Voter fraud...

[Nightshade]

Seriously. Is there any other legitimate reason democrats want to keep people from having to present ID when voting other than being able to commit fraud?

http://thefederalistpapers.integratedma ... id-750.jpg

You NEED photo ID for many lesser reasons. Why not require it for voting?

[Vander]

To allow people without ID to vote.

[vision]

Why not require it for voting?

Voting is freedom of speech in it's purest form. That freedom is the very first amendment in our constitution.

[Spidey]

Photo ID, ★■◆●…what’s next…background checks.

[Ferno]

Is voter fraud really a problem? Who would benefit from it, anyways?

The worst that would happen is a party that some people wouldn't like gets voted in. But that already happens. Plus, any kind of fraud on this scale would require an absolute biblical amount of effort to pull off, something that is these days the antithesis of modern american culture.

[callmeslick]

Seriously. Is there any other legitimate reason democrats want to keep people from having to present ID when voting other than being able to commit fraud?

because a significant percentage of the minority population in our deep south has diffficulty getting such, believe it or not. Further, older people also run into difficulties. Were it made SIMPLE to get a valid ID, I'd have few issues. Of course, extensive studies have shown that there is EXTREMELY low incidence of fraud.

You NEED photo ID for many lesser reasons. Why not require it for voting?

are any of those other reasons involving a RIGHT of citizenship?

[callmeslick]

big campaign money means bigger government, why don't conservatives want that to stop?
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/03/opini ... m=Facebook

[Spidey]

The only valid counter argument is the deliberate act of trying to keep some people out of the poles.

And there is some small merit to having difficulty obtaining ID, but that one is solvable.

All of the other arguments involving rights, citizenry etc…is clutching at vapors, as it has already been pointed out countless times in the gun debates…none of your protected rights are absolute.

[woodchip]

You NEED photo ID for many lesser reasons. Why not require it for voting?

are any of those other reasons involving a RIGHT of citizenship?

Yes, you need one to buy a firearm from a store.

[callmeslick]

Yes, you need one to buy a firearm from a store.

I'm sure this will sound nit-picky to you, but any lawyer will agree about the importance of what I'm about to say:
You have the right to POSSESS a weapon, but buyiing or selling a weapon comes into the realm of commerce, which the government
is given the specific responsiblity to regulate.

[woodchip]

And does the same govt. not have the same right to regulate the polls so wide spread packing of votes does not occur?

[callmeslick]

And does the same govt. not have the same right to regulate the polls so wide spread packing of votes does not occur?

sure, they monitor that stuff every election. Further, the data has been picked over, and the incidence of voter fraud is proven to be less than 0.1%, and there have been exactly ZERO cases where fraud can be shown to have affected outcome.

[Ferno]

And does the same govt. not have the same right to regulate the polls so wide spread packing of votes does not occur?

sure, they monitor that stuff every election. Further, the data has been picked over, and the incidence of voter fraud is proven to be less than 0.1%, and there have been exactly ZERO cases where fraud can be shown to have affected outcome.

see also: Manufactroversy

[woodchip]

"Lay me down in ignorance I sleep" Funny how ignorant people are here. Here's the problem, how would you even know if voter fraud occurred? When I google voter fraud the sources that nay-sayed it were leftist liberal rags like the Huffington Post. Then when I found a conservative site I found this:

But New York City’s watchdog Department of Investigations has just provided the latest evidence of how easy it is to commit voter fraud that is almost undetectable. DOI undercover agents showed up at 63 polling places last fall and pretended to be voters who should have been turned away by election officials; the agents assumed the names of individuals who had died or moved out of town, or who were sitting in jail. In 61 instances, or 97 percent of the time, the testers were allowed to vote. Those who did vote cast only a write-in vote for a “John Test” so as to not affect the outcome of any contest. DOI published its findings two weeks ago in a searing 70-page report accusing the city’s Board of Elections of incompetence, waste, nepotism, and lax procedures.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/3 ... -john-fund

So go look up the NYC DOI report and maybe you'll learn something that your liberal sources are trying to hide from you.

[Vander]

The way I see it, I would rather allow 10 fraudulent votes by inaction than to deny a single legitimate vote by action.

My greater worry for election fraud comes with injecting technology into it. For meaningful fraud to happen due to lack of ID, the enterprise must be large, and is more likely to be detected. However, for meaningful fraud to happen based on technology, the enterprise need not be large.

[Spidey]

I’m not so sure applying death penalty logic to voting is such a good idea.

Let me see…so if we allow 1000 fraudulent votes to occur as not to prevent 100 people from voting…that’s acceptable…what about 10,000.

Or did you literally mean “10”?

[Vander]

I'm saying I'm willing to accept a bit of possible fraud if the rules designed to thwart that specific fraud will disallow some current legitimate voters from voting.

[woodchip]

Still don't see how a legitimate voter would be required from getting picture ID...other than laziness.

[Lothar]

Still don't see how a legitimate voter would be required from getting picture ID...

There are still parts of the country where it's difficult for people from certain minority groups to get ID.

My favored solution is to fix that problem, rather than using it as an excuse to not fix problems with voting.

[woodchip]

I would have to imagine in this day and age with groups of people who help get people registered to vote wouldn't also help them get the photo ID. So I still see no excuse.

[callmeslick]

Still don't see how a legitimate voter would be required from getting picture ID...other than laziness.

then, you might wish to read up on Alabama and North Carolina pulling a lot of DMV locations in primarily black communities, and denying student ID.

[Spidey]

I'm saying I'm willing to accept a bit of possible fraud if the rules designed to thwart that specific fraud will disallow some current legitimate voters from voting.

Well, after thinking about it, sure considering the chances all eleven votes would be cast for your team, I can understand why your position would be a no brainer, makes perfect sense.

[Vander]

Well, you can always just come out and say you think I'm being disingenuous. I would have the same opinion if the undefined vote fraud went against "my team." (voter fraud is not prevalent enough to say either way, so I do not take for granted that such fraud supports either side) I would like to think I would have the same opinion if voter ID laws disproportionately effected the "other team."

It's not like I'm for voter fraud. I just don't see that it's any kind of issue meaningfully effecting elections at this point. If voter fraud can be shown to be a legitimate occurring issue, (rather than simply possible) I would probably change my opinion. That simply isn't the case at this point.

[Spidey]

Nah...I was just teasing.

[Lothar]

IMO, voter fraud and vote suppression are the same issue. They're both attempts to give +1 extra margin to your side, either by adding a fake vote or removing a legitimate vote. So I don't buy the reasoning that one problem is somehow worse than the other, or that we should accept 10x more of one to avoid the other. I also don't buy the reasoning that since there's not proof of either one turning elections, we should ignore it -- particularly since we don't even have the mechanisms in place to detect either problem reliably.

We should take both problems seriously. Which means, yes, requiring some form of ID to be checked against some sort of list of eligible voters in a precinct, while simultaneously investigating and correcting instances where people are being denied ID or otherwise being denied access to polls.

[Ferno]

I view voter fraud and voter suppression as similar, but not the same. But given that voter fraud is a small issue that's been blown out of proportion, I tend to give the former less weight than the latter. We've seen suppression in action, and it is a real thing.

As for voter fraud existing, it's pretty much made a moot point by:

A) can a person produce a utility bill?
B) does the person live a valid address?
C) has the person received a voter information card?

[Vander]

I don't buy the reasoning that one problem is somehow worse than the other...

I disagree. Harm from both fraud and suppression may be the same to the outcome of an election, but suppression also directly harms the specific disenfranchised voter. That is what makes suppression worse, IMO. Whether or not a single fraudulent or suppressed vote is meaningful to the outcome of an election is beside the point I'm trying to make.

It's not zero sum to me. My 10-1 number was just a throw-away to show that I'm against suppressing a single legitimate vote to thwart a single fraudulent vote. I don't know what number I'd actually put on it, but it would be much greater than 1-1.

[Lothar]

voter fraud is a small issue that's been blown out of proportion.... We've seen suppression in action

The trick here is that voter suppression is easier for individuals to spot -- because it happens directly to someone. We don't actually know that it's a larger issue than fraud; we don't have a comprehensive system for detection.

I suspect voter fraud, by virtue of being much harder to detect, is likely to actually be a larger problem. But even if it's not, I think both issues need to be dealt with in tandem -- it's not just important to have the right number of votes or the right winners; it's important for the process itself to be trustworthy for every individual and for whole groups. It's important for people to feel like their vote counts, and to feel like their vote isn't getting wiped out by dead people or Diebold machines or whatever.

Don't overlook secondary effects. If people have reason to believe that their vote won't count because they don't trust the process, they stay home -- which can throw an election even if there's no actual fraud or suppression. And if people don't trust the process, whoever is elected is constantly under the shadow of "stolen election" rumors, and leaders on the other side are expected to stonewall rather than compromise, and we get the dysfunctional government we had under Bush and then under Obama (Florida 2000 and Birtherism both contributed to the "not legitimately the president" sentiment.) Functional government requires a trustworthy process, not a process under which we pretend like either fraud or suppression is not a real issue and therefore ignore the concerns of voters who feel they're not on a level playing field.

[Spidey]

But, that makes too much sense.

[Tunnelcat]

So having to obtain photo ID won't be a hardship for anyone. Well, the shoe's on the other foot now. Republicans in their zeal to screw over those pesky Dem voters have locked out one of their own reliable voters with their draconian photo ID laws in at least one case below. I'm not sure about the other voter, but I doubt these 2 examples are rare cases of people having issues getting their photo ID's. Serves Republicans right.

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/opinio ... 95406.html

http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/op- ... 89956.html

[Vander]

Here's a study that looks at the effect of the current Voter ID laws on turn out. It basically quantifies what was previously mostly speculation: Voter ID laws disproportionately depress minority turnout, which in turn depresses votes for Democrats.

[Spidey]

Yea yea, and nobody ever talks about the other side of the coin. That being the advantages that Democrats have over Republicans.

Just a few…

1. Working for large cities/unions that encourage their employees to take off and vote.
2. Democrats outnumber Republicans two or three to one.
3. Early voting.
4. Proximity to polling places. (many rural Americans must travel farther to polling places, and cities have better public transportation)
5. Gerrymandering was originally designed to give minorities more representation.
6. Same day registration.

The list goes on, but it’s pointless.

[Krom]

Wait... You're implying its unfair that Democrats outnumber Republicans?

[Tunnelcat]

Yea yea, and nobody ever talks about the other side of the coin. That being the advantages that Democrats have over Republicans.

Just a few…

1. Working for large cities/unions that encourage their employees to take off and vote.
2. Democrats outnumber Republicans two or three to one.
3. Early voting.
4. Proximity to polling places. (many rural Americans must travel farther to polling places, and cities have better public transportation)
5. Gerrymandering was originally designed to give minorities more representation.
6. Same day registration.

The list goes on, but it’s pointless.

Voter ID represses the vote, a right we all have under the Constitution. If that's the only way Republicans can win an election, then they've got some serious issues they'll need to address so that they can attract more voters who will choose their candidates or agendas over that of the Dems.

To your points:

#1 Unions are almost extinct. They don't have the influence they once had. If Republicans want union votes in the first place, stand for things that union workers would vote for.

#2 So? Breed more Republicans.

#3 Early voting can be helpful to everyone, not just Democrats. If Republicans don't want the convenience of early voting, their loss.

#4 Then have vote by mail, like we do in Oregon. Last I heard, the Post Office served rural areas quite well.

#5 Gerrymandering has been used to effect by both parties. I've seen it happen even in my own mostly white district and it sucks.

#6 Same day registration. What's the big deal? Get out and vote! It's your civic duty.

[Ferno]

I was going to say something before now, but I forgot about this thread and vander beat me to the punch.

[Spidey]

Actually I think I confused Gerrymandering for majority-minority districts.

No Krom I don’t think the fact that Democrats outnumber Republicans is unfair, nor do I believe that requiring voter ID is unfair, my point was that things is things…and that’s just the way it is.

[Tunnelcat]

Tell that to those who used to be able to legally vote, but can no longer vote because of some circumstance in their past they had no control over and can't change now. They'll probably have a vastly different opinion of "things is things…and that’s just the way it is".

[Spidey]

But you made pretty good points in response to my list, and that is the way I feel about voter ID. (as in…there are solutions)

Here is the way I see it…

We all know what the Republicans are up to, but at the same time people see ID as a no brainer.

So you have two ways to deal with it:

1. You can strike down the voter ID laws, and that takes care of the suppression problem, but it leaves behind the lingering problem people have with the system… that being a distrust, and some with the idea that there really is a fraud problem.

2. You can fix the ID problem and kill two birds at the same time. (rendering the suppression problem moot, and creating more trust in the system at the same time)

Believe it or not, this is a case where I believe the feds should step in and fix the problem…not by striking down voter ID laws, but by regulating and standardizing the ID process, creating a national ID system (not mandatory ID) making it free for low income people and making it legal for all ID purposes, like how money is legal for all debts private and public.

It really wouldn’t be that hard, and you put the entire issue to rest, instead of only addressing part of the problem.

But you see…both parties kinda like it the way it is now…The Republicans get away with hijinks for a while, and Democrats get to make political hay.

[Ferno]

An ID to vote implies privilege and says 'if you're not X you can't vote'.

[Tunnelcat]

That's right Ferno. You want to drive a vehicle, it's a privilege that requires a photo ID and testing. You want to vote in certain Republican states, it's now a privilege since those voters now have to get a photo ID and pay for it (poll tax) when they have difficulties obtaining one.

Spidey, you know what gets me about requiring voter ID? It's an idea that's not to far removed from having a national ID, which most Republicans, Liberals and Libertarians, which is almost everyone in this country, hate like the plague. So why do Republicans push it in the first place when it goes against everything they stand for in their hatred of all things government? It's pretty much a national ID in a state sheep's clothing. The SSN is almost a national ID right now and it wasn't supposed to be used for that.

https://epic.org/privacy/id_cards/