[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

You have it flipped.

I'm saying there is little in person fraud because there is a better option already available.

How do I have it flipped? I never said I was against protecting the absentee ballot and have often challenged our care for the military ballot for example.

Any particular reason why we can't also put greater care into the other 2/3rds of the votes cast?

[subego]

I'm completely lost at how you're getting what you're saying from what I'm writing.

My point is one has to theorize why in person fraud isn't caught a lot.

I'm saying the theory "people don't do it often" fits in with the conditions of "far easier and more effective avenue for fraud".

The theory "people just aren't getting caught" does not address the "far easier avenue" condition.

I feel the claim "a lot of people are doing it but not getting caught" needs to address why someone would do it in the face of "easier avenue for fraud".

To use an analogy, if it's easier for me to pick your pocket, and less dangerous, why would I mug you instead?


As for why we shouldn't take "more care", it's my reason given upthread. I have a big problem with denying a legit vote.

[ebuddy]

Let me try this another way.

• how many fraudulent absentee ballots are cast each election?
• do you have any evidence to show that tougher ID verification at the polls leads to greater fraudulence in absentee balloting?
• how many absentee ballots are cast for each election vs in-person polling? *Hint: if absentee balloting produces a 10% rate of fraud, you've disenfranchised 10,000 votes for every 100,000 cast. If 3 times the number of votes are cast in-person at a 5% rate of fraud, you've disenfranchised 15,000 votes.
• Any reason we can't take measures to secure both forms of voting?

[subego]

Did my final paragraph (which was repeating what I had already said) in my last post not answer the last question from your post above?

I try to make my posts succinct in the hope all of it gets read.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

Did my final paragraph (which was repeating what I had already said) in my last post not answer the last question from your post above?

I try to make my posts succinct in the hope all of it gets read.

I was hoping you'd expand on your argument about absentee ballots as that just left me thinking; "yeah... we should secure those too."

We just disagree. It happens.

[subego]

That's a fair question, which I will gladly answer shortly. I only felt my response to the in person question might die of loneliness.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

That's a fair question, which I will gladly answer shortly. I only felt my response to the in person question might die of loneliness.

Are you talking about this in-person question?

To use an analogy, if it's easier for me to pick your pocket, and less dangerous, why would I mug you instead?

I don't know why, but people are mugged all the time and isn't that bad too? Seems to me the pick-pocket perp doesn't want to risk being identified.

[subego]

No. The question as to why we shouldn't take "more care", which was then repeated with the addition of absentee ballots.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

No. The question as to why we shouldn't take "more care", which was then repeated with the addition of absentee ballots.

What's the question? I mean, we should take more care to protect ballots across the board.

[subego]

This has reached Abbott and Costello proportions.

Your question: why shouldn't we take more care with ballots.
My answer: because it is more important not to reject a legit vote than it is to stop a fraudulent one. By an order of magnitude.

[ebuddy]

Oh. Well then we still disagree.

[subego]

Which is fine.

It's just you kept asking the question, and I kept answering, only to have you ask the same question over again.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by subego 

This has reached Abbott and Costello proportions.

Your question: why shouldn't we take more care with ballots.
My answer: because it is more important not to reject a legit vote than it is to stop a fraudulent one. By an order of magnitude.

Would not taking more care with them ensure that those legit votes retain their legitimacy?

Of what value is a legit vote when fraudulent ones are counted all the same? To me, stopping fraudulent votes is the measure of ensuring those legit votes are still legit. Obviously, rejecting legit votes is to be avoided at all costs, but I don't think you have to throw the baby out with the bathwater in this situation. It's 2014, and yes our government is terrible at doing anything without scandal, cronyism, corruption, and incompetence. But to me, that's exactly why we need to ensure that the government and it's lapdogs do not mess with the voting process.

Of course, there are challenges here. I fail to see a difference between allowing one fraudulent vote alongside one legit vote and allowing neither vote, except as a philosophical thought exercise.

[subego]

You make very good points, but I see the government raising the bar to vote as exactly what you fear: the government messing with the voting process.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by subego 

You make very good points, but I see the government raising the bar to vote as exactly what you fear: the government messing with the voting process.

Perhaps I don't understand the other side well enough.

The objection is that requiring verification of who you are will disenfranchise lower income families that don't possess any legit forms of ID and/or the means of acquiring one, correct?

[subego]

Basically.

It's a question of jumping through hoops. The ease which which someone can jump through a particular hoop is going to directly correlate with how much money they have.

It isn't merely a question of paying for the ID, though that constitutes a poll tax IMO, the question is more one of time.

If you're working for less than minimum wage, not only can you not afford to wait on line at the DMV (only open when you're working), there's a big chance your boss wouldn't let you go, anyway.

Compound that with a pair of kids you're the single mother of.


I can't go to this person and say "sorry, voting is just not for you".

[OAW]

^^^^



OAW

[BadKosh]

It is about HOW important is is to a person too. Don't tell me they have NO CHANCE WHATSOEVER over a year or more to find ONE TIME to get that ID.

[subego]

I don't view rights that way.

Whether you get to exercise a right shouldn't be based on how important that right is to you.

Also, I don't think anyone is claiming the photo ID requirement is an impossible standard to meet. My point is your ability to jump through hoops is directly related to how much income you make.

Asking anyone in this thread to fulfill the ID requirement is close to a meaningless amount of effort. That's not the case with the below-minimum wage worker example I give above.

Making the person with the least power work even harder to exercise their power seems backwards.

[Shaddim]

Asking someone to get a free state ID is too much?

[subego]

Again, for everyone here, it's trivial. The law's not an issue for all of us personally.

Also, it's not free in lots of places AFAIK, and if it is, I imagine they throw hoops in there.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by subego 

Again, for everyone here, it's trivial. The law's not an issue for all of us personally.

Also, it's not free in lots of places AFAIK, and if it is, I imagine they throw hoops in there.

Only hoop I know of is a birth certificate. The ID is free here, as long as a person presents a valid EBT card, or some form of evidence that they're on disability, welfare, or unemployment. This is one of those things that I can't fathom (existing without any ID in a modern society).

[OAW]

^^^

Hundreds if thousands if not millions of people do it all day every day. If you don't drive (e.g. you live in an large urban area and rely on public transportation) and you are "unbanked" (e.g. because of income or credit reasons you have no bank account and rely on check cashing services) you have very little reason to have a drivers license or any other form of government ID. My friend ebuddy recited the standard conservative argument by listing all the common things that require ID. But if you look closely at that list if is fundamentally rooted in a middle class lifestyle. Which as subego has pointed out seems trivial for the participants in this forum ... but to others on lower rungs on the socio-economic ladder may be things that they have never experienced (i.e. fly on an airplane, etc.).

That being said, I find it interesting that many on the right will brook no restrictions on gun ownership whatsoever (i.e. background checks, magazine capacity restrictions, etc.) by relying on the argument that it is a "constitutional right" … but magically that same logic flies out the window when it comes to the "constitutional right" to vote. Imagine that.

OAW

[subego]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Only hoop I know of is a birth certificate. The ID is free here, as long as a person presents a valid EBT card, or some form of evidence that they're on disability, welfare, or unemployment. This is one of those things that I can't fathom (existing without any ID in a modern society).

How do they know that? They're not exactly looking it up on the Internet.

In theory they could call, and hope someone answers. They never answer for me. When exactly are they calling? Lots of State offices are only open during business hours. During their half-hour lunch?

What if someone goes "you know what, I don't want to be on the dole even though I could". **** them?

[Shaddim]

Who are these people? The extremely poor? If they're going to get EBT, welfare, disability, Medicaid, or even unemployment benefits they're required to have identification. If they aren't that poor and don't require those programs, then they can afford to get an ID. I'm not understanding who would be disenfranchised, here.

Originally Posted by subego 

How do they know that? They're not exactly looking it up on the Internet.

In theory they could call, and hope someone answers. They never answer for me. When exactly are they calling? Lots of State offices are only open during business hours. During their half-hour lunch?

What if someone goes "you know what, I don't want to be on the dole even though I could". **** them?

They're too poor to look into getting an ID, but too "principled" to get any form of assistance? You're talking about someone who lives entirely off the grid and doesn't have legal employment (you have to present ID for that). Again, what is this person, an apostle of Ted Kaczynski?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

^^^

Hundreds if thousands if not millions of people do it all day every day. If you don't drive (e.g. you live in an large urban area and rely on public transportation) and you are "unbanked" (e.g. because of income or credit reasons you have no bank account and rely on check cashing services) you have very little reason to have a drivers license or any other form of government ID. My friend ebuddy recited the standard conservative argument by listing all the common things that require ID. But if you look closely at that list if is fundamentally rooted in a middle class lifestyle. Which as subego has pointed out seems trivial for the participants in this forum ... but to others on lower rungs on the socio-economic ladder may be things that they have never experienced (i.e. fly on an airplane, etc.).

You didn't look over the list nor follow much of the conversation that stemmed from it. You need ID for Medicaid, you need ID for Medicare, you need ID for EBT, you need ID for Obamacare and I have used some of these to know first-hand. You need ID for all these things. Simply put, ID is the most fundamental means of security and it's as much about protecting the other 90+% who vote in the conventional ways and have ID.

"Living off the grid" (I love that Shaddim) is not acceptable cause to leave an election process open to fraud. Either you're on the grid or you're not. If not, don't complain that you can't participate in the grid. In short, I don't buy the argument that they can get to the welfare offices and the polling places, but they can't get to the DMV.

That being said, I find it interesting that many on the right will brook no restrictions on gun ownership whatsoever (i.e. background checks, magazine capacity restrictions, etc.) by relying on the argument that it is a "constitutional right" … but magically that same logic flies out the window when it comes to the "constitutional right" to vote. Imagine that.

OAW

Can you show me where even the NRA has advocated "no gun restrictions whatsoever"? This sounds like an emotional argument you pulled from the fringe that fails on its face. I for one have always been in favor of registration and ID on file and have also favored gun show restrictions and wait-times. There are multiple restrictions and while some argue for more and some less, I don't think asking someone to GET an ID to support the sanctity of a vote is too much to ask. This pretty much also decimates the arguments others have been making that a right is not worthy of protection from fraudulence and abuse.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by subego 

My point is your ability to jump through hoops is directly related to how much income you make.

Asking anyone in this thread to fulfill the ID requirement is close to a meaningless amount of effort. That's not the case with the below-minimum wage worker example I give above.

Making the person with the least power work even harder to exercise their power seems backwards.

This stuff broke my BS meter. People have priorities. A person with poor judgement is self handicapped by their stupidity. Perhaps thats a good thing as we really don't want idiots voting. "THE LEAST POWER"??? (BARF!)

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

When I'm writing a check, the recipient uses my ID to write my Driver's License number across the top. Never not been carded to cash a check unless I'm using my bank card -- which required ID to get. I've never not been ID'd for prescription medication and they'll often do it now for over-the-counter stuff because folks are making meth out of it. I've never not been asked for ID when renting or buying homes. If you look old enough, I suspect you wouldn't have to be carded for cigarettes and alcohol, but if it's questionable and they don't, huge potential problem for them. While some will break rules for convenience-sake, ID is the single-most effective means of guarding against fraudulence or criminal behavior. If it's sensible and reasonable in general commerce, I don't see how it's all of a sudden draconian at the polls.

This wasn't about it being draconian, this was about your list of how an ID is needed even for everyday things, and I'm showing you that its necessity is exaggerated. I live in a red part of PA, FYI, and I do not know the tellers or clerks that are serving me in these cases.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Way back in the day, when I was into trouble -- I used a check-cash express place where they not only took my ID, but my fingerprint.

I can't speak for the integrity of cash checking businesses in low income neighborhoods, but I would not be surprised by a "don't ask" policy or more lax standards.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

A lot of folks think their jury summons comes exclusively from their election commission whereas in most places it's actually a combination of the DMV through your State secretary and the election board.

It's not standard across the board, but the point is, many will not see jury summons because they're not registered.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Good point. I suspect many are working under the table for money, namely drug dealers and illegal immigrants etc...

lol – I wasn't thinking in such nefarious terms, but it took some time before I was struck with a situation – I could very much see someone working odd jobs by word of mouth under the table, or working part-time/opportunistically for a legit acquaintance doing things like painting or carpentry but being paid as an employee under the table (mutually beneficial). The kind of money that might make a difference at the end of the month but a situation that doesn't quite afford a business to be built around it.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You didn't look over the list nor follow much of the conversation that stemmed from it.

I don't think you did either because I pointed out quite a bit of it was either unlikely or out of reach for the poor, followed by several examples that aren't regularly enforced.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Can you show me where even the NRA has advocated "no gun restrictions whatsoever"?

He didn't say NRA, he said "on the right."

For example, this comes to mind.

In late October, Mr. Metcalf wrote a column that the magazine titled “Let’s Talk Limits,” which debated gun laws. “The fact is,” wrote Mr. Metcalf, who has taught history at Cornell and Yale, “all constitutional rights are regulated, always have been, and need to be.”

The backlash was swift, and fierce. Readers threatened to cancel their subscriptions. Death threats poured in by email. His television program was pulled from the air.

...and before the argument is made, my voting process is already regulated without the addition of voter ID.

[Snow-i]

Couldn't we nip this in the butt during the registration process? I mean how hard would it be to issue IDs at specific polling places same day? We can do it at the DMV in about 10 minutes, why not just make the ID process part of the voter-registration process? Of course, it would take time for this system to propagate but there's no reason we can't do it over say 10 years or so?

I mean, we have to keep a signature on file for everyone how hard would it be to expand that database to include a picture in 2014? I imagine not very, considering how many other government systems are already readily capable of this.

[subego]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

This stuff broke my BS meter. People have priorities. A person with poor judgement is self handicapped by their stupidity. Perhaps thats a good thing as we really don't want idiots voting. "THE LEAST POWER"??? (BARF!)

This goes back to voting being a right.

Idiots with poor judgment get rights too.

As I stated earlier, do these peoples' votes help me and the nation? Most likely not. That's too bad for me. I have to lump it. I'm not against other methods conceptually. I actually kinda like the Starship Troopers model, where you need to have served in the military to have the privilege to vote.

That's not the system we have though. Our system is every citizen of age who isn't a felon gets to vote. Full stop.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Couldn't we nip this in the butt during the registration process? I mean how hard would it be to issue IDs at specific polling places same day?

I keep on mentioning the system here where you get sent an ID by the BoE, but this isn't good enough apparently.

[subego]

P.S. I'm cool with letting adults buy longarms without IDs. Sign an affidavit, start blowing the shit out of things. Gun ownership is a right.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Who are these people? The extremely poor? If they're going to get EBT, welfare, disability, Medicaid, or even unemployment benefits they're required to have identification. If they aren't that poor and don't require those programs, then they can afford to get an ID. I'm not understanding who would be disenfranchised, here.



They're too poor to look into getting an ID, but too "principled" to get any form of assistance? You're talking about someone who lives entirely off the grid and doesn't have legal employment (you have to present ID for that). Again, what is this person, an apostle of Ted Kaczynski?

I'll admit, I was stretching it a bit, but it's not unreasonable for someone who's getting paid under the table to feel they shouldn't get, say, unemployment, because, well... they're working.

There's also no question assistance isn't required. Plenty of illegal immigrants make close to nothing, and can't get these services, yet they survive.

[subego]

As an aside, heard an interview with Ted Kaczynski's brother, who gave up the location of Ted's shack to the FBI.

The most interesting part was Ted's brother's wife convincing him to read the manifesto.

He finally gave in and read it with the intent of proving to himself it couldn't be his brother.

Let's just say that as he read it, there were several "oh shi..." moments.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

"Living off the grid" (I love that Shaddim) is not acceptable cause to leave an election process open to fraud. Either you're on the grid or you're not. If not, don't complain that you can't participate in the grid. In short, I don't buy the argument that they can get to the welfare offices and the polling places, but they can't get to the DMV.

The issue that Subego is so aptly pointing out is that the working poor punching a clock generally have a much harder time getting to a DMV that keeps banker's hours than a middle class working making a fixed salary. And that also applies to the downright unemployed collecting a welfare check.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Can you show me where even the NRA has advocated "no gun restrictions whatsoever"? This sounds like an emotional argument you pulled from the fringe that fails on its face. I for one have always been in favor of registration and ID on file and have also favored gun show restrictions and wait-times. There are multiple restrictions and while some argue for more and some less, I don't think asking someone to GET an ID to support the sanctity of a vote is too much to ask. This pretty much also decimates the arguments others have been making that a right is not worthy of protection from fraudulence and abuse.

You may advocate such restrictions my friend. And the NRA used to may years ago in many instances as well. But today it is readily apparent that the NRA opposes even the most basic restrictions like background checks. See how that proposal that had 90+ public support after the Newtown tragedy went down in flames in the wake of NRA opposition. Surely you aren't arguing that they supported the measure? Do I really have to provide a link to prove what we both already know?

OAW

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Couldn't we nip this in the butt bud during the registration process?

Fixed that for you.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I mean how hard would it be to issue IDs at specific polling places same day? We can do it at the DMV in about 10 minutes, why not just make the ID process part of the voter-registration process? Of course, it would take time for this system to propagate but there's no reason we can't do it over say 10 years or so?

I mean, we have to keep a signature on file for everyone how hard would it be to expand that database to include a picture in 2014? I imagine not very, considering how many other government systems are already readily capable of this.

That's not a bad idea. But issuing same day photo ID isn't the issue. It's being able to acquire the supporting documentation where the rubber meets the road. So having a photo ID requirement to vote isn't a nefarious thing per se when A) obtaining one can be done for free or at a nominal cost (including supporting documentation), and B) the logistics involved in doing so are relatively painless. The problem that many of us have with such requirements is that those pushing for this in a coordinated fashion in dozens of GOP controlled states around the nation are either not fully addressing the issues mentioned in A or B ... or actively seeking to make them worse. Therefore, their arguments that photo ID is an innocuous requirement has little to no merit.

Why are GOP controlled states restricting early voting? Because that leads to higher voter participation ... which should be a laudable goal for anyone who claims to support representative democracy. But that also tends to result in more votes for Dems.

Why are GOP controlled states eliminating voting on the Sunday before election day? Because that's when African-American churches traditionally organize "Souls to the polls" on that day where church vans and congregation members provide transportation to the polls for the poor and elderly in their local communities. And as we all know this overwhelmingly results in more votes for Dems.

Why are GOP controlled states restricting same day voter registration at the DMV? Because again ... that leads to higher voter participation which tends to result in more votes for Dems. Whereas the GOP tends to benefit when voter participation is lower.

So I agree with you. We could "nip this in the bud" and do all this as part of the voter registration process. But that's not what the GOP actually wants. The aim here isn't to implement some wholesale disenfranchisement of demographic groups that tend to vote for Dems. It's to put up just enough obstacles to suppress their voter participation rate by a few percentage points. Which in a close election ... which tends to be the case in presidential election years ... can make all the difference in the world. And that's especially obvious when in-person voter impersonation fraud ... which is the only thing that a photo ID can prevent ... is virtually non-existent!

OAW

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by OAW 

The issue that Subego is so aptly pointing out is that the working poor punching a clock generally have a much harder time getting to a DMV that keeps banker's hours than a middle class working making a fixed salary. And that also applies to the downright unemployed collecting a welfare check.

"Working poor" need an ID to work, employers require that you show one. I know, because I'm an employer and I'm required to get 2 forms of ID before I can hire anyone, for the DHS paperwork.

You may advocate such restrictions my friend. And the NRA used to may years ago in many instances as well. But today it is readily apparent that the NRA opposes even the most basic restrictions like background checks. See how that proposal that had 90+ public support after the Newtown tragedy went down in flames in the wake of NRA opposition. Surely you aren't arguing that they supported the measure? Do I really have to provide a link to prove what we both already know?

OAW

That's off the subject, not to mention more truthiness than I can handle in an evening.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by OAW 

That's not a bad idea. But issuing same day photo ID isn't the issue. It's being able to acquire the supporting documentation where the rubber meets the road. So having a photo ID requirement to vote isn't a nefarious thing per se when A) obtaining one can be done for free or at a nominal cost (including supporting documentation), and B) the logistics involved in doing so are relatively painless. The problem that many of us have with such requirements is that those pushing for this in a coordinated fashion in dozens of GOP controlled states around the nation are either not fully addressing the issues mentioned in A or B ... or actively seeking to make them worse. Therefore, their arguments that photo ID is an innocuous requirement has little to no merit.

Why are GOP controlled states restricting early voting? Because that leads to higher voter participation ... which should be a laudable goal for anyone who claims to support representative democracy. But that also tends to result in more votes for Dems.

Why are GOP controlled states eliminating voting on the Sunday before election day? Because that's when African-American churches traditionally organize "Souls to the polls" on that day where church vans and congregation members provide transportation to the polls for the poor and elderly in their local communities. And as we all know this overwhelmingly results in more votes for Dems.

Why are GOP controlled states restricting same day voter registration at the DMV? Because again ... that leads to higher voter participation which tends to result in more votes for Dems. Whereas the GOP tends to benefit when voter participation is lower.

So I agree with you. We could "nip this in the bud" and do all this as part of the voter registration process. But that's not what the GOP actually wants. The aim here isn't to implement some wholesale disenfranchisement of demographic groups that tend to vote for Dems. It's to put up just enough obstacles to suppress their voter participation rate by a few percentage points. Which in a close election ... which tends to be the case in presidential election years ... can make all the difference in the world. And that's especially obvious when in-person voter impersonation fraud ... which is the only thing that a photo ID can prevent ... is virtually non-existent!

OAW

All GOP-controlled states? Pants on fire. Your over-boiled hyperbole is starting to tune me out, again.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

This wasn't about it being draconian, this was about your list of how an ID is needed even for everyday things, and I'm showing you that its necessity is exaggerated. I live in a red part of PA, FYI, and I do not know the tellers or clerks that are serving me in these cases.

Tellers work at banks and without a bank card which required ID to get, you'll need ID for banking. The need is exaggerated unless of course you don't use any banking services which are not exclusive to the rich or middle class, particularly for those who no longer get paid in paper checks, but direct deposits to a bank account. (which follows because you generally need ID to be employed, whether you're rich or poor) Clerks may or may not ID you, but there are products by which they're required to ID you. If you're fortunate enough that you do not need or want any of the common cold medicines that now require ID or any other substance that generally requires ID, well then you're correct. I'm showing you that its necessity is being marginalized.

I can't speak for the integrity of cash checking businesses in low income neighborhoods, but I would not be surprised by a "don't ask" policy or more lax standards.

Since the whole thing is predicated on repayment of a "loan", I'd be absolutely shocked at any check-cashing business that doesn't identify the payee, remaining in business. ID is useful for protecting others against fraud and abuse.

It's not standard across the board, but the point is, many will not see jury summons because they're not registered.

And most will.

lol – I wasn't thinking in such nefarious terms, but it took some time before I was struck with a situation – I could very much see someone working odd jobs by word of mouth under the table, or working part-time/opportunistically for a legit acquaintance doing things like painting or carpentry but being paid as an employee under the table (mutually beneficial). The kind of money that might make a difference at the end of the month but a situation that doesn't quite afford a business to be built around it.

Generally, if you earn more than $9500 in a given year, you need to file an SS-5 form for a Tax ID which requires ID and a copy of your Social Security card on file. You do bring up examples where criminality may get you around these pesky requirements, but protecting their desire to live off the grid isn't just-cause to leave an election process open to fraud. If they're earning a living wage through self-employment, they're using ID.

I don't think you did either because I pointed out quite a bit of it was either unlikely or out of reach for the poor, followed by several examples that aren't regularly enforced.

You offered anecdotes that were met example-for-example with anecdotes of my own. i.e. you didn't get anywhere with that. The poor need ID for the wealth of services available to them that require their application and proof of their financial wherewithal.

He didn't say NRA, he said "on the right."

Short list of those on the right, critical of the NRA please.

For example, this comes to mind.

Here's a leftist boob who believes all sharp objects including everything from knives, to forks, nails, and glass bottles should be banned. For sanity's sake, these folks should probably not be our gauge for reasoned arguments.

...and before the argument is made, my voting process is already regulated without the addition of voter ID.

It's regulated through a registration process I've already demonstrated is rife in fraud.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

All GOP-controlled states? Pants on fire. Your over-boiled hyperbole is starting to tune me out, again.

I never said "all". But it is widespread and coordinated in GOP controlled states. Especially in the south and in crucial swing states. And if you think I'm just making all this stuff up ...

Working ballot by ballot, county by county, the Republican Party is attempting to alter voting laws in the biggest and most important swing states in the country in hopes of carving out a sweeping electoral advantage for years to come.

Changes already on the books or in bills before state legislatures would make voting harder, create longer lines, and threaten to disenfranchise millions of voters from Ohio to Florida, Pennsylvania to Wisconsin, Georgia to Arizona and Texas.

Efforts underway include moving election days, ending early voting and forcing strict new voter ID laws. The results could significantly cut voter turnout in states where, historically, low participation has benefited Republicans.

In the 10 months since President Obama created a bipartisan panel to address voting difficulties, 90 restrictive voting bills have been introduced in 33 states. So far, nine have become law, according to a recent comprehensive roundup by the Brennan Center for Justice – but others are moving quickly through statehouses.

With eye on 2014, GOP ramps up war on voting | MSNBC

Courts Block GOP Voter Suppression Laws | The Nation

Yup, Voter ID Laws Have Nothing to Do With Fraud - The Daily Beast

OAW

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Since the whole thing is predicated on repayment of a "loan", I'd be absolutely shocked at any check-cashing business that doesn't identify the payee, remaining in business. ID is useful for protecting others against fraud and abuse.

I decided to google this and autocomplete gave me "check cashing no id required." Well!

Oh how about this: Cashing Checks & Check Cashing Locations | Speedy Cash

Don't have your ID? No problem. Simply stop by any of our check cashing locations, provide us with some basic personal information, and we will cash your check today.

Not needing/wanting an ID to cash checks – its a thing!

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

And most will.

Source. I tried googling the breakdown on states that pull from voter registration vs. whatever and couldn't find shit. PS. A lot of people we're talking about don't deal with the DMV either.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Generally, if you earn more than $9500 in a given year, you need to file an SS-5 form for a Tax ID which requires ID and a copy of your Social Security card on file. You do bring up examples where criminality may get you around these pesky requirements,

You consider a guy doing oddjobs under the table criminality?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You offered anecdotes that were met example-for-example with anecdotes of my own. i.e. you didn't get anywhere with that.

Bwuh? How did I not get anywhere with that?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Short list of those on the right, critical of the NRA please.

Hahaha, Once again, no one mentioned people on the right being critical of the NRA.
The original statement: "many on the right will brook no restrictions on gun ownership whatsoever"

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Here's a leftist boob who believes all sharp objects including everything from knives, to forks, nails, and glass bottles should be banned. For sanity's sake, these folks should probably not be our gauge for reasoned arguments.

What exactly are you rebutting here? You're comparing gun magazine subscribers to people who think everything should be banned?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

It's regulated through a registration process I've already demonstrated is rife in fraud.

Excuse me? Where has it been demonstrated it's rife with fraud? And further, can you demonstrate that the fraud that is being perpetrated actually has an effect on election outcomes?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

All GOP-controlled states? Pants on fire. Your over-boiled hyperbole is starting to tune me out, again.

Yes, it was hyperbole. Do you deny the majority of restrictive voting laws are coming from GOP controlled legislatures? Do you have examples of Democratic controlled legislatures doing the same?

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Fixed that for you.


Why are GOP controlled states restricting early voting? Because that leads to higher voter participation (ASSUMPTIONS)... which should be a laudable goal for anyone who claims to support representative democracy. But that also tends to result in more votes for Dems.

Why are GOP controlled states eliminating voting on the Sunday before election day? (ASSUMPTIONS)Because that's when African-American churches traditionally organize "Souls to the polls" on that day where church vans and congregation members provide transportation to the polls for the poor and elderly in their local communities. And as we all know this overwhelmingly results in more votes for Dems.

Why are GOP controlled states restricting same day voter registration at the DMV? (ASSUMPTIONS)Because again ... that leads to higher voter participation which tends to result in more votes for Dems. Whereas the GOP tends to benefit when voter participation is lower.



OAW

Fixed.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Yes, it was hyperbole. Do you deny the majority of restrictive voting laws are coming from GOP controlled legislatures? Do you have examples of Democratic controlled legislatures doing the same?

Democratically controlled states are trying to get even non-citizens the right to vote.

[subego]

Re: cold medicine

You just get someone with an ID to buy it for you. I have a friend with no ID. I get Claritin for him.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Re: cold medicine

You just get someone with an ID to buy it for you. I have a friend with no ID. I get Claritin for him.

I'm sure you vote for him too.

chicago!

[subego]

He's not dead yet.

[OAW]

I see the denial and dismissiveness WRT this issue continues unabated among some of our good friends on the right. Did BadKosh just say to me ... of all people ... that African-American churches organizing "Souls to the Polls" drives on the Sunday before Election Day is a mere "ASSUMPTION" on my part?

OAW

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by OAW 

I never said "all". But it is widespread and coordinated in GOP controlled states. Especially in the south and in crucial swing states. And if you think I'm just making all this stuff up ...

I'm in the South, in a Red state, and those things haven't happened here. Gonna narrow it down further or finally admit it's a quite isolated incident? *tuning out*

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Yes, it was hyperbole. Do you deny the majority of restrictive voting laws are coming from GOP controlled legislatures? Do you have examples of Democratic controlled legislatures doing the same?

Do the redistricting fiascos count?