Vote counts that are accurate via machine and verifiable through a hand count WITHOUT ALTERING the ballots. This is one of the big problems with punchcard ("chad") ballots - they fall out when you handle the cards.

I'd like to see some sort of "double blind" hand recounts where the intent of the vote is obvious but the counter doesn't know which candidate is which, eliminating the natural human bias.

Requiring photo ID isn't the easiest or most effective way to deal with people voting more than once. As your own quote says, the people running the polls 'rarely checked [id]', photo or otherwise. Competent, honest people running the polls is the only way to stop that from happening, and photo ID would be no more or less effective than a voter registration card plus signature in that case, exactly as OAW suggested.

As for dead people voting, requiring a photo ID would help with that to some extent, but all it would really do is make it more difficult by requiring the perpetrators to get fake IDs. A better solution would be to remove people from the list of registered voters when they die. If they aren't registered voters no one's going to be able to vote in their name, no matter how good of a fake ID they have.

[macintologist]

Giving more power to the government requiring Voter license IDs just makes it harder for law abiding citizen to exercise their right to vote.

[Spliffdaddy]

Man, this whole "photo ID" thing is unfair to people who have no face.

Get a grip, people. There exists no perfect system to prevent voter fraud. The choice isn't to enact a perfect system or no system at all.

This reminds me of when I worked at AT&T years ago. I was part of the department that produced the phone bills. We had a advertising insert that was supposed to be included in the envelope along with the bill. It had something to do with promoting 'automatic bill payment'. It had a picture of a woman with a baby in one arm and she was talking on the phone with her other hand. The headline on the top of the insert said "Because you only have two hands...". AT&T's marketing department decided not to use that insert because, get this, "not everyone has two hands".

[paul w]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Man, this whole "photo ID" thing is unfair to people who have no face.

Get a grip, people. There exists no perfect system to prevent voter fraud. The choice isn't to enact a perfect system or no system at all.

This reminds me of when I worked at AT&T years ago. I was part of the department that produced the phone bills. We had a advertising insert that was supposed to be included in the envelope along with the bill. It had something to do with promoting 'automatic bill payment'. It had a picture of a woman with a baby in one arm and she was talking on the phone with her other hand. The headline on the top of the insert said "Because you only have two hands...". AT&T's marketing department decided not to use that insert because, get this, "not everyone has two hands".

they could've simply added "at the most".

I would have no problem with this if everyone of voting age automatically had photo ID. It's an obstacle - and an added expense - to the voting process. Voting should be 100% free - as a principle.

edit: which states offer free photo ID? curious. Even if this bill is ratified, I'm guessing it will be challenged in court, as a similar law has in Georgia.

Also -what happens if you get robbed or lose your ID through no fault of your own?

[OAW]

The latest on this issue from Missouri:

Missouri Supreme Court tosses voter ID law

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) -- The Missouri Supreme Court on Monday struck down a new law requiring voters to show a photo ID at the polls, upholding a lower judge's decision.

A lower judge ruled last month that the ID requirement was an unconstitutional infringement on the fundamental right to vote. The Supreme Court agreed in a 6-1 unsigned opinion.

...

The court particularly took issue with the cost of underlying documents needed to obtain the free license or state ID card to vote. While the card itself is free, another law requires people to show they're lawfully in the country to get an ID card, generally with a birth certificate or passport.

....

The court said that because the requirement places a burden on a fundamental right, it must meet the "strict scrutiny" test -- and found the law is not narrowly tailored enough to meet the state's interest in ensuring election integrity, finding that current identification requirements meet that need. Currently, voters must show one of several forms of ID, including a driver's license, voter card sent by local election authorities or utility bill.

...

Earlier this month, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals blocked enforcement of Arizona's voter ID law; the state attorney general on Friday petitioned the Supreme Court to allow it to require photo IDs during the election.

In Georgia, a judge struck down as unconstitutional the latest version of that state's photo ID requirement in September.

OAW

[TheWOAT]

Originally Posted by OAW 

The latest on this issue from Missouri:

Missouri Supreme Court tosses voter ID law



OAW

I have now changed my stance.

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by itai195 

And I'm waiting for the part where you explain how a family living hand to mouth can scrape up $10 for a useless ID. Or $20 I guess if there are two parents. That'd be $42 in CA I think. If these people have absolutely no use for the ID other than when voting, how is it not the equivalent of a poll tax?

B.S. If the live in Los Angeles, they have to have some kind of ID to work at any job. Unless of course they are ILLEGAL. In that case they shouldn't be voting and they should be packing and hitting the road jack.

[Spliffdaddy]

hahaha. I just love the reasoning behind Missouri's defeat of the new photo ID legislation.

"Currently, voters must show one of several forms of ID, including a driver's license, voter card sent by local election authorities or utility bill"

Well doh. That's precisely the problem the photo ID was supposed to fix. Any goon can get a drivers license or a utility bill - or a voter registration card based on those easily obtainable forms of ID. You don't have to be a citizen in order to obtain ANY of those things.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

hahaha. I just love the reasoning behind Missouri's defeat of the new photo ID legislation.

"Currently, voters must show one of several forms of ID, including a driver's license, voter card sent by local election authorities or utility bill"

Well doh. That's precisely the problem the photo ID was supposed to fix. Any goon can get a drivers license or a utility bill - or a voter registration card based on those easily obtainable forms of ID. You don't have to be a citizen in order to obtain ANY of those things.

Of course, this entire legislation is designed to "fix" a problem that is negligible at best. A classic "solution in search of a problem". And that's a charitable assessment as I've mentioned previously.

The fact remains. No one has yet to demonstrate any credible evidence of the existence of significant levels of the type of voter fraud this legislation is purported to prevent. In light of that, there simply is no justification for adding such an undue burden on hundreds of thousands of people from the most disadvantaged segments of our society. The Missouri Supreme Court is in agreement with that ... nearly unanimously. The only holdout was Rush's brother. Go figure.

OAW

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

Any goon can get a drivers license or a utility bill - or a voter registration card based on those easily obtainable forms of ID. You don't have to be a citizen in order to obtain ANY of those things.

So then how is requiring people to show their photo ID (usually a drivers license) going to change anything?

[Monique]

You mean that you do not have to show any I.D. before you vote. As long as I can remember I had to show I.D. before I voted, actually one with my address on it.

[Big Mac]

Nope, a photo ID is still not (yet) required in the United States. All you need to do in America is register and then on election day tell the poll worker your address so that your entry can be located on the voter sheet and marked off to indicate you voted.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Nope, a photo ID is still not (yet) required in the United States. All you need to do in America is register and then on election day tell the poll worker your address so that your entry can be located on the voter sheet and marked off to indicate you voted.

Well that' not the way it works in Missouri. You need some form of identification ... just not necessarily a photo ID. Can't speak for other states.

OAW

[OAW]

This just in from the Republican-run Justice Department.

In 5-Year Effort, Scant Evidence of Voter Fraud

Five years after the Bush administration began a crackdown on voter fraud, the Justice Department has turned up virtually no evidence of any organized effort to skew federal elections, according to court records and interviews.

OAW

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

The way most of that article is worded, is just laughable.

"Many of those charged by the Justice Department appear to have mistakenly filled out registration forms or misunderstood eligibility rules, a review of court records and interviews with prosecutors and defense lawyers show."

"In Miami, an assistant United States attorney said many cases there involved what were apparently mistakes by immigrants, not fraud."

Not a citizen, but gee, I accidentally voted! Oops!

"In Wisconsin, where prosecutors have lost almost twice as many cases as they won, charges were brought against voters who filled out more than one registration form and felons seemingly unaware that they were barred from voting."

Oopsies!

"One ex-convict was so unfamiliar with the rules... "

Shucks.

"Mistakes and lapses in enforcing voting and registration rules routinely occur in elections, allowing thousands of ineligible voters to go to the polls."

(Uh, excuse me, isn't THIS the problem, not the red-herring of it being some 'organized effort'?

"...convicted of voting while on probation, an offense that she attributes to confusion over eligibility."

"In Pakistan, Usman Ali is trying to rebuild his life after being deported from Florida, his legal home of more than a decade, for improperly filling out a voter-registration card while renewing his driver’s license."

"In Alaska, Rogelio Mejorada-Lopez, a Mexican who legally lives in the United States, may soon face a similar fate, because he voted even though he was not eligible."

Later in the article we find out: "In Alaska, Rogelio Mejorada-Lopez, who manages a gasoline station..."

Jobs Americans Won't Do #68,932- Gas station manager.

So basically we've got a bunch of "It was a mistake", "oops, I didn't know not being a citizen or being a convict or on parole meant I couldn't vote..." and "opps, I seemed to have voted more than once somehow..."

But hey, it's comforting to know that of the "...thousands of people voting who aren't eligible" none of them do it on purpose.... oh heavens no. Most wandered absentmindedly to a polling place and voted by mistake. And hey, it wasn't any big organized effort (Oh thank God, that was my ONLY concern!) just thousands of mistakes. Everyone's really, really sorry they didn't see the rules about citizenship and eligibility posted, and sorry they voted once, twice, or however many times, and everyone promises not to do it again... well, unless they make a mistake.

Well gee, that's all such a relief! Problem solved!

[BRussell]

'Voter fraud' is a fraud perpetrated by people (e.g., Rove) who believe it is in their interests to keep voting as low as possible.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

The way most of that article is worded, is just laughable.

Not a citizen, but gee, I accidentally voted! Oops!

Oopsies!

Shucks.

(Uh, excuse me, isn't THIS the problem, not the red-herring of it being some 'organized effort'?

Later in the article we find out: "In Alaska, Rogelio Mejorada-Lopez, who manages a gasoline station..."

Jobs Americans Won't Do #68,932- Gas station manager.

So basically we've got a bunch of "It was a mistake", "oops, I didn't know not being a citizen or being a convict or on parole meant I couldn't vote..." and "opps, I seemed to have voted more than once somehow..."

But hey, it's comforting to know that of the "...thousands of people voting who aren't eligible" none of them do it on purpose.... oh heavens no. Most wandered absentmindedly to a polling place and voted by mistake. And hey, it wasn't any big organized effort (Oh thank God, that was my ONLY concern!) just thousands of mistakes. Everyone's really, really sorry they didn't see the rules about citizenship and eligibility posted, and sorry they voted once, twice, or however many times, and everyone promises not to do it again... well, unless they make a mistake.

Well gee, that's all such a relief! Problem solved!

I wish tax fraud worked like this. "Oh, you just forgot to report half your earnings? That's not fraud!"

[Dork.]

Thanks for digging up this thread again. I read this article originally in reference to the attorney firing kerfuffle. I had forgotten that we were debating voter fraud here.

And to CRASH HARDDRIVE, there cetainly is a difference between "mistakenly" filling out a voter regisration card and trying to fradulently vote. New York State has a voter regiatration form attached to all drivers license applications. I can understand how a new guest worker (who is legally entitled to be here and work, but not vote, and might have a tenuous grasp of English) may fill otu the whole form mistakenly, not realizing that part of it was for voter registration and not needed to get the drivers license.... That is illegal, but hardly fraud.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I wish tax fraud worked like this. "Oh, you just forgot to report half your earnings? That's not fraud!"

Well, again, there's probably a difference between making a mistake on your tax form and committing tax fraud. (Either way, you're in the wrong as far as the IRS is concerned, of course.)

The Great State of New York decided to do a property tax rebate in 2006. How many people do you think bothered to list that rebate as income, offset their taxes paid when they itemized by that amount, or otherwise account for it on their tax forms? And are all the people who did not account for it guilty of fraud?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

... That is illegal, but hardly fraud.

Right, but the real problem is this:

"Mistakes and lapses in enforcing voting and registration rules routinely occur in elections, allowing thousands of ineligible voters to go to the polls."

Oh wait, it's all a Karl Rove conspiracy!

[RAILhead]

[OAW]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Right, but the real problem is this:

"Mistakes and lapses in enforcing voting and registration rules routinely occur in elections, allowing thousands of ineligible voters to go to the polls."

Oh wait, it's all a Karl Rove conspiracy!

Ok. For the sake of discussion let's consider this to be somewhat reminiscent of a valid point. The issue here is the enforcement of laws already on the books! What good would passing a new law that requires a photo ID do when the issue is "mistakes and lapses" in enforcement? A law specifically purported to counter "fraud"? The whole "Democrats are trying to steal elections by registering illegal immigrants and encouraging them to vote Democratic by promoting social programs" argument.

Or let me put it another way. The issue you cite in that statement is the same issue that conservatives use when arguing against new gun-control legislation. That is, the problem is the enforcement of the gun laws already on the books ... and new gun laws are unnecessary and burdensome to the law-abiding public. Sound familiar?

Finally, the most relevant portion IMO out of the entire article is that part that said ....

Although Republican activists have repeatedly said fraud is so widespread that it has corrupted the political process and, possibly, cost the party election victories, about 120 people have been charged and 86 convicted as of last year.

.

So we should pass legislation that requires a photo ID to vote that will disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of poor, elderly, and/or minority voters in order to stop less than 100 cases of voter "fraud" a year (many of which can be attributed to mistakes)? I think not.

As I've said before, the "voter fraud" issue is a red herring. The real objective of this new legislation is to suppress the vote among the poor, elderly, and/or minority communities. Communities that tend not to vote Republican. And in a tight election preventing thousands of people from voting who are not likely to vote for you can make all the difference in the world.

OAW

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I wish tax fraud worked like this. "Oh, you just forgot to report half your earnings? That's not fraud!"

Work like what? In the cases mentioned that were probably inadvertent, they resulted in prosecutions and, often, convictions. The point of the article was that many of the prosecutions and convictions for voter fraud were in fact minor and many were unintentional, not to mention small in number - hardly an impetus for over-arching changes in voting laws, which Republicans have been pushing.

This is also at the heart of this US Attorney scandal. Rove wanted US attorneys to investigate voter fraud allegations, in order to drum up fears of lots of illegal voting, for cover for a variety of voter-suppression efforts. When (Republican) US Attorneys didn't find evidence of voter fraud, they were put on the ****-list and eventually replaced with loyal Bushies, i.e., Attorneys who would target Democrats and voter fraud cases.

Also note a recent piece in the Times that showed political appointees changed a report on voter fraud, where the experts and investigators basically said it wasn't happening.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Ok. For the sake of discussion let's consider this to be somewhat reminiscent of a valid point. The issue here is the enforcement of laws already on the books! What good would passing a new law that requires a photo ID do when the issue is "mistakes and lapses" in enforcement? A law specifically purported to counter "fraud"?

For the sake of discussion, let's pretend that you didn't already try to present the exact opposite as one of your 'facts', IE: that there aren't many people voting who shouldn't be.

Oops! Looks like you were 'mistaken' too.

So what then is your solution to prevent thousands of people who aren't eligible, from voting?

You are aware aren't you, that in races as close as many we've seen lately, "thousands" of votes is plenty to sway the outcome of entire elections, and change the course of the entire country. You don't think that's a problem worth actually solving and taking action against? Or are you happy with the fact that you think the fraud that does and will occur is more likely to benefit the side you support?

The whole "Democrats are trying to steal elections by registering illegal immigrants and encouraging them to vote Democratic by promoting social programs" argument.

Again, this is just your red herring. I couldn't care less if thousands of people are illegally voting because Democrats put them up to it, or because "oops! It was an accident" or whatever the freakin' reason is. The fact is, thousands of people who aren't legal voters, should not be voting.

Or let me put it another way. The issue you cite in that statement is the same issue that conservatives use when arguing against new gun-control legislation. That is, the problem is the enforcement of the gun laws already on the books ... and new gun laws are unnecessary and burdensome to the law-abiding public. Sound familiar?

Clever point, I'll grant you. The problem with this is that the gun control law argument pertains to the fact that no matter how many laws you pass on top of the ones we already have, criminals will still get their hands on guns, and find ways to commit crimes. New laws only effect the law abiding. That's a bad thing in that case, because the law abiding owning guns are not the problem.

A new law requiring ID to vote, should only effect the law abiding also. The reason that's not a bad thing in this case is pretty simple- ONLY the law abiding should be affected, because only the law abiding should be voting. Law-abiding as in, people here legally, who are legally eligible to vote.

So we should pass legislation that requires a photo ID to vote that will disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of poor, elderly, and/or minority voters in order to stop less than 100 cases of voter "fraud" a year (many of which can be attributed to mistakes)? I think not.

Geesh, where to even start with this. First off, all your "poor, elderly and minority" Victocrat noise has already been refuted several times in this thread. I'm not going to get into again, but for the record, I too have little sympathy for anyone who can't bother to obtain a $10 (or less, or free) ID, in a nation with "poor" people as wealthy as ours actually are.

As for the fewer than 100 cases: you're talking about only those that have actually gone as far as a trial and conviction! That's always going to be a TINY fraction of the actual incidents of virtually any crime.

The relevant detail of course, is just what I pointed out: thousands of people vote illegally.

That only a hundred or so actually get caught and fewer still are actually convicted is just proof of how the odds of getting away with committing voter fraud falls on the side of the perps, not the legal system, and in this case, not on the side of the entire country that should have its elections decided ONLY by legal voters.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

So what then is your solution to prevent thousands of people who aren't eligible, from voting?

The solution is to re-direct the time and effort being spent trying to pass new Photo ID requirements into better training for poll workers. Maybe even have professional poll workers employed by the state rather than nominally paid volunteers. Oh ... and maybe outlaw the practice of purging eligible voters off the voting rolls simply because they haven't voted in X number of elections ... so that when they finally go to vote for an election that interests them they are all of a sudden "ineligible". After all, a good chunk of the "thousands of people what aren't eligible" can attributed to that foolishness right there.

OAW

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by OAW 

The solution is to re-direct the time and effort being spent trying to pass new Photo ID requirements into better training for poll workers. Maybe even have professional poll workers employed by the state rather than nominally paid volunteers.

Train them to do WHAT, exactly? Check people's IDs and make sure people are who they say they are? Oh wait, you're saying we can't do that. So WHAT exactly are poll workers (professional or otherwise) supposed to do?

Oh ... and maybe outlaw the practice of purging eligible voters off the voting rolls simply because they haven't voted in X number of elections ... so that when they finally go to vote for an election that interests them they are all of a sudden "ineligible". After all, a good chunk of the "thousands of people what aren't eligible" can attributed to that foolishness right there.

Is that voters who haven't re-registered to vote (when required) in so many election cycles? How exactly does one become unfairly ineligible to vote all of a sudden, if you've taken care of your responsibilities in registering to vote in the first place?

[OAW]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Train them to do WHAT, exactly? Check people's IDs and make sure people are who they say they are? Oh wait, you're saying we can't do that. So WHAT exactly are poll workers (professional or otherwise) supposed to do?

Again. The issue here isn't the requirement to present ID. The issue is the requirement to present photo ID. No one ... including myself ... has said that people shouldn't have to present ID at all.

Let me reiterate how things work here in Missouri. If you are registered to vote then you are on the voter rolls. When you go to your voting precinct you must present an ID of some sort (doesn't have to be a photo ID) or a voter registration card. The poll worker checks the name and address on your ID or voter registration card against the name and address on the voter roll. You then sign the entry on the roll so that no one else can vote under that name/address combination. At this point you can go vote.

So the bottom line is that only those people are are registered to vote are allowed to vote. It is possible that someone could come in with a photocopy of someone else's voter registration card and vote for them ... but when the real person comes in and tries to vote they will find that they can't because someone already signed the voter roll. Voting more than once is prevented with this system. And let's keep it real, just how many times have you heard of a voter complaining that someone else fraudulently voted using their name and address information? Answer: Not enough to even warrant discussion.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Is that voters who haven't re-registered to vote (when required) in so many election cycles? How exactly does one become unfairly ineligible to vote all of a sudden, if you've taken care of your responsibilities in registering to vote in the first place?

It happens when certain election officials decide to purge the rolls of people who have "taken care of their responsibilities and registered to vote in the first place" .... simply because they chose not to vote in a certain number of election cycles. It is also usually accompanied by lax communication to people that re-registration is "required". So people show up at their polling place and try to vote, only to find out on election day that they are no longer registered. And consequently, they don't get to vote. Which I contend is "voter suppression" and is a much bigger issue than so-called "voter fraud". The million dollar question is what purpose does this practice serve other than to cause confusion on election day and prevent people from voting? Why should a registered voter be punished simply because they chose not to participate in a set number of election cycles?

Most people in this country vote during the presidential election cycles. If other elections are occurring simultaneously then they get some traffic too. But when those non-presidential elections occur outside of a presidential election (e.g. state representative, state senate, city council, ballot measures, etc.) the vast majority of registered voters don't bother. So even if one only votes every 4 years in presidential elections one can miss several election cycles. And even if one chose not to vote over several presidential election cycles (usually because the choice is between Satan and Lucifer) what difference does it make? If you are an eligible voter who is registered to vote there is no reason to arbitrarily purge you from the voter rolls. Period.

OAW

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Again. The issue here isn't the requirement to present ID. The issue is the requirement to present photo ID. No one ... including myself ... has said that people shouldn't have to present ID at all.

Let me reiterate how things work here in Missouri. If you are registered to vote then you are on the voter rolls. When you go to your voting precinct you must present an ID of some sort (doesn't have to be a photo ID) or a voter registration card. The poll worker checks the name and address on your ID or voter registration card against the name and address on the voter roll. You then sign the entry on the roll so that no one else can vote under that name/address combination. At this point you can go vote.

I've no issue with any of the above, and at the same time if the above isn't any great hardship, I don't see where the simple addition of a photo is too much of a hardship either. Photo ID is required for something as simple as boarding an airplane or purchasing alcohol if you appear borderline in age , and I don't see where requiring it to vote (infinitely more important than other things that require it) is the big deal you're trying to paint it as.

And let's keep it real, just how many times have you heard of a voter complaining that someone else fraudulently voted using their name and address information? Answer: Not enough to even warrant discussion.

Is it? How many times have we heard of a citizen complaining about someone fraudulently using their name and information to get jobs they shouldn't have- quite often. Who says it's not going on with voting as well? I really don't know, but ID theft in this country is a big problem for other things. In any case, it's a side issue, because I doubt the biggest numbers of people voting illegally involve ID theft, because apparently even that level of fraud isn't even necessary to vote illegally.

And consequently, they don't get to vote.

You're playing a bit of a game of blurring things together here- if they don't get to vote, then they aren't among the 'thousands of people who vote even though they are ineligible to vote'- which you just asserted they were.

I'm all for ending such practices as you describe as well when and where they actually happen. But some things like, "People didn't know they needed to re-register to vote" sound a bit like things that are lumped in that are actually matters of personal responsibility- which you libs do have a habit of doing, so you'll have to forgive my suspicions.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

I've no issue with any of the above, and at the same time if the above isn't any great hardship, I don't see where the simple addition of a photo is too much of a hardship either. Photo ID is required for something as simple as boarding an airplane or purchasing alcohol if you appear borderline in age , and I don't see where requiring it to vote (infinitely more important than other things that require it) is the big deal you're trying to paint it as.

It's not a big deal for you. And it's not a big deal for me. But it is a big deal for a significant portion of the population. The primary form of photo ID in this country is the drivers license. Sure, there are photo State IDs but I can honestly count on one hand the number of times I've come across someone with one of those in my entire life. So the people who will be impacted most by a photo ID requirement are generally those people who do not drive. Either because they are too poor to own a car and rely on public transportation, or because they are too elderly to drive. There are also the issues of elderly people, especially those in the African-American community born in the deep South, having a birth certificate that is needed in order to obtain a photo ID .... and the time and expense involved in obtaining it and other necessary supporting documentation. So in light of that, and given the fact that the current system I outlined above works with little to no issues ... why deny someone's great-grandmother who was born in Mississippi during the Jim Crow era the opportunity to vote today because the hospitals and state government at the time didn't consider the birth of a black baby to be an event worth recording on a birth certificate? Especially when she has her voter registration card in hand?

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

You're playing a bit of a game of blurring things together here- if they don't get to vote, then they aren't among the 'thousands of people who vote even though they are ineligible to vote'- which you just asserted they were.

No game. I just misspoke the first time. My view there is that voter suppression is more of an issue than voter fraud. My bad.

OAW

[tie]

It isn't very hard to get a state ID. I think if you can get to the polling place, you can probably get yourself an ID. Of course, if you are voting absentee anyway...

[dcmacdaddy]

Personally I am in favor of a national ID card or a requirement that everyone over the age of 18 possess a United States passport. Heck, when guys turn 18 they have to register with Selective Service, so why not impose another requirement for passport ownership on all citizens. Doing so would provide irrefutable proof of your citizenship--and hence your right to vote--as well as your identity--forging a passport, especially the new electronic passports is NOT an easy thing to do. As for those of you concerned about cost, the application fee should be waived for anyone who falls below the government's poverty line.

I think there should be a requirement for this in order to obtain any services from the federal government. Also, if you want to reduce identify theft, a state could require presentation of a passport when applying for a driver's license. And, if you were a financial institution, make people show proof of age and identity using a passport when applying for credit services (mortgages, loans, credit cards).

Think about it, in the country today identification is used to provide proof of several major personal characteristics. Identification is used to show proof of a person's age, location, physical appearance, and sometimes residency or citizenship status. The passport provides almost irrefutable proof of one's age, physical appearance, and residency/citizenship status and could be used in conjunction with other forms of identification to provide proof of location (where one lives). If states chose to use the passport as a basis for obtaining a driver's license then the driver's license could become a similarly secure form of identification. Someone reviewing a driver's license for accuracy purposes could feel confident that information on age, appearance, and citizenship/residency status is accurate--because it is based on the passport--and then only the information on geographic location would need to be verified.

I think this is an important issue because in today's world of actual and virtual identities it is much easier to obscure the truth about one's identity than it should be. You wouldn't need to carry your passport with you at all times as in a "show us your papers, comrade" way but for situations where proving one's identity is a requirement, possession of a United States passport could go a long way towards helping insure that individuals can a) prove their identity with a high degree of reliability and b) minimize the potential for identity fraud/theft. So, when you would go to vote, you bring your passport--which proves who you are-- and your state-issued driver's license and vote registration card--which shows you are qualified to vote at that specific polling place.

[macintologist]

I'm sorry but which is worse,

a fraudulent vote, or
someone who should be able to and wants to vote, cannot because of these new restrictions

The second one is MUCH worse, therefore I do not support any additional restrictions on determining voter eligibity.

Besides, I think it's a load of crap to begin with. I think anyone who lives and works and pays taxes in this country should be able to vote, ANYONE.