PDA

View Full Version : Elections Voting laws may deter 10 million Hispanics, report says


Direckshun
09-25-2012, 10:33 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/decision2012/voting-laws-may-deter-10-million-hispanics-study-says/2012/09/22/d2e8b586-0272-11e2-9b24-ff730c7f6312_story_1.html

Voting laws may deter 10 million Hispanics, report says
By Krissah Thompson
Published: September 22

Civil rights groups are warning that as many as 10 million Hispanics may be deterred from casting ballots because of changes to voting laws.

In a report to be released Monday, the civil rights group Advancement Project cites the potential impact of newly restrictive photo identification laws, proof-of-citizenship requirements and late efforts in a few states to remove noncitizens from the voter rolls.

“It has the impact of scaring people and reminding them of [immigration] raids and other kinds of law enforcement that have been targeted toward these communities,” said Penda D. Hair, a co-director of the Advancement Project, part of a coalition of liberal groups that oppose the new voting laws.

Proponents of the efforts to tighten voting laws, including several secretaries of state, say they want to root out voter fraud and are not targeting particular demographic groups.

“The fact is our office only compared our voter rolls against DMV records where individuals showed proof of non-citizenship,” Rich Coolidge, spokesman for the Colorado secretary of state’s office, said in an e-mail. “To insinuate anything else is absolutely false and reckless. Unfortunately, some partisan groups attempt to leverage this effort for their own political gain.”

In-person voting fraud is rare, studies have shown, but there have been recent cases of absentee ballot fraud, and small numbers of noncitizens are registered to vote. In Colorado, the secretary of state’s office estimated last year that as many as 11,000 noncitizens were registered to vote. But after checking a federal immigration database, the state announced this month that 141 noncitizens were registered and as few as 35 had cast ballots.

Several of the states with more restrictive laws and procedures, such as Colorado, have large Hispanic populations. As the deadline to register voters approaches in many states, the Advancement Project’s report warns that the new rules are working against efforts to register Hispanics, the nation’s fastest-growing demographic.

Both President Obama and Republican nominee Mitt Romney are working hard to appeal to Hispanics, who could be key to winning important swing states if they turn out to vote in large numbers.

Advocacy groups have been trying for several years to increase the number of Latinos who vote. In 2010, 6.3 million Latinos who were eligible to vote reported that they were unregistered and 10.8 million said they did not vote, according to census figures cited by the report.

“At the end of the day, voting should be free, fair and accessible, and these barriers are standing in the way of an increasing demographic in this country,” said Judith A. Browne-Dianis, a co-director of the Advancement Project.

A dozen state legislatures passed rules last year requiring voters to present state-issued photo IDs, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, although in four states the laws were vetoed by Democratic governors.

Pennsylvania’s governor signed a voter ID bill in March that is still being litigated, with opponents presenting studies showing that blacks, Hispanics and others in urban areas are less likely to have the required ID.

In addition, 16 states — including Colorado, Florida and New Mexico — have attempted to “purge” noncitizens from registration lists. The Advancement Project cited examples of purges incorrectly flagging the names of naturalized citizens, putting them at risk for having their voter registration invalidated.

Florida halted an effort to remove noncitizens from lists when it became known that the database used by the state to check citizenship was out of date.

Denver resident Veronica Figoli, who immigrated from Venezuela in 1999, was among the legally registered voters in Colorado whose name was flagged for removal from voter rolls. The letter that she received said it was “extremely important” that she affirm her citizenship or withdraw from the voter rolls, which she said made her feel like a “second-class citizen.”

“To get this letter was kind of insulting,” said Figoli, who became a citizen in 2011 after what she said was a costly and stressful process. “There are so many steps and it is so confusing, and it’s expensive. And you are dealing with government and that makes you uncomfortable.” When she got the letter, she said, “I questioned myself.”

Figoli returned the required paperwork but said that others might be more fearful.

“I have a friend who said, ‘I wouldn’t do anything. . . . What if they revoke my citizenship?’ ” Figoli said. “The fear is there.”

Melinda Aguirre, who was born in Denver, also received a letter in English and Spanish questioning her citizenship. “I don’t even speak Spanish,” she said. “It’s just a bunch of [bull] what they are doing with certain people. My mom didn’t get this letter. My brother didn’t get this letter. Their last name is Roybal. But the Aguirres did.”

John Fund, a conservative columnist and author of “Stealing Elections: How Voter Fraud Threatens Our Democracy,” said recent polls show that advocates of cleaning up the voter rolls have public opinion on their side and that they are being unfairly accused of racism. “It is very unfortunate that this issue has been used by groups who want to yell racism in a crowded political theater,” Fund said. “This is not the way to debate these issues.”

Still, the National Council of La Raza, which has been working with a network of groups to register Hispanic voters, was one of a dozen civil rights groups that said last week that voting rights are in a “state of emergency.”

“Part of our frustration is that the debate over the voter integrity process has become a polarized thing,” said Clarissa Martinez De Castro, the group’s director of immigration and national campaigns. “It’s almost like voters have become guilty until proven innocent.”

Ana Navarro, a Republican campaign consultant in Florida, said she doesn’t expect Hispanics there to be dissuaded from registering or voting.

“I don’t get the sense that the average voter is out there ready to set their hair on fire over the voting law changes,” she said in an e-mail. “Political campaigns are in full swing in Florida and there’s just too many substantive issues like the economy, high unemployment, Medicare, and housing, that Floridians are worried about. . . . Ready or not, whether you like or dislike the changes to the process, voting is upon us.”

Floridians start getting absentee ballots in a couple of weeks, and in most states, voter registration closes 30 days before the election.

Direckshun
09-25-2012, 10:33 AM
The study: http://www.advancementproject.org/resources/entry/segregating-american-citizenship-latino-voter-disenfranchisement-in-2012

Interactive map of actual cases of voter fraud (virtually none): http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/map_of_the_week/2012/09/voter_id_laws_a_state_by_state_map_reveals_how_much_voter_fraud_there_is_in_the_united_states_almost _none_.html?wpisrc=newsletter_jcr:content

Voter ID laws can only fight one kind of fraud: in person voter fraud. It's perhaps the rarest forms of fraud (http://votingrights.news21.com/article/election-fraud/):

[There are] 207 cases of other types of fraud for every case of voter impersonation.

The Pennsylvania House of Representatives Speaker admits this is a political ploy:

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/EuOT1bRYdK8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

This is straight-up voter suppression by the Republican Party.

vailpass
09-25-2012, 10:38 AM
10 million non-conforming voters wiped out? It's a good start.

Seriously though. The only people afraid to verify their legal right to vote are people with something to hide.
Send me that letter, send it to every single registered voter.
I'll be happy to verify my status and proud of the answers I give.

blaise
09-25-2012, 10:40 AM
10 million people can't figure out a way to get an ID? Go get a freaking ID.

Donger
09-25-2012, 10:45 AM
Direckshun, do you think that requiring photo ID to vote negatively impacts the Democrats' chance to win?

Direckshun
09-25-2012, 11:21 AM
Direckshun, do you think that requiring photo ID to vote negatively impacts the Democrats' chance to win?

You tell me (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jul/4/id-law-could-impact-10-percent-pennsylvania-voters/):

Nearly 10 percent of Pennsylvania’s registered voters do not have photo identification cards from the state transportation department and could be ineligible to vote in November under the state’s new Republican-backed voter ID law.

The Pennsylvania Department of State reported Tuesday that more than 758,000 registered voters lack a standard driver’s license or a non-driver photo ID. That’s 9.2 percent of the state’s 8.2 million voters.

In Philadelphia, where Democrats outnumber Republicans by about 6-1, 18 percent of the city’s registered voters do not have the state photo ID, the Philadelphia Inquirer reported.

To win the state, Democratic candidates traditionally must pile up big margins of victory in Philadelphia to offset Republican vote totals elsewhere in the state.

Donger
09-25-2012, 11:22 AM
You tell me (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jul/4/id-law-could-impact-10-percent-pennsylvania-voters/):

And do you deny that that apparent fact influences your opinion on this matter, even a little?

Direckshun
09-25-2012, 11:26 AM
And do you deny that that apparent fact influences your opinion on this matter, even a little?

My motivations are immaterial. I'm not attempting to suppress the vote from unfriendly constituencies.

In person fraud is the only thing a photo ID can legitimately fight, and it's the rarest form of voter fraud. It almost never happens.

And yet Republican legislature after Republican legislature is passing these measures because they know they're going to further slant the election towards demographics friendly to them.

In some cases, they are openly admitting it.

This is antidemocratic.

Donger
09-25-2012, 11:28 AM
My motivations are immaterial. I'm not attempting to suppress the vote from unfriendly constituencies.

In person fraud is the only thing a photo ID can legitimately fight, and it's the rarest form of voter fraud. It almost never happens.

And yet Republican legislature after Republican legislature is passing these measures because they know they're going to further slant the election towards demographics friendly to them.

In some cases, they are openly admitting it.

This is antidemocratic.

I see. So, your motivations are immaterial, but others' motivations are.

Iowanian
09-25-2012, 11:30 AM
The past week or so there have been arrests in Iowa for illegal voting by illegal aliens in the past presidential election. Some Mexican, some Canadian.

You have to show id for a plethora of items less important than voting.

Any person with nothing to hide could get an ID for a few dollars and their life will be easier by having it, assuming they are a legal resident.

In other countries, people will walk 10 miles and stand in long lines risking suicide bombers to vote and proudly show an ink dipped finger, but its too much to ask our citizens to show an ID they may have to show to get into a movie or buy a pack of smokes.

Direckshun
09-25-2012, 11:32 AM
I see. So, your motivations are immaterial, but others' motivations are.

Whatever my motivations are, it doesn't change the fact that (a.) Republicans are openly admitting (b.) to passing laws that they know will suppress turnout from core Democratic constituencies (c.) to fight a problem that simply doesn't exist on any meaningful level (d.) using methods that would only be marginally effective, to be generous.

Their motivations, honestly, are the most dispensible part of this entire issue. Even if Republicans were shucky-darn earnest in their pursuit of this issue (which, again, they are not), it wouldn't change the fact that this is a terrible solution to a nonexistent problem that will very likely have serious electoral consequences.

Iowanian
09-25-2012, 11:33 AM
Find your North arrow.

Donger
09-25-2012, 11:35 AM
Whatever my motivations are, it doesn't change the fact that (a.) Republicans are openly admitting (b.) to passing laws that they know will suppress turnout from core Democratic constituencies (c.) to fight a problem that simply doesn't exist on any meaningful level (d.) using methods that would only be marginally effective, to be generous.

Their motivations, honestly, are the most dispensible part of this entire issue. Even if Republicans were shucky-darn earnest in their pursuit of this issue (which, again, they are not), it wouldn't change the fact that this is a terrible solution to a nonexistent problem that will very likely have serious electoral consequences.

I don't blame you for not wanting to admit your apparent hypocrisy on this, but I think you'd feel better if you'd just admit it.

And, you really shouldn't label it as "non-existent." Again.

Direckshun
09-25-2012, 11:38 AM
And, you really shouldn't label it as "non-existent." Again.

It's not an existing problem on any meaningful scale.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/map_of_the_week/2012/09/voter_id_laws_a_state_by_state_map_reveals_how_much_voter_fraud_there_is_in_the_united_states_almost _none_.html?wpisrc=newsletter_jcr:content

If you had to make a stink out of voter fraud, voter ID only addresses the least common type.

Republicans know this. The GOP's lawyers in Pennsylvania admitted in court that the few instances in which voter fraud had occurred could not have been prevented by a voter ID law.

Straight-up voter suppression.

Donger
09-25-2012, 11:41 AM
It's not an existing problem on any meaningful scale.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/map_of_the_week/2012/09/voter_id_laws_a_state_by_state_map_reveals_how_much_voter_fraud_there_is_in_the_united_states_almost _none_.html?wpisrc=newsletter_jcr:content

If you had to make a stink out of voter fraud, voter ID only addresses the least common type.

Republicans know this. The GOP's lawyers in Pennsylvania admitted in court that the few instances in which voter fraud had occurred could not have been prevented by a voter ID law.

Straight-up voter suppression.

Even the potential of people who shouldn't be voting deciding election results makes it meaningful.

Donger
09-25-2012, 11:43 AM
10 million non-conforming voters wiped out? It's a good start.

Seriously though. The only people afraid to verify their legal right to vote are people with something to hide.
Send me that letter, send it to every single registered voter.
I'll be happy to verify my status and proud of the answers I give.

Same here. And as a naturalized American citizen, I'd gladly whip out my naturalization certificate to prove my eligibility.

Dick Bull
09-25-2012, 11:43 AM
I don't blame you for not wanting to admit your apparent hypocrisy on this, but I think you'd feel better if you'd just admit it.

And, you really shouldn't label it as "non-existent." Again.

What is the hypocrisy?

That the party who this is being done to happens to be the one he supports?

Bottom line is he doesn't want some law for a "virtually" nonexistent problem whose goal is to suppress their opposition's vote turn out to dictate the outcome of this election.

The only hypocrisy would be if he didn't deliver the same amount of support if it happens to the other party.

Swanman
09-25-2012, 11:43 AM
ID's cost money to obtain, thus requiring ID is a form of a poll tax. That's not partisan, it's a fact. To require photo ID, the government entity needs to provide ID's free of charge. I believe Pennsylvania (pretty sure its that state) is attempting to institute a free-of-charge state ID, but there are concerns that they could satisfy all the requests in time for the election.

Donger
09-25-2012, 11:45 AM
What is the hypocrisy?

That the party who this is being done to happens to be the one he supports?

Bottom line is he doesn't want some law for a "virtually" nonexistent problem whose goal is to suppress their opposition's vote turn out to dictate the outcome of this election.

The only hypocrisy would be if he didn't deliver the same amount of support if it happens to the other party.

That Direckshun cares about this issue because it damages Democrats' chances of victory, if even a little, while simultaneously disparaging Republicans for wanting this because it helps them win.

Direckshun
09-25-2012, 11:47 AM
Even the potential of people who shouldn't be voting deciding election results makes it meaningful.

The potential?

There's been no serious cries of election fraud in our national elections in modern history, correct me if I'm wrong. We even had a national election come down to a few hundred votes in Florida in 2000, and virtually nobody serious cried foul.

Our elections are safe from fraud because of the superior laws we've passed and the superior enforcement we've empowered to protect us from it.

That's not what voter ID is about. It's about marginalizing the already-underrepresented constituencies that vote in ways Republicans disapprove.

Direckshun
09-25-2012, 11:48 AM
ID's cost money to obtain, thus requiring ID is a form of a poll tax. That's not partisan, it's a fact. To require photo ID, the government entity needs to provide ID's free of charge. I believe Pennsylvania (pretty sure its that state) is attempting to institute a free-of-charge state ID, but there are concerns that they could satisfy all the requests in time for the election.

Yup.

Dick Bull
09-25-2012, 11:48 AM
That Direckshun cares about this issue because it damages Democrats' chances of victory, if even a little, while simultaneously disparaging Republicans for wanting this because it helps them win.

With all due respect, the hypocrisy is seeing this and not being outraged by it. No matter the party.

I guess if you can't win the election or buy the election , then you can just try to steal it.

Direckshun
09-25-2012, 11:48 AM
That Direckshun cares about this issue because it damages Democrats' chances of victory, if even a little, while simultaneously disparaging Republicans for wanting this because it helps them win.

I refuse to support naked attempts at voter suppression.

You should, too.

Donger
09-25-2012, 11:52 AM
The potential?

There's been no serious cries of election fraud in our national elections in modern history, correct me if I'm wrong. We even had a national election come down to a few hundred votes in Florida in 2000, and virtually nobody serious cried foul.

Our elections are safe from fraud because of the superior laws we've passed and the superior enforcement we've empowered to protect us from it.

That's not what voter ID is about. It's about marginalizing the already-underrepresented constituencies that vote in ways Republicans disapprove.

Yes, the potential. For all we know, people who shouldn't be voting have already decided close elections.

If that doesn't bother you, that's fine. It bothers me.

Donger
09-25-2012, 11:54 AM
With all due respect, the hypocrisy is seeing this and not being outraged by it. No matter the party.

I guess if you can't win the election or buy the election , then you can just try to steal it.

My main motivation for supporting this is to help ensure that only the people who are eligible to vote are voting.

The fact that it hurts the Democrats is just a bonus.

Dick Bull
09-25-2012, 11:54 AM
Yes, the potential. For all we know, people who shouldn't be voting have already decided close elections.

If that doesn't bother you, that's fine. It bothers me.

So we should make it to where 10 million can't vote in case 4 or 5 might have cheated.

Direckshun
09-25-2012, 11:54 AM
Yes, the potential. For all we know, people who shouldn't be voting have already decided close elections.

If that doesn't bother you, that's fine. It bothers me.

I'm willing to put the odds of in person voter fraud actually stealing elections at 0.000~0001%.

The logistics of that needing to happen with our current laws and enforcement would have to be of the "widespread shadow conspiracy" variety.

To soothe your paranoia, you're willing to suppress the vote of the poor, of minorities, and of people you politically disagree with.

Beautiful work, there.

Donger
09-25-2012, 11:55 AM
So we should make it to where 10 million can't vote in case 4 or 5 might have cheated.

Can't vote?

Iowanian
09-25-2012, 11:56 AM
They can all vote if they care enough to get off of their ass, and go spend half an hour getting an ID.

It's not rocket science and it's not asking them to break 10 tons of rock with a nerf football.

Donger
09-25-2012, 11:57 AM
I refuse to support naked attempts at voter suppression.

You should, too.

And you should support requiring voters to prove that they are eligible to cast a ballot.

Direckshun
09-25-2012, 11:59 AM
And you should support requiring voters to prove that they are eligible to cast a ballot.

You're talking about presenting an ID at the polls specifically. Which won't reduce voter fraud in any meaningful way. Not that voter fraud occurred in meaningful quantities to begin with.

Donger
09-25-2012, 12:00 PM
I'm willing to put the odds of in person voter fraud actually stealing elections at 0.000~0001%.

The logistics of that needing to happen with our current laws and enforcement would have to be of the "widespread shadow conspiracy" variety.

To soothe your paranoia, you're willing to suppress the vote of the poor, of minorities, and of people you politically disagree with.

Beautiful work, there.

I'd feel the same way about this if the "suppressed" masses were Republicans.

Direckshun
09-25-2012, 12:01 PM
I'd feel the same way about this if the "suppressed" masses were Republicans.

Of course you would. The lone reason you support this in the first place is because your side will benefit.

That is your only reason for supporting voter suppression. Because it helps you win.

Donger
09-25-2012, 12:02 PM
Of course you would. The lone reason you support this in the first place is because your side will benefit.

That is your only reason for supporting voter suppression. Because it helps you win.

No, it isn't. See above.

Deberg_1990
09-25-2012, 12:02 PM
That Direckshun cares about this issue because it damages Democrats' chances of victory, if even a little, while simultaneously disparaging Republicans for wanting this because it helps them win.

Whos to say alot of those voters dont vote Repub?

Direckshun
09-25-2012, 12:02 PM
No, it isn't. See above.

You said you'd "feel the same way."

You'd oppose voter suppression in the form of voter IDs.

But because it's not your side being suppressed, big whoop. Any ol' platitude will do.

Fraud? Sure. Let's go with fraud.

Direckshun
09-25-2012, 12:03 PM
Whos to say alot of those voters dont vote Repub?

A lot of them do.

But most of them will be poor, urban, and/or minorities.

All of which are sure to skew Democratic at the very least, if not vote Democratic in droves.

Deberg_1990
09-25-2012, 12:05 PM
A lot of them do.

But most of them will be poor, urban, and/or minorities.

All of which are sure to skew Democratic at the very least, if not vote Democratic in droves.

Are there statistics on this....or is this just everyones popular assumption?

Donger
09-25-2012, 12:05 PM
You said you'd "feel the same way."

You'd oppose voter suppression in the form of voter IDs.

But because it's not your side being suppressed, big whoop. Any ol' platitude will do.

Fraud? Sure. Let's go with fraud.

No, if Republicans were the ones facing damage by requiring voter IDs, I'd still support it.

Dick Bull
09-25-2012, 12:06 PM
I am perfectly fine with them requiring ID. My issue is that they shouldn't have to pay for an ID to vote. This is a poll tax, plain and simple.


You can spin this way or that way about how important it is in everyday life but obviously it is not that important in theirs if they don't have one.

Direckshun
09-25-2012, 12:07 PM
Are there statistics on this....or is this just everyones popular assumption?

Uhhh... what part are you disputing, exactly?

Donger
09-25-2012, 12:07 PM
I am perfectly fine with them requiring ID. My issue is that they shouldn't have to pay for an ID to vote. This is a poll tax, plain and simple.


You can spin this way or that way about how important it is in everyday life but obviously it is not that important in theirs if they don't have one.

I don't disagree. I can think of much worse ways to spend our tax money.

Direckshun
09-25-2012, 12:08 PM
No, if Republicans were the ones facing damage by requiring voter IDs, I'd still support it.

Then you don't feel the same way. You are wrong.

And I definitively disagree that you wouldn't, anyway. And there's no way you can prove it regardless so you're wasting your fingers flinging ridiculous platitudes like that against the wall.

Dick Bull
09-25-2012, 12:08 PM
I don't disagree. I can think of much worse ways to spend our tax money.

Problem solved.

I think the real question is who is opposing that and why?

Direckshun
09-25-2012, 12:09 PM
Problem solved.

I think the real question is who is opposing that and why?

I'm opposing it because it's unnecessary, it doesn't fight voter fraud, and it marginalizes constituences that just so happen to vote Democratic.

Re-watch the YouTube in post #2.

Donger
09-25-2012, 12:11 PM
Then you don't feel the same way. You are wrong.

And I definitively disagree that you wouldn't, anyway. And there's no way you can prove it regardless so you're wasting your fingers flinging ridiculous platitudes like that against the wall.

No, I'm not wrong.

I support requiring photo ID in order to be able to cast a vote. That apparently hurts Democrats, because more of their voters don't have a photo ID. I would still support requiring a photo ID if more Republican voters didn't have photo IDs.

And I don't care if you don't believe me. You don't even have the courage to admit your motivations on the matter.

Donger
09-25-2012, 12:12 PM
Problem solved.

I think the real question is who is opposing that and why?

People who don't want to take a hit at the polls, obviously. Namely, Democrats.

Direckshun
09-25-2012, 12:15 PM
No, I'm not wrong.

I support requiring photo ID in order to be able to cast a vote. That apparently hurts Democrats, because more of their voters don't have a photo ID. I would still support requiring a photo ID if more Republican voters didn't have photo IDs.

You're wrong if you think that's the summation of my stance on this issue.

I don't believe you. Which is why volunteering useless pieces of information like "c'mon I'd do it for you if the roles were reversed" is useless in a pointless hypothetical in a virtual community where everything about ourselves is already impossible to prove.

Donger
09-25-2012, 12:17 PM
You're wrong if you think that's the summation of my stance on this issue.

I don't think that that's your entire motivation, but I do believe that it's a part of it.

I don't believe you. Which is why volunteering useless pieces of information like "c'mon I'd do it for you if the roles were reversed" is useless in a pointless hypothetical in a virtual community where everything about ourselves is already impossible to prove.

I don't care if you believe me.

Mr. Plow
09-25-2012, 12:18 PM
I am perfectly fine with them requiring ID. My issue is that they shouldn't have to pay for an ID to vote. This is a poll tax, plain and simple.


You can spin this way or that way about how important it is in everyday life but obviously it is not that important in theirs if they don't have one.

According to this post by Direckshun, at least in PA, people without ID's are able to get a free state issued ID so that they are able to vote.


http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=8929854&postcount=751



The Pennsylvania measure, known as Act 18, was signed into law by Republican Gov. Tom Corbett. It would require 8.2 million registered voters to present a state-approved photo ID, such as a driver’s license or a new, free, state-issued voter ID card at the polls. The state estimated earlier this year that about 89,000 Pennsylvania voters, or 1%, might lack an acceptable ID. Opponents of the law say the number is far higher.

Direckshun
09-25-2012, 12:19 PM
I don't care if you believe me.

Then don't volunteer that information. Unless you're just fully aware it is unprovable and doesn't advance your argument in any way.

Dick Bull
09-25-2012, 12:23 PM
I'm opposing it because it's unnecessary, it doesn't fight voter fraud, and it marginalizes constituences that just so happen to vote Democratic.

Re-watch the YouTube in post #2.

I've seen that clip and I know their motivations. Truth being told, if they are provided a free id so that they can vote, I don't know what the problem is. If they are able to get ID free of charge so they can vote then I don't feel this on the Government, but rather on those who choose not to exercise their right. However, if they cannot provide ID"S to all who need them in time then it shouldn't be allowed.

patteeu
09-25-2012, 12:25 PM
Magenta for illegal voters!

Donger
09-25-2012, 12:25 PM
Then don't volunteer that information. Unless you're just fully aware it is unprovable and doesn't advance your argument in any way.

Yes, I'm fully aware it is unprovable.

Donger
09-25-2012, 12:26 PM
Magenta for illegal voters!

LMAO

Dick Bull
09-25-2012, 12:26 PM
According to this post by Direckshun, at least in PA, people without ID's are able to get a free state issued ID so that they are able to vote.


http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=8929854&postcount=751

And it appears that is the case in most, however in Pennsylvania, they don't know if they'll be able to issue them all in time

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/24/pennsylvania-voter-id-court-case_n_1910970.html?utm_hp_ref=elections-2012

BWillie
09-25-2012, 01:04 PM
Yes, requiring people to confirm they are US citizens to vote is racist. Why on EARTH would you NOT verify someone's ID that is going to vote. It makes no sense to me why you would this practice is not ALREADY implemented EVERYWHERE.

KC native
09-25-2012, 01:15 PM
The past week or so there have been arrests in Iowa for illegal voting by illegal aliens in the past presidential election. Some Mexican, some Canadian.

You have to show id for a plethora of items less important than voting.

Any person with nothing to hide could get an ID for a few dollars and their life will be easier by having it, assuming they are a legal resident.

In other countries, people will walk 10 miles and stand in long lines risking suicide bombers to vote and proudly show an ink dipped finger, but its too much to ask our citizens to show an ID they may have to show to get into a movie or buy a pack of smokes.

There were 3 arrests and 2 of them were Canadian.

Iowanian
09-25-2012, 01:17 PM
Yes.

That's part of my point that it's not just a ploy to stop Mexicans from voting.
It's a way to ensure a legal, legitimate voting outcome.

Illegal Canadian votes are just as bad as Pablo Escobar's.


More arrests are pending.

KC native
09-25-2012, 01:20 PM
Yes.

That's part of my point that it's not just a ploy to stop Mexicans from voting.
It's a way to ensure a legal, legitimate voting outcome.

Illegal Canadian votes are just as bad as Pablo Escobar's.


More arrests are pending.

Suuuuuuuuuure there are. There more than likely not get any convictions either because in Iowa, you have to knowingly commit voter fraud. All those people have to say is they thought they were entitled to vote and it's not a crime.

KC native
09-25-2012, 01:23 PM
Also, I'm glad the usuals showed up in this thread.

This will be my last post in this thread. The only reason the gop is doing this because they know they are on the wrong side of demographics. If they don't suppress voters then they will become an irrelevant minority party even faster.

Iowanian
09-25-2012, 01:25 PM
All the more reason to require everyone to show ID.

You can't fix stupid, but they can help you from being guilty of it at the polls.



By your standards, the only reason the Left cares about this issue so much is because they know they can't be elected without the illegal immigrant vote....

KC native
09-25-2012, 01:29 PM
All the more reason to require everyone to show ID.

You can't fix stupid, but they can help you from being guilty of it at the polls.



By your standards, the only reason the Left cares about this issue so much is because they know they can't be elected without the illegal immigrant vote....

Sorry one last one because you're a fucking country rube.

There is no epidemic. The Democrats don't need ineligible voters to win. The gop with their social wars and coded racism and homophobia is turning away young voters. The gop is going to lose election just due to our shifting demographics and their failure to be anything other than the party of the rich, the white, and the old.

Donger
09-25-2012, 01:35 PM
Sorry one last one because you're a ****ing country rube.

There is no epidemic. The Democrats don't need ineligible voters to win. The gop with their social wars and coded racism and homophobia is turning away young voters. The gop is going to lose election just due to our shifting demographics and their failure to be anything other than the party of the rich, the white, and the old.

Thanks for stopping by, Speedy.

patteeu
09-25-2012, 01:59 PM
Sorry one last one because you're a ****ing country rube.

There is no epidemic. The Democrats don't need ineligible voters to win. The gop with their social wars and coded racism and homophobia is turning away young voters. The gop is going to lose election just due to our shifting demographics and their failure to be anything other than the party of the rich, the white, and the old.

Did you live through the harrowing social wars of the 80s too? Would you regale us with a tale, please?

Dick Bull
09-25-2012, 02:04 PM
Yes, requiring people to confirm they are US citizens to vote is racist. Why on EARTH would you NOT verify someone's ID that is going to vote. It makes no sense to me why you would this practice is not ALREADY implemented EVERYWHERE.

Let's not be mistaken as to the ulterior motives on this. It was conceived to suppress voter turn out.

qabbaan
09-25-2012, 02:10 PM
You have to prove eligibility to be on various public benefits, and the people we are concerned with here I bet don't have trouble making that happen.

gochiefs_va
09-25-2012, 02:16 PM
You know sometimes...just sometimes...You liberals need to take your head out of your asses.

Big fucking whoop that people need to show an ID to vote.

If we applied your reasoning to everything that we need ID for, then there should be no reason for people to have ID's at all.

IDing for alcohol. By your logic nobody under 21 drinks right? Sure maybe .0001% of kids get caught, so therefore we shouldnt ask for ID's for alcohol purchases.

IDing for tobacco. By your logic no kids under 18 smoke/chew right?

How about using some fucking common sense? Kids buying alcohol cigarettes is hard to do, because they ID for it.

It's not rocket science. To pretend like "ZOMG IT"S SOOO HARD TO GET AN ID...WAAAH. ZE POOR PPL CANT DO IT!@!!", is fucking retarded. If they are too fucking lazy to go get a free ID, then they have other problems bigger than who to vote for..

vailpass
09-25-2012, 02:21 PM
Magenta for illegal voters!

LMAO

How long before Direckshun suicides? Dude is WAY too involved emotionally in this crap.

vailpass
09-25-2012, 02:23 PM
Also, I'm glad the usuals showed up in this thread.

This will be my last post in this thread. The only reason the gop is doing this because they know they are on the wrong side of demographics. If they don't suppress voters then they will become an irrelevant minority party even faster.

Says the open advocate of illegal immigration, Seedy Gonzalez. Andale! Ariba!

Dick Bull
09-25-2012, 02:23 PM
You know sometimes...just sometimes...You liberals need to take your head out of your asses.
You first
Big ****ing whoop that people need to show an ID to vote.
We're not the one making a big stink over a virtually nonexistent problem
If we applied your reasoning to everything that we need ID for, then there should be no reason for people to have ID's at all.

IDing for alcohol. By your logic nobody under 21 drinks right? Sure maybe .0001% of kids get caught, so therefore we shouldnt ask for ID's for alcohol purchases.

IDing for tobacco. By your logic no kids under 18 smoke/chew right?
These are not rights nor are the functions of the government. You're comparing apples to oranges
How about using some ****ing common sense? Kids buying alcohol cigarettes is hard to do, because they ID for it.
So the goal is to get it where voting is harder to do?
It's not rocket science. To pretend like "ZOMG IT"S SOOO HARD TO GET AN ID...WAAAH. ZE POOR PPL CANT DO IT!@!!", is ****ing retarded. If they are too ****ing lazy to go get a free ID, then they have other problems bigger than who to vote for..
I agree that they should be able to get a free id, however I don't agree with you hacking up the english language like my 15 year old daughter texting a "bestie"


My thoughts

AustinChief
09-25-2012, 02:24 PM
Let's not be mistaken as to the ulterior motives on this. It was conceived to suppress voter turn out.

Just like the opposition to it is because Dems want to allow illegal votes and more voter fraud.

(blanket statements without any backing cut both ways)

vailpass
09-25-2012, 02:24 PM
Who is so poor they can't get a photo ID if the REALLY, TRULY, ACTUALLY want one?

Dick Bull
09-25-2012, 02:24 PM
Just like the opposition to it is because Dems want to allow illegal votes and more voter fraud.

(blanket statements without any backing cut both ways)

Post 2, from the mouth of a republican, seems to be pretty damning evidence

Dick Bull
09-25-2012, 02:26 PM
Who is so poor they can't get a photo ID if the REALLY, TRULY, ACTUALLY want one?

Actually I'm thinking of going to the DMV and asking for my money back on my license. If I'm required to use it to vote, I shouldn't have to pay for it.

vailpass
09-25-2012, 02:28 PM
Actually I'm thinking of going to the DMV and asking for my money back on my license. If I'm required to use it to vote, I shouldn't have to pay for it.

If that's what is has come to in this country, that we have to provide free photo ID for some, then it should be free for all.
So, I support your right to claim your free ID. Next time I have to get a new one I'll ask for the freebie as well. Though it'll be a while since here in AZ our driver's license is good for 20 years.

Dick Bull
09-25-2012, 02:33 PM
If that's what is has come to in this country, that we have to provide free photo ID for some, then it should be free for all.
So, I support your right to claim your free ID. Next time I have to get a new one I'll ask for the freebie as well. Though it'll be a while since here in AZ our driver's license is good for 20 years.

Figured you'd jump all over my failed logic on that one.

qabbaan
09-25-2012, 02:41 PM
If that's what is has come to in this country, that we have to provide free photo ID for some, then it should be free for all.
So, I support your right to claim your free ID. Next time I have to get a new one I'll ask for the freebie as well. Though it'll be a while since here in AZ our driver's license is good for 20 years.

This has been proposed, but the retort will be that simply requiring the illegal alien to go someplace to get a free ID is an undue burden. What if they dont have gas money? What if they don't have bus fare? What if they don't have child care? By all this logic we should be sending a government flunkie over to their house to translate and fill out their ballot for them. (Jobs program?)


At some point, we have to ask people to lift a finger if they want to participate.

vailpass
09-25-2012, 02:43 PM
Figured you'd jump all over my failed logic on that one.

Honestly, I wasn't jumping at all. I don't think your logic failed, on the contrary it was sound.
I am all for providing free Ids for the poor. What I'm not for is people showing up to claim their free ID while smoking a cigarette, talking on a cell phone, driving a car, wearing $125 athletic shoes, etc. etc.

vailpass
09-25-2012, 02:46 PM
This has been proposed, but the retort will be that simply requiring the illegal alien to go someplace to get a free ID is an undue burden. What if they dont have gas money? What if they don't have bus fare? What if they don't have child care? By all this logic we should be sending a government flunkie over to their house to translate and fill out their ballot for them. (Jobs program?)


At some point, we have to ask people to lift a finger if they want to participate.

Yep. Can they find a way to get out and buy food? Cigarettes? Collect food stamps?
If they REALLY, TRULY, HONESTLY want an ID they can get one.

Dick Bull
09-25-2012, 02:48 PM
Honestly, I wasn't jumping at all. I don't think your logic failed, on the contrary it was sound.
I am all for providing free Ids for the poor. What I'm not for is people showing up to claim their free ID while smoking a cigarette, talking on a cell phone, driving a car, wearing $125 athletic shoes, etc. etc.

Except the license. I pay for the ability to drive, which isn't required. Now if all I had was an ID.....

Dick Bull
09-25-2012, 02:49 PM
This has been proposed, but the retort will be that simply requiring the illegal alien to go someplace to get a free ID is an undue burden. What if they dont have gas money? What if they don't have bus fare? What if they don't have child care? By all this logic we should be sending a government flunkie over to their house to translate and fill out their ballot for them. (Jobs program?)


At some point, we have to ask people to lift a finger if they want to participate.

I don't think anybody can say that going somewhere within a reasonable range (same town) is an undue hardship. If they do, I'll be right there with you defending the case that it isn't

vailpass
09-25-2012, 02:50 PM
Except the license. I pay for the ability to drive, which isn't required. Now if all I had was an ID.....

Yes, agreed.

qabbaan
09-25-2012, 02:58 PM
I don't think anybody can say that going somewhere within a reasonable range (same town) is an undue hardship. If they do, I'll be right there with you defending the case that it isn't

They give out state IDs at the DMV already. They just need to be free and we are done.

Dick Bull
09-25-2012, 03:00 PM
They give out state IDs at the DMV already. They just need to be free and we are done.

Agreed

alnorth
09-25-2012, 03:02 PM
You're wrong if you think that's the summation of my stance on this issue.

I don't believe you. Which is why volunteering useless pieces of information like "c'mon I'd do it for you if the roles were reversed" is useless in a pointless hypothetical in a virtual community where everything about ourselves is already impossible to prove.

Direckshun, your position on this issue is just completely indefensible.

The legitimacy of our elections is one of the most important things to safeguard in our country, and one of the primary requirements for a legitimate election is allowing only those who can vote, to vote.

It doesn't matter if its rare, it doesn't matter if you think Republicans are pushing it for partisan political reasons, and it doesn't matter if they almost never influence the outcome of an election, it doesn't freaking matter. It is incredibly easy to get an ID, and it is our civic duty to prove we are eligible to vote if asked.

Serial killers are also one of the rarest kinds of murderers out there, and logically we shouldn't devote more resources to catching them than any other kind of murder, but the people become incredibly frightened and then angry if its not a top priority. Similarly, it is greatly offensive to a lot of people, logic aside, to think that it can be very easy to vote when you are not a citizen.

In this case, it just so happens that attempting to ensure that voters are legally able to vote may impact your side. Tough luck, you do not have any moral legitimacy in opposing these voter ID and verification laws.

If you don't like it, cheer up: the Republicans are doomed anyway (until they adapt and shift to the left) due to demographics. If not now, then surely in a decade or two when whites are no longer a majority racial group

vailpass
09-25-2012, 03:03 PM
Direckshun, your position on this issue is just completely indefensible.

The legitimacy of our elections is one of the most important things to safeguard in our country, and a primary concern is allowing only those who can vote, to vote.

It doesn't matter if its rare, it doesn't matter if you think Republicans are pushing it for partisan political reasons, and it doesn't matter if they almost never influence the outcome of an election, it doesn't freaking matter. It is incredibly easy to get an ID, and it is our civic duty to prove we are eligible to vote if asked.

Serial killers are also one of the rarest kinds of murderers out there, and logically we shouldn't devote more resources to catching them than any other kind of murder, but the people become incredibly frightened and then angry if its not a top priority. Similarly, it is greatly offensive to a lot of people, logic aside, to think that it can be very easy to vote when you are not a citizen.

In this case, it just so happens that attempting to ensure that voters are legally able to vote may impact your side. Tough luck, you do not have any moral legitimacy in opposing these voter ID and verification laws.

repped

WV
09-25-2012, 03:05 PM
Direckshun, your position on this issue is just completely indefensible.

The legitimacy of our elections is one of the most important things to safeguard in our country, and one of the primary requirements for a legitimate election is allowing only those who can vote, to vote.

It doesn't matter if its rare, it doesn't matter if you think Republicans are pushing it for partisan political reasons, and it doesn't matter if they almost never influence the outcome of an election, it doesn't freaking matter. It is incredibly easy to get an ID, and it is our civic duty to prove we are eligible to vote if asked.

Serial killers are also one of the rarest kinds of murderers out there, and logically we shouldn't devote more resources to catching them than any other kind of murder, but the people become incredibly frightened and then angry if its not a top priority. Similarly, it is greatly offensive to a lot of people, logic aside, to think that it can be very easy to vote when you are not a citizen.

In this case, it just so happens that attempting to ensure that voters are legally able to vote may impact your side. Tough luck, you do not have any moral legitimacy in opposing these voter ID and verification laws.

If you don't like it, cheer up: the Republicans are doomed anyway due to demographics. If not now, then surely in a decade or two when whites are no longer a majority racial group

:clap:

AustinChief
09-25-2012, 03:30 PM
Agreed

Yep, if an ID is required for a BASIC RIGHT liek voting.. than it MUST be free and easy to obtain. That shouldn't even be an issue. I am all for voter id as long as it isn't just a mandate without an infrastructure in place to keep it from becoming a barrier.

Now, on to the point that voter fraud simply doesn't exist...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/25/voter-watchdog-group-claims-to-have-uncovered-absentee-ballot-fraud-in-florida/

I made the point AGES ago that a lack of KNOWN cases does NOT mean the problem doesn;t exist. That's as ignorant as claiming that my computer is not susceptible to viruses simply because I haven't seen any. Nevermind the fact that I am doing little to nothing to CHECK for them. Let's also forget the fact that they are built to go unnoticed. Of course this doesn;t apply to voter fraud because we all know that as soon as a person commits voter fraud they then announce it publicly, you know, so we'll have accurate numbers on how often it occurs.

KILLER_CLOWN
09-25-2012, 03:30 PM
We can fix this and the rigged diebold machines as well.

jettio
09-25-2012, 03:52 PM
Direckshun, your position on this issue is just completely indefensible.

The legitimacy of our elections is one of the most important things to safeguard in our country, and one of the primary requirements for a legitimate election is allowing only those who can vote, to vote.

It doesn't matter if its rare, it doesn't matter if you think Republicans are pushing it for partisan political reasons, and it doesn't matter if they almost never influence the outcome of an election, it doesn't freaking matter. It is incredibly easy to get an ID, and it is our civic duty to prove we are eligible to vote if asked.

Serial killers are also one of the rarest kinds of murderers out there, and logically we shouldn't devote more resources to catching them than any other kind of murder, but the people become incredibly frightened and then angry if its not a top priority. Similarly, it is greatly offensive to a lot of people, logic aside, to think that it can be very easy to vote when you are not a citizen.

In this case, it just so happens that attempting to ensure that voters are legally able to vote may impact your side. Tough luck, you do not have any moral legitimacy in opposing these voter ID and verification laws.

If you don't like it, cheer up: the Republicans are doomed anyway (until they adapt and shift to the left) due to demographics. If not now, then surely in a decade or two when whites are no longer a majority racial group

The GOP is changing the rules for no justifiable reason. Our democracy does not weight the votes of people based on their income, race or age.

What the GOP really means to do is to say that an older, or less educated or less wealthy, or less white person's vote should not have equal weight.

The primary motivation for these laws is hoped-for electoral advantage. The GOP is paternalistically determining that the more each person's vote is treated as equal, the less likely the GOP's chances are of winning an election.

There is a difference between right and wrong. These laws are wrong and motivated by bad will. When people are intentionally doing wrong about something fundamental to our democracy it will catch up to them.

Chances are some loyal GOP voters are going to get humiliated at their polling places when they show up to vote and these GOP lawmakers may have to explain to those humiliated loyal GOP voters why they could not vote this election when they have voted so many times before.

Maybe you should work at the polls this year and when some old lady who has voted in the last several elections is turned away you can get in her face and talk about how the genuine humiliation she feels has no moral legitimacy.

Making unnecessary changes to the rules because you expect to lose under the already fair rules is called cheating.

Dallas Chief
09-25-2012, 03:57 PM
aye dios mio!!!

Dallas Chief
09-25-2012, 04:09 PM
The study: http://www.advancementproject.org/resources/entry/segregating-american-citizenship-latino-voter-disenfranchisement-in-2012

Interactive map of actual cases of voter fraud (virtually none): http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/map_of_the_week/2012/09/voter_id_laws_a_state_by_state_map_reveals_how_much_voter_fraud_there_is_in_the_united_states_almost _none_.html?wpisrc=newsletter_jcr:content

Voter ID laws can only fight one kind of fraud: in person voter fraud. It's perhaps the rarest forms of fraud (http://votingrights.news21.com/article/election-fraud/):

All this tripe is from left leaning propagandist websites and groups and therefore is declared illegitimate. It should not be considered as part of this conversation or any other going forward. Nice try you silly twat...

The Pennsylvania House of Representatives Speaker admits this is a political ploy:

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/EuOT1bRYdK8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

This is straight-up voter suppression by the Republican Party.

All this tripe is from left leaning propagandist websites and groups and therefore is declared illegitimate. It should not be considered as part of this conversation or any other going forward. Nice try you silly twat...

Direckshun
09-25-2012, 04:16 PM
I've seen that clip and I know their motivations. Truth being told, if they are provided a free id so that they can vote, I don't know what the problem is. If they are able to get ID free of charge so they can vote then I don't feel this on the Government, but rather on those who choose not to exercise their right. However, if they cannot provide ID"S to all who need them in time then it shouldn't be allowed.

Because it's unnecessary.

If you are going to create another hoop to jump through in order for a citizen to exercise their most basic right in a democracy, you better have a damn good reason.

It's nice that the IDs will be free and everything, but the onus is still on the voter to act.

Direckshun
09-25-2012, 04:17 PM
Yes, requiring people to confirm they are US citizens to vote is racist. Why on EARTH would you NOT verify someone's ID that is going to vote. It makes no sense to me why you would this practice is not ALREADY implemented EVERYWHERE.

Because that is already implemented.

Voter ID is an unnecessary additional step that will accomplish close to nothing for the sole purpose of disenfranchising a shit ton of voters the GOP doesn't like.

AustinChief
09-25-2012, 04:22 PM
Because it's unnecessary.

If you are going to create another hoop to jump through in order for a citizen to exercise their most basic right in a democracy, you better have a damn good reason.

It's nice that the IDs will be free and everything, but the onus is still on the voter to act.

This is the bullshit you keep promoting that I take issue with. You don't KNOW it is unnecessary because we don't have adequate cheks in place to catch it. You BELIEVE it doesn't happen very often... others believe it DOES. So, you say.. "but but but the burden is on YOU!!!" Well, no, I can PROVE that the system is OPEN to abuse and fraud can easily occur undetected. THAT ALONE is enough to warrant fixing it. Now the burden is on you to prove it isn't occurring. What? You can't? Why not? Oh.. maybe because we don't have systems in place like a voter ID.

Direckshun
09-25-2012, 04:24 PM
Direckshun, your position on this issue is just completely indefensible.

The legitimacy of our elections is one of the most important things to safeguard in our country, and one of the primary requirements for a legitimate election is allowing only those who can vote, to vote.

It doesn't matter if its rare, it doesn't matter if you think Republicans are pushing it for partisan political reasons, and it doesn't matter if they almost never influence the outcome of an election, it doesn't freaking matter. It is incredibly easy to get an ID, and it is our civic duty to prove we are eligible to vote if asked.

Serial killers are also one of the rarest kinds of murderers out there, and logically we shouldn't devote more resources to catching them than any other kind of murder, but the people become incredibly frightened and then angry if its not a top priority. Similarly, it is greatly offensive to a lot of people, logic aside, to think that it can be very easy to vote when you are not a citizen.

In this case, it just so happens that attempting to ensure that voters are legally able to vote may impact your side. Tough luck, you do not have any moral legitimacy in opposing these voter ID and verification laws.

If you don't like it, cheer up: the Republicans are doomed anyway (until they adapt and shift to the left) due to demographics. If not now, then surely in a decade or two when whites are no longer a majority racial group

Voters are already legally cleared as citizens to vote. Fraud is at or near zero.

The rarest kind of voter fraud is voter impersonation. So rare, that 200+ cases of other kinds of voter fraud occur for every recorded instance of voter impersonation. Which is already mind-bogglingly rare.

The Pennsylvania GOP already admitted this was a partisan move to address a problem that is a rounding error's rounding error, with a solution that wouldn't have stopped any of their examples of voter fraud.

In order for voter impersonation to affect even a close election, it would have to occur on a widespread conspiracy scale not seen in modern history, and would conceivably be rendered impossible by the safeguards we already have in place.

My moral ground, high or not, is the same as yours. The right for my voice to be heard as an American is sacred.

So I'll take the solution that says we'll allow a shit ton of voters to continue successfully voting the way they've been without having to reasonably worry about voter fraud, over your solution which says let's make all these folks jump through an unnecessary step for no useful purpose that will almost certainly disenfranchise tons of tax paying Americans.

Iowanian
09-25-2012, 04:27 PM
You're 100% wrong.

Direckshun
09-25-2012, 04:28 PM
This is the bullshit you keep promoting that I take issue with. You don't KNOW it is unnecessary because we don't have adequate cheks in place to catch it. You BELIEVE it doesn't happen very often... others believe it DOES. So, you say.. "but but but the burden is on YOU!!!" Well, no, I can PROVE that the system is OPEN to abuse and fraud can easily occur undetected. THAT ALONE is enough to warrant fixing it. Now the burden is on you to prove it isn't occurring. What? You can't? Why not? Oh.. maybe because we don't have systems in place like a voter ID.

200+ cases of other kinds of voter fraud occur for every recorded instance of voter impersonation. Which is already mind-bogglingly rare.

The Pennsylvania GOP already admitted this was a partisan move to address a problem that is a rounding error's rounding error, with a solution that wouldn't have stopped any of their examples of voter fraud.

vailpass
09-25-2012, 04:30 PM
Because it's unnecessary.

If you are going to create another hoop to jump through in order for a citizen to exercise their most basic right in a democracy, you better have a damn good reason.

It's nice that the IDs will be free and everything, but the onus is still on the voter to act.

Get the fuck out of here with this.

LiveSteam
09-25-2012, 04:32 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/decision2012/voting-laws-may-deter-10-million-hispanics-study-says/2012/09/22/d2e8b586-0272-11e2-9b24-ff730c7f6312_story_1.html

Voting laws may deter 10 million Hispanics, report says
By Krissah Thompson
Published: September 22

Civil rights groups are warning that as many as 10 million Hispanics may be deterred from casting ballots because of changes to voting laws.

In a report to be released Monday, the civil rights group Advancement Project cites the potential impact of newly restrictive photo identification laws, proof-of-citizenship requirements and late efforts in a few states to remove noncitizens from the voter rolls.

“It has the impact of scaring people and reminding them of [immigration] raids and other kinds of law enforcement that have been targeted toward these communities,” said Penda D. Hair, a co-director of the Advancement Project, part of a coalition of liberal groups that oppose the new voting laws.

Proponents of the efforts to tighten voting laws, including several secretaries of state, say they want to root out voter fraud and are not targeting particular demographic groups.

“The fact is our office only compared our voter rolls against DMV records where individuals showed proof of non-citizenship,” Rich Coolidge, spokesman for the Colorado secretary of state’s office, said in an e-mail. “To insinuate anything else is absolutely false and reckless. Unfortunately, some partisan groups attempt to leverage this effort for their own political gain.”

In-person voting fraud is rare, studies have shown, but there have been recent cases of absentee ballot fraud, and small numbers of noncitizens are registered to vote. In Colorado, the secretary of state’s office estimated last year that as many as 11,000 noncitizens were registered to vote. But after checking a federal immigration database, the state announced this month that 141 noncitizens were registered and as few as 35 had cast ballots.

Several of the states with more restrictive laws and procedures, such as Colorado, have large Hispanic populations. As the deadline to register voters approaches in many states, the Advancement Project’s report warns that the new rules are working against efforts to register Hispanics, the nation’s fastest-growing demographic.

Both President Obama and Republican nominee Mitt Romney are working hard to appeal to Hispanics, who could be key to winning important swing states if they turn out to vote in large numbers.

Advocacy groups have been trying for several years to increase the number of Latinos who vote. In 2010, 6.3 million Latinos who were eligible to vote reported that they were unregistered and 10.8 million said they did not vote, according to census figures cited by the report.

“At the end of the day, voting should be free, fair and accessible, and these barriers are standing in the way of an increasing demographic in this country,” said Judith A. Browne-Dianis, a co-director of the Advancement Project.

A dozen state legislatures passed rules last year requiring voters to present state-issued photo IDs, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, although in four states the laws were vetoed by Democratic governors.

Pennsylvania’s governor signed a voter ID bill in March that is still being litigated, with opponents presenting studies showing that blacks, Hispanics and others in urban areas are less likely to have the required ID.

In addition, 16 states — including Colorado, Florida and New Mexico — have attempted to “purge” noncitizens from registration lists. The Advancement Project cited examples of purges incorrectly flagging the names of naturalized citizens, putting them at risk for having their voter registration invalidated.

Florida halted an effort to remove noncitizens from lists when it became known that the database used by the state to check citizenship was out of date.

Denver resident Veronica Figoli, who immigrated from Venezuela in 1999, was among the legally registered voters in Colorado whose name was flagged for removal from voter rolls. The letter that she received said it was “extremely important” that she affirm her citizenship or withdraw from the voter rolls, which she said made her feel like a “second-class citizen.”

“To get this letter was kind of insulting,” said Figoli, who became a citizen in 2011 after what she said was a costly and stressful process. “There are so many steps and it is so confusing, and it’s expensive. And you are dealing with government and that makes you uncomfortable.” When she got the letter, she said, “I questioned myself.”

Figoli returned the required paperwork but said that others might be more fearful.

“I have a friend who said, ‘I wouldn’t do anything. . . . What if they revoke my citizenship?’ ” Figoli said. “The fear is there.”

Melinda Aguirre, who was born in Denver, also received a letter in English and Spanish questioning her citizenship. “I don’t even speak Spanish,” she said. “It’s just a bunch of [bull] what they are doing with certain people. My mom didn’t get this letter. My brother didn’t get this letter. Their last name is Roybal. But the Aguirres did.”

John Fund, a conservative columnist and author of “Stealing Elections: How Voter Fraud Threatens Our Democracy,” said recent polls show that advocates of cleaning up the voter rolls have public opinion on their side and that they are being unfairly accused of racism. “It is very unfortunate that this issue has been used by groups who want to yell racism in a crowded political theater,” Fund said. “This is not the way to debate these issues.”

Still, the National Council of La Raza, which has been working with a network of groups to register Hispanic voters, was one of a dozen civil rights groups that said last week that voting rights are in a “state of emergency.”

“Part of our frustration is that the debate over the voter integrity process has become a polarized thing,” said Clarissa Martinez De Castro, the group’s director of immigration and national campaigns. “It’s almost like voters have become guilty until proven innocent.”

Ana Navarro, a Republican campaign consultant in Florida, said she doesn’t expect Hispanics there to be dissuaded from registering or voting.

“I don’t get the sense that the average voter is out there ready to set their hair on fire over the voting law changes,” she said in an e-mail. “Political campaigns are in full swing in Florida and there’s just too many substantive issues like the economy, high unemployment, Medicare, and housing, that Floridians are worried about. . . . Ready or not, whether you like or dislike the changes to the process, voting is upon us.”

Floridians start getting absentee ballots in a couple of weeks, and in most states, voter registration closes 30 days before the election.

PBJPBJPBJPBJPBJPBJPBJ

Donger
09-25-2012, 04:37 PM
Direckshun, what do you think is a sufficient requirement for one to be able to vote?

jjjayb
09-25-2012, 04:38 PM
Because that is already implemented.

Voter ID is an unnecessary additional step that will accomplish close to nothing for the sole purpose of disenfranchising a shit ton of voters the GOP doesn't like.

If you are so lazy that you would rather be "disenfranchised" than take the time to get an I.D., then you would probably not have voted in the first place.

Isn't requiring registration an additional step? Why require registration? Why can't I just show up and vote? Why put that extra burden on me to actually take the time to register?

Heck, why should I even have to go to vote? That requires me to take the time to leave my house. Why can't I just call in the vote? Why don't the polls come to me? After all, I shouldn't have to make any effort whatsover. It's my right!

jettio
09-25-2012, 04:40 PM
A possibly interesting fact about these voter ID laws is that the SCOTUS has been, according to most observers, primed to declare that the section of the Voting Rights Act that requires automatic DOJ review and approval for changes to voting laws in certain states determined to have a prior history of disenfranchisement is no longer needed since so many years have passed since there were intentionally discriminatory voting laws and election rules.

The lawsuits regarding these Voter ID laws give the judges hearing the challenges the opportunity to make factual findings that the GOP lawmakers had discriminatory intent when passing these laws. I think that is a real possibility in the South Carolina case since "smoking gun" e-mails and testimony is in the record before that court.

That would be very interesting and ironic if it turns out that the GOP's overreaching on these voter ID laws for obviously discriminatory motivations ends up disrupting the conservative justice's planned direction on the Voting Rights Act. It would be hard to say that no discrimination has happened in 50 years when federal judges hearing evidence make factual findings that we have present day case(s) of intentionally discriminatory disenfranchisement.

Direckshun
09-25-2012, 04:41 PM
Direckshun, what do you think is a sufficient requirement for one to be able to vote?

I'm comfortable with our current tapestry of requirements. It's been reliable and has resulted in nearly zero national contests contested due to fraud in modern political history.

Direckshun
09-25-2012, 04:43 PM
Isn't requiring registration an additional step? Why require registration? Why can't I just show up and vote? Why put that extra burden on me to actually take the time to register?

Uh, registration is what prevents fraud, and registers the proper accounting the government can expect on election day.

Direckshun
09-25-2012, 04:44 PM
A possibly interesting fact about these voter ID laws is that the SCOTUS has been, according to most observers, primed to declare that the section of the Voting Rights Act that requires automatic DOJ review and approval for changes to voting laws in certain states determined to have a prior history of disenfranchisement is no longer needed since so many years have passed since there were intentionally discriminatory voting laws and election rules.

The lawsuits regarding these Voter ID laws give the judges hearing the challenges the opportunity to make factual findings that the GOP lawmakers had discriminatory intent when passing these laws. I think that is a real possibility in the South Carolina case since "smoking gun" e-mails and testimony is in the record before that court.

That would be very interesting and ironic if it turns out that the GOP's overreaching on these voter ID laws for obviously discriminatory motivations ends up disrupting the conservative justice's planned direction on the Voting Rights Act. It would be hard to say that no discrimination has happened in 50 years when federal judges hearing evidence make factual findings that we have present day case(s) of intentionally discriminatory disenfranchisement.

It'd be an interesting case to bring before the SCOTUS.

Local and state courts have been disagreeing on these issues.

Donger
09-25-2012, 04:45 PM
I'm comfortable with our current tapestry of requirements. It's been reliable and has resulted in nearly zero national contests contested due to fraud in modern political history.

Yeah, okay, but as has been pointed out, you/we don't KNOW that fraud hasn't taken place.

So, let's take a random state and look at the requirements, and see if you agree with the requirements.

Missouri law states that a current utility bill is sufficient means to verify that one is a US citizen.

Do you agree with that?

Direckshun
09-25-2012, 04:52 PM
Yeah, okay, but as has been pointed out, you/we don't KNOW that fraud hasn't taken place.

Experts are in wide agreement that it's incredibly unlikely any significant amount of it occurs.

I'll go with them over either of us. As I usually do.

So, let's take a random state and look at the requirements, and see if you agree with the requirements.

Missouri law states that a current utility bill is sufficient means to verify that one is a US citizen.

Do you agree with that?

I am in favor of the current registration laws.

The current registration law that you're citing provides that you have to provide a utility bill with the name and address of the voter. At that point, the evidence will get processed and the government, once they verify you, will send out verification.

I am in favor of it.

For the rest of this questioning, I want you to ask yourself: is it current registration law?

If it is, then Direckshun will say yes.

vailpass
09-25-2012, 04:53 PM
Experts are in wide agreement that it's incredibly unlikely any significant amount of it occurs.

I'll go with them over either of us. As I usually do.



I am in favor of the current registration laws.

The current registration law that you're citing provides that you have to provide a utility bill with the name and address of the voter. At that point, the evidence will get processed and the government, once they verify you, will send out verification.

What if the would-be voter doesn't have a utility in their name? Would we need to set up a government paid utility for them?

Donger
09-25-2012, 04:58 PM
I don't see the utility bill deal on Missouri's registration documentation. I see:

1) Are you a citizen of the USA?

2) Will you be 18 on or before the election?

And then either a DL number or last four digits of an SSN.

AustinChief
09-25-2012, 05:00 PM
200+ cases of other kinds of voter fraud occur for every recorded instance of voter impersonation. Which is already mind-bogglingly rare.

Based on what you KNOW OF. There simply aren't any reliable systems in place to assess accurate figures because the system that you are comfortable with is so completely open to abuse. There could be 200,000 cases of voter impersonation or voting in two states or whatever. We simply don't have the reliable means to check it in place. You're simply guessing.

The FACT is, the system can be abused without detection. that alone is enough to warrant change. If you don't think so, you are either flying by blind faith or you want the system to be abused because it helps your party.

Direckshun
09-25-2012, 05:00 PM
I don't see the utility bill deal on Missouri's registration documentation. I see:

1) Are you a citizen of the USA?

2) Will you be 18 on or before the election?

And then either a DL number or last four digits of an SSN.

http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/voterid/

That's what you need to register.

Donger
09-25-2012, 05:02 PM
http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/voterid/

That's what you need to register.

No, that is what you need to vote, not to register to vote.

Direckshun
09-25-2012, 05:05 PM
No, that is what you need to vote, not to register to vote.

http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/faqs.asp#a1_1

1. How do I register to vote?

In order to register to vote, Missourians must submit a completed voter registration application to their local election authority. This can be done in person or by mail.

A voter may register in person at one of the following locations: The office of their local election authority At a drivers licensing office while applying for or renewing a driver's license At a designated state agency while the applicant is obtaining services from the agency. Examples of state agencies providing registration applications to their clients include Division of Family Services, Military Recruitment, or WIC. A library
When registering in person, applicants are required to present a form of personal identification (http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/voterid/). A voter can also register to vote by mail by completing a post card voter registration application. You can request a voter registration application from the local election authority or from our website.

Within 7 days of receiving your registration, the election authority should mail verification that your registration has been received and processed. If you do not receive this verification, you should contact your local election authority to ensure that you are indeed registered to vote.

Donger
09-25-2012, 05:07 PM
http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/faqs.asp#a1_1

1. How do I register to vote?

In order to register to vote, Missourians must submit a completed voter registration application to their local election authority. This can be done in person or by mail.

A voter may register in person at one of the following locations: The office of their local election authority At a drivers licensing office while applying for or renewing a driver's license At a designated state agency while the applicant is obtaining services from the agency. Examples of state agencies providing registration applications to their clients include Division of Family Services, Military Recruitment, or WIC. A library
When registering in person, applicants are required to present a form of personal identification (http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/voterid/). A voter can also register to vote by mail by completing a post card voter registration application. You can request a voter registration application from the local election authority or from our website.

Within 7 days of receiving your registration, the election authority should mail verification that your registration has been received and processed. If you do not receive this verification, you should contact your local election authority to ensure that you are indeed registered to vote.

Yes, I know. And that application requires either a Missouri driver's license number or the last four digits of the SSN.

Direckshun
09-25-2012, 05:09 PM
Yes, I know. And that application requires either a Missouri driver's license number or the last four digits of the SSN.

An application requires a form of "personal identification."

As follows: http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/voterid/

Donger
09-25-2012, 05:11 PM
An application requires a form of "personal identification."

As follows: http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/voterid/

Are you feeling okay? Why do you keep giving the URL for the types of ID required to VOTE instead of the type of ID required to REGISTER to vote?

You realize that they aren't the same thing, right?

Direckshun
09-25-2012, 05:13 PM
Do me a favor.

Go up to post #115.

And click on "personal identification."

Tell me where it takes you.

Donger
09-25-2012, 05:17 PM
Do me a favor.

Go up to post #115.

And click on "personal identification."

Tell me where it takes you.

To an error:

Acceptable IDs to Vote

Registered voters need to present ONLY ONE of the following types of ID (examples only):

Here's the actual application:

http://www.sos.mo.gov/forms/elections/MVRA_PC_231-0169_042007.pdf

Direckshun
09-25-2012, 05:19 PM
To an error:

Acceptable IDs to Vote

Registered voters need to present ONLY ONE of the following types of ID (examples only):

Here's the actual application:

http://www.sos.mo.gov/forms/elections/MVRA_PC_231-0169_042007.pdf

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'm staring at the SOS site, and it's pointing straight here (http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/voterid/).

So as much fun as this is...

Donger
09-25-2012, 05:23 PM
I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'm staring at the SOS site, and it's pointing straight here (http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/voterid/).

So as much fun as this is...

The link that is supposed to take you to the requirements to register takes you to a site that states, "Registered voters need to present ONLY ONE of the following types of ID (examples only)"

That means that those IDs are required for people ALREADY registered and who show up to vote.

The link is obviously an error. It ISN'T linking to the requirements to REGISTER, but to the requirements to actually VOTE.

I can't be any more clear.

jspchief
09-25-2012, 05:47 PM
I'm confused.

It's not going to affect anything, yet its going to affect 10m people? What are those 10m people staying away from the polls for if they aren't doing anything wrong?

Also, wouldn't IDs keep felons from voting?

Direckshun
09-25-2012, 06:01 PM
I'm confused.

It's not going to affect anything, yet its going to affect 10m people? What are those 10m people staying away from the polls for if they aren't doing anything wrong?

Also, wouldn't IDs keep felons from voting?

It's not going to prevent a fraction of a fraction of voter fraud.

In enacting it, however, it could disenfranchise a whole lot of people.

Dick Bull
09-25-2012, 06:05 PM
Because it's unnecessary.

If you are going to create another hoop to jump through in order for a citizen to exercise their most basic right in a democracy, you better have a damn good reason.

It's nice that the IDs will be free and everything, but the onus is still on the voter to act.

I hear what you are saying, but I do not feel that it is too much of a burden for someone to go pick up an id. Obviously you do.

Direckshun
09-25-2012, 06:06 PM
I hear what you are saying, but I do not feel that it is too much of a burden for someone to go pick up an id. Obviously you do.

I feel it's an undue burden.

qabbaan
09-25-2012, 06:12 PM
I feel it's an undue burden.

I feel it's an undue burden to have to go to the polls, or fill out the card and walk down to the mailbox to mail my vote. Should we have someone come into my house speaking my language to read me each item and fill it out for me? Or does your opinion on that depend on what voting block I fall into?

RNR
09-25-2012, 06:12 PM
I feel it's an undue burden.

You are easily entertained. People buying into you being serious about this are easily fooled~

Direckshun
09-25-2012, 06:13 PM
You are easily entertained.

I never denied that. :D

I don't think that detracts from the magnitude of this issue.

jspchief
09-25-2012, 06:17 PM
It's not going to prevent a fraction of a fraction of voter fraud.

In enacting it, however, it could disenfranchise a whole lot of people.

How many felons vote? I heard an estimated 6m on the radio today.

And why does it disenfranchise people?

Dick Bull
09-25-2012, 06:19 PM
I feel it's an undue burden.

Here's the thing, and I know they've said it, but the only bit of factual evidence in the amount of people who cheat are the people who get caught. I think it's safe to assume that not everyone doing it is going to get caught. If only 1 person is cheating, it corrupts the process.

Like I said previously, if they don't want to do those few requirements that is on them. They aren't as dedicated as they should be. If they are having to pay then that's a problem with the govt. Unfortunately, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink.

To be honest, and this is my way of thinking, if I'd have seen that video saying we can win by suppressing the vote, that would have motivated the shit out of me to get done what I needed to get done. I'll be damned if someone is going to trick that right away from me.

Direckshun
09-25-2012, 06:23 PM
How many felons vote? I heard an estimated 6m on the radio today.

Ummmmmm.... I'm not sure. Different states allow convicted felons to vote again based on different periods of time.

http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=286

Direckshun
09-25-2012, 06:28 PM
Here's the thing, and I know they've said it, but the only bit of factual evidence in the amount of people who cheat are the people who get caught. I think it's safe to assume that not everyone doing it is going to get caught. If only 1 person is cheating, it corrupts the process.

Like I said previously, if they don't want to do those few requirements that is on them. They aren't as dedicated as they should be. If they are having to pay then that's a problem with the govt. Unfortunately, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink.

I'm going with the experts on voting rights, and they are almost in universal agreement that voter fraud is rare. We can pretend there's an entire shadow industry going on that's eluding the law, but if we're going to invent entire groups of people that experts are telling us don't exist, then we might as well assume they'll evade the voter ID laws, too.

Ultimately, put the fewest number of rules in place that are going to ensure the integrity of the vote.

Voter ID is a violation of that principle. It's an excessive rule that does not justify itself by providing any serious improved measure of voter integrity.

HonestChieffan
09-25-2012, 06:29 PM
I feel it's an undue burden.

Why?

Dick Bull
09-25-2012, 06:30 PM
I'm going with the experts on voting rights, and they are almost in universal agreement that voter fraud is rare. We can pretend there's an entire shadow industry going on that's eluding the law, but if we're going to invent entire groups of people that experts are telling us don't exist, then we might as well assume they'll evade the voter ID laws, too.

Ultimately, put the fewest number of rules in place that are going to ensure the integrity of the vote.

Voter ID is a violation of that principle. It's an excessive rule that does not justify itself by providing any serious improved measure of voter integrity.

do you agree that only people who are eligible to vote should?

Direckshun
09-25-2012, 06:32 PM
do you agree that only people who are eligible to vote should?

As opposed to whom? People who aren't eligible to vote?

Are you a Donger mult? LMAO

HonestChieffan
09-25-2012, 06:34 PM
As opposed to whom? People who aren't eligible to vote?

Are you a Donger mult? LMAO

Bottom line is you want inelligable people to vote. Is that right?

AustinChief
09-25-2012, 06:35 PM
I'm going with the experts on voting rights, and they are almost in universal agreement that voter fraud is rare. We can pretend there's an entire shadow industry going on that's eluding the law, but if we're going to invent entire groups of people that experts are telling us don't exist, then we might as well assume they'll evade the voter ID laws, too.


Experts? HAHAHHAHAHAHA

In todays media.. ANYONE is an "expert."

How about the "experts" in the Trayvon Martin case that were quoted for their voice analysis? The "experts" who said Obama's birth certificate was altered?

Your sources may very well be "experts" but without access to accurate, meaningful data they are just as likely to reach the correct numbers as you or I are by pulling random crap out of our asses. GIGO.

(btw.. some real experts that you quoted before have crunched ACTUAL numbers and not just GUESSED at what may happen... and they showed that Voter ID laws in recent years DO NOT significantly suppress voter turnout... you conveniently ignore that fact every time this debate crops up)

Dick Bull
09-25-2012, 06:37 PM
As opposed to whom? People who aren't eligible to vote?

Are you a Donger mult? LMAO

It was a yes or no question.

I don't even know how you could think I'm a donger mult.

Direckshun
09-25-2012, 06:40 PM
It was a yes or no question.

I don't even know how you could think I'm a donger mult.

The answer is, of course, yes.

Dick Bull
09-25-2012, 06:42 PM
The answer is, of course, yes.
Do you think that people should have to perform minimal tasks that prove who they are and whether or not they are eligible?

Direckshun
09-25-2012, 06:44 PM
Do you think that people should have to perform minimal tasks that prove who they are and whether or not they are eligible?

Of course.

That's exactly what I believe.

Dick Bull
09-25-2012, 06:46 PM
Of course.

That's exactly what I believe.

So what's so excessive about picking up a free id?

Direckshun
09-25-2012, 06:59 PM
So what's so excessive about picking up a free id?

It's the very definition of excessive. It's not necessary. The things it will prevent, if anything, are rounding errors of rounding errors. And it creates a barrier that will end up disenfranchising tons of people who otherwise would have voted.

jspchief
09-25-2012, 06:59 PM
Still wondering why these people are going to be disenfranchised?

Dick Bull
09-25-2012, 07:04 PM
It's the very definition of excessive. It's not necessary. The things it will prevent, if anything, are rounding errors of rounding errors. And it creates a barrier that will end up disenfranchising tons of people who otherwise would have voted.

You are mixing two different arguments.

Yourself admitted that there should be some minimum safeguards in place. That is one argument and I agree with you that there should.
Next to the 2nd argument, effects of voter id vs. disenfranchising.

What suggestion do you have to ensure everyone is who they say they are and are eligible to vote other than photo id?

Direckshun
09-25-2012, 07:09 PM
You are mixing two different arguments.

Yourself admitted that there should be some minimum safeguards in place. That is one argument and I agree with you that there should.

My argument is that the current voter registration laws that we have on the books are the effective minimum.

Voter ID cards are an unnecessary addition.

What suggestion do you have to ensure everyone is who they say they are and are eligible to vote other than photo id?

The current registration laws.

HonestChieffan
09-25-2012, 07:09 PM
Direck is a complete moron This sort of thread and his inability or unwillingness to address reality is proof. The guy has no life

Direckshun
09-25-2012, 07:10 PM
Still wondering why these people are going to be disenfranchised?

Read this thread or this thread (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=261139).

Look up my posts. I've already been down that path extensively.

AustinChief
09-25-2012, 07:12 PM
My argument is that the current voter registration laws that we have on the books are the effective minimum.

Voter ID cards are an unnecessary addition.



The current registration laws.

BUT you are willing to ASSUME that a voter ID law will suppress voter turnout.. when YOUR OWN previously quoted report crunched the numbers and showed that assumption to be FALSE for recent elections. So, voter ID does not disenfranchise yet it provides some safeguards against voter fraud. Seems like you don't have much to argue except wild accusations based on "feelings" and guesses.

Dick Bull
09-25-2012, 07:14 PM
My argument is that the current voter registration laws that we have on the books are the effective minimum.

Voter ID cards are an unnecessary addition.



The current registration laws.

how does that ensure someone is who they say are on election day

AustinChief
09-25-2012, 07:21 PM
Read this thread or this thread (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=261139).

Look up my posts. I've already been down that path extensively.

You still conveniently ignore your own posted study which said...

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=8724634&postcount=299

Direckshun
09-25-2012, 07:24 PM
how does that ensure someone is who they say are on election day

Because the registration process is very reliable.

It is constructed to be and has proven to be.

Direckshun
09-25-2012, 07:26 PM
You still conveniently ignore your own posted study which said...

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=8724634&postcount=299

This is the precise point from that study that underscores my concern:

However, counties with higher Hispanic and Asian-American populations saw a small negative effect on voter turnout as ID laws were tightened. Greater household income positively correlated with voter turnout.

Dick Bull
09-25-2012, 07:31 PM
Because the registration process is very reliable.

It is constructed to be and has proven to be.

In missouri they mail you a piece of paper with no picture on it. I show them that piece of paper and I get to vote. Who's to say I didn't steal that piece of paper and vote for them?

AustinChief
09-25-2012, 07:34 PM
This is the precise point from that study that underscores my concern:

Now provide proof that every one of those who turned out before ID was required was a LEGAL voter. What? You can't? Maybe there was widespread fraud before. A voter ID law WILL cause some people not to vote.. no questions there... some people who do not have the LEGAL right to vote. That is kind of the point. To claim it disenfranchises the poor or all minorities has been proven false. The study shows that. Therefore the logical conclusion is that it suppressed the votes that it was MEANT to.. you know, the invalid ones.

Direckshun
09-25-2012, 07:45 PM
In missouri they mail you a piece of paper with no picture on it. I show them that piece of paper and I get to vote. Who's to say I didn't steal that piece of paper and vote for them?

I'm not arguing it's a flawless system. I'm arguing that it's a system that suffers from an astonishingly low amount of impersonation fraud.

The Republicans who pushed the Voter ID law in Pennsylvania themselves argued the Voter ID law would not have stopped any of the instances of fraud that they discovered.

Basically the entire argument for Voter IDs is:

1. There's no proof voter fraud happens on a remotely serious scale,
2. but even though there's proof it almost never happens, that data cannot be trusted,
3. so to stop it, we must institute an obstacle
4. that could only stop less than 1% of the problem
5. and if it happens to sideline thousands or even millions of voters, they did not deserve to vote.
6. The fact that traditional Democratic constituencies would be sidelined, and Republicans are the ones instituting this policy, is to be ignored.

I reject that argument, on both practical and moral principles.

Direckshun
09-25-2012, 07:47 PM
Now provide proof that every one of those who turned out before ID was required was a LEGAL voter. What? You can't? Maybe there was widespread fraud before. A voter ID law WILL cause some people not to vote.. no questions there... some people who do not have the LEGAL right to vote. That is kind of the point. To claim it disenfranchises the poor or all minorities has been proven false. The study shows that. Therefore the logical conclusion is that it suppressed the votes that it was MEANT to.. you know, the invalid ones.

Um, actually it suggests that's exactly the case.

LOCOChief
09-25-2012, 07:55 PM
maybe voter id requirements will keep the dip shit obama voters like the one's interviewed on Howard Sterns from showing up.

HonestChieffan
09-25-2012, 07:57 PM
Just for clarity. How many hispanics do we have? 10 million is a lot of bodies

AustinChief
09-25-2012, 08:03 PM
Um, actually it suggests that's exactly the case.

no, that is exactly what it doesn;t show. otherwise the same results would have shown up for blacks... which it did not.. or other minorities... which it did not.

You could infer that it only affected minorities with substantial immigrant populations. Of course, that is a demographic that is being accused of illegal voting so of course that fits.

Direckshun
09-25-2012, 08:07 PM
no, that is exactly what it doesn;t show. otherwise the same results would have shown up for blacks... which it did not.. or other minorities... which it did not.

You could infer that it only affected minorities with substantial immigrant populations. Of course, that is a demographic that is being accused of illegal voting so of course that fits.

It also fits that they were disenfranchised.

jspchief
09-25-2012, 08:15 PM
"small negative effect on voter turnout"

"small"

Small like millions?
Small like the small amount of voter fraud?

jspchief
09-25-2012, 08:27 PM
So Pennsylvania could have 89k people without proper id per your link.

Isn't that like 1% of their voting age population?

Direckshun
09-25-2012, 10:20 PM
So Pennsylvania could have 89k people without proper id per your link.

Isn't that like 1% of their voting age population?

It is, I believe. That's the GOP's estimation, though.

Other estimations have it somewhere around 10%.

Velvet_Jones
09-26-2012, 06:38 AM
I live in south Leavenworth county Kansas. I have never voted that I didn't have to show ID.

Iowanian
09-26-2012, 09:39 AM
Voting is a right, however it is one that should come with responsibility.

People should have some personally responsibility to use that right. Be it getting an ID to prove who they are, or getting off of their ass and going to the polls instead of wasting taxpayer money on elections by voting absentee out of laziness.

If a political party has to come to your house with paperwork and hound you to complete your ballot, you don't deserve the power of your vote.

patteeu
09-26-2012, 10:01 AM
I live in south Leavenworth county Kansas. I have never voted that I didn't have to show ID.

I suspect that most of the places that don't ask for ID as a matter of routine are heavily democrat controlled areas like the urban core. I'm pretty sure that in Missouri, at least in the past, you could get away with showing either your drivers license or your non-picture voter ID card though.

Iowanian
09-27-2012, 11:16 AM
Really, essaaaaaaaaaaay....

If the dems don't need the illegals to vote and don't need to pander to the lazy to be elected, then explain all of the effort and money spent to make it easier for illegals to vote and to go as far as to drag semi-functioning people to the polls to basically vote for them.


I'm sure in your area, your street name is El Gran Douche.



Sorry one last one because you're a ****ing country rube.

There is no epidemic. The Democrats don't need ineligible voters to win. The gop with their social wars and coded racism and homophobia is turning away young voters. The gop is going to lose election just due to our shifting demographics and their failure to be anything other than the party of the rich, the white, and the old.

jjjayb
10-02-2012, 12:03 PM
Because the registration process is very reliable.

It is constructed to be and has proven to be.

How is it reliable? I can easily register under a different name and vote several times. No ID is required to register when you register by mail.

But of course you will say this hasn't been proven to happen. How can it be proven? If I register under the name bilbo baggins, (which I can because I don't need I.D. to register) then I vote using that registration (which, again, I can because I don't need I.D. to vote, how do you ever prove that? How can you know how many people voted under fradulent registrations? There are ZERO safeguards in place to prevent this from happening.