Showing ID to Vote

[thegreekdog]

YOU'LL BE KICKED OUT OF THE BAR

I'VE BEEN TO JAIL, YOU DON'T WANT TO GO!


With all the paranoia going around about voter fraud, I wouldn't dare try it. You'd be caught and then they'd use your case as the flagship reason for why we need voter ID and then-uh, everyone would know your name and also hate you.
EXACTLY like Osama.

Why would they put me in jail? By your logic, as long as I did not vote for President Obama, I'd be good to go.

[stahrgazer]

If you want to challange a specific voter you can and you can specifically eliminate their vote after the fact. You can't do that with election day ballots since the ballots are not attached to the specific voter in any way.

erm... not totally true, tzor

I've been one of the representatives of a party, a volunteer put there in case of any voter being challenged, and in fact, had to work with the registrar because a voter was challenged on the spot. Actually, more than one voter was challenged and of those, all were eligible to vote, but three of them had been sent to a wrong precinct (a snafu in that area because one of the buildings that had been the precinct was undergoing restoration).

Point is, those in-person votes can be challenged and when they are, if they are not resolved right on the spot, they can be put in a special book, their ballot separated for later review, which is what a "provisional" vote is.

The problem with a 'provisional vote' is that those votes will not be counted UNLESS a vote is really close. If there are 1 million provisional votes in an area but the election is separated by 700,000 votes, the provisional votes may or may not be counted, depending on how much a percentage of the population that 700,000 votes represented. It doesn't matter by law if the number of provisional votes exceeds the separation of the candidates, what matters is if the separation exceeds a certain population percentage. (The end result is, provisional votes are almost never counted.)

Votes in-person can also be challenged later, rather than on the spot. This was the case with the infamous "who was really elected?" ballots in Florida, where some of the ballots could appear to have both or no candidates selected because the little paper divet insert that was supposed to come off when that candidate was punched, didn't come off. Per Florida laws, those people should have had the chance to vote again, but the Supreme Court overruled it because of time and money involved to allow it, so Bush got in when maybe he didn't really win that election.

Additionally, while your case is that the voter could be questioned more if it's a mail-in ballot, I dispute that argument on the basis of, it's a heckuva lot easier to see if a man who'se been registered to vote for 60 years really does look like a close-to-70-yr-old-male, in person, than to see if maybe that person's granddaughter or neighbor got hold of and filled out the mail-in ballot with their choices instead.

That vote would only be questioned if it turned out that a significant portion of mail-in votes were suspected to be fraudulent.

[Phatscotty]

[PLAYER57832]

My father and I were debating the merits of voter identification. I am against voter identification, for the reasons stated previously. He is in favor of voter identification and is not perturbed by the potential disenfranchisement of Americans; in fact, he would say it's a good thing (he also made a reverse racism claim: Democrats arguing that blacks would be disenfranchised because they can't get identification is racist... or something like that).

In any event, I commented how in New Jersey I have to sign my name in a book before I vote. He told me that my name is still in the book in my hometown in Pennsylvania. So, I could potentially vote in New Jersey in the morning and then drive to Pennsylvania and vote there in the evening. I might try this, but I'm e-scared of going to jail.

Its more likely your vote would just be tossed out, than that you would go to jail.

[Juan_Bottom]

I checked and the law says he will be banished to the island of misfit toys.

[thegreekdog]

I checked and the law says he will be banished to the island of misfit toys.

I'm fine with that. I always wanted to be a dentist.

[PLAYER57832]

One bit that seems to be lost in translation. Although there ARE some non-citizens who have registered, mostly by accident (if you realize that all you have had to do to register in many states is to check a box when you get your driver's license, its easy to see how one could register by mistake.. particularly if you don't 100% understand English), and very, very few have voted, the claims of thousands of illegal Mexicans and others voting is just null.


A few non-citizens have voted, but most reports are that it is a VERY, VERY small problem.. not a non problem, I agree, but one better solved through other means. In fact, the largest perentage of those targeted as "questionable" wind up being legal citizens.

In other words, the problem of non-citizens voting is almost non-existant, but the problem of citizens being denied votes is very, very real... and "hanging chads" are just one of many ways legal votes are disqualified when things get tight. So, all this expense is for a "problem" that doesn't really exist.

[PLAYER57832]

The infamous Mississippi voter ID law says that you have to have a picture ID to vote. But you can't get the picture ID without a birth certificate. If you'd like to get a birth certificate, you have to have a photo ID.

First, one can obtain a U.S. passport and many other forms of ID with a Certificate of Citizenship in lieu of birth certificate (used frequently for those who have been adopted) from the USCIS, here is the form: http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/n-600.pdf.

Now you are just being obtuse. Poor people of all races in many areas lack official birth certificates. In years past, many people were not born in hospitals or other official settings and so the births were not recorded like they are today.

Not only do I personally know of many in Mississippi in that situation, but several in my PA communitee have the problem as well. We found out about them when a man was injured on a trip to Canada and his wife could not get a passport to go get him.

[Phatscotty]

Player, in your opinion, in the wake of 2000 election and the competitiveness and passion of today's politics, how would you describe our election process today? Very tight and accurate? Very loose and corrupt? Somewhere in between? Where?

Also, you can elaborate on what a "phatt-view" is anytime. If you don't respond here, I will have to assume you are scared of backing up your own words, or else you are unable to back them up.

[Woodruff]

Player, in your opinion, in the wake of 2000 election and the competitiveness and passion of today's politics, how would you describe our election process today? Very tight and accurate? Very loose and corrupt? Somewhere in between? Where?

It's certainly corrupt, but it has very little to do with those who are voting and everything to do with how votes are counted. Whether it is dismissing votes based on categories of people that typically vote in a certain way or voting machines that don't record things accurately...those are far larger problems in voting corruption, in my opinion.

[Symmetry]

Always interesting to see Scotty veer away from his faux-Libertarianism when it comes to his virulent irrational hatred of Obama,

Still, have something funny, and not safe for work:

[stahrgazer]

Player, in your opinion, in the wake of 2000 election and the competitiveness and passion of today's politics, how would you describe our election process today? Very tight and accurate? Very loose and corrupt? Somewhere in between? Where?

Also, you can elaborate on what a "phatt-view" is anytime. If you don't respond here, I will have to assume you are scared of backing up your own words, or else you are unable to back them up.

The thing is, the 2000 election only let an existing problem come to national attention. Also, politics have always been competitive, it only appears moreso now because of the expanded ability to communicate in less than the blink of an eye. Finally, our election processes have always had problems which varied from region to region within different states, and each method used brings up its own set of problems.

And still, no one is commenting on how "need to show id to vote" would work with mail-in ballots.

Thinking like a super-paranoid voter fraud conspiracy theorist, I could see the mailworkers uniting to destroy original ballots and replace them with ballots of their choice, can't you?

[Phatscotty]

Player, in your opinion, in the wake of 2000 election and the competitiveness and passion of today's politics, how would you describe our election process today? Very tight and accurate? Very loose and corrupt? Somewhere in between? Where?

Also, you can elaborate on what a "phatt-view" is anytime. If you don't respond here, I will have to assume you are scared of backing up your own words, or else you are unable to back them up.

The thing is, the 2000 election only let an existing problem come to national attention. Also, politics have always been competitive, it only appears moreso now because of the expanded ability to communicate in less than the blink of an eye. Finally, our election processes have always had problems which varied from region to region within different states, and each method used brings up its own set of problems.

And still, no one is commenting on how "need to show id to vote" would work with mail-in ballots.

Thinking like a super-paranoid voter fraud conspiracy theorist, I could see the mailworkers uniting to destroy original ballots and replace them with ballots of their choice, can't you?

omg! NEVER!!!!

A jury found Estridge guilty on Oct. 12 on three of four counts, including conspiracy to prevent others from exercising their right to vote, conspiracy to steal absentee mail ballots, and aiding and abetting violations of Virginia's absentee ballot procedures.

Estridge, the only one of 14 original defendants to proclaim his innocence throughout what has been nearly a yearlong legal ordeal, did so before the court again on Thursday. All the other defendants (13) - including Cooper - forged cooperation and plea agreements with the special prosecution team of Tim McAfee and Greg Stewart.

Cooper pleaded guilty to 233 felony counts, and took the Alford plea on 10 other counts, which the court treats as guilty pleas.

super paranoid? or super ignorant?


http://www.timesnews.net/article.php?id=3721477

[PLAYER57832]

Player, in your opinion, in the wake of 2000 election and the competitiveness and passion of today's politics, how would you describe our election process today? Very tight and accurate? Very loose and corrupt? Somewhere in between? Where?

We have a pretty decent, not perfect system. I am in favor of real improvements, but these ID proposals are geared to cause more harm, to eliminate many legal voting citizens to "catch" a bare handful of illegal voters.... and NOTE, just because someone is registered doesn't mean they voted, particularly when the people registered by accident by, for example, simply checking the wrong box when applying for a driver's license.

Also, you can elaborate on what a "phatt-view" is anytime. If you don't respond here, I will have to assume you are scared of backing up your own words, or else you are unable to back them up.

I believe it was someone else who used that phrase, not I. If It was me, I would need the context.

[Phatscotty]

[Juan_Bottom]

While I'm not going to bother watching that video because the idea of the Minnesota Voter ID law was already shown to be utterly stupid, I will say that it's funny that the video appears to be pandering to people with child-like minds. Is the whole video subtitled in colorful children's refrigerator magnets?

[thegreekdog]

I may not be remembering correctly, but wasn't the 2000 voter fraud hubbub about counting the votes and not about voter identification?

[PLAYER57832]

I may not be remembering correctly, but wasn't the 2000 voter fraud hubbub about counting the votes and not about voter identification?

hanging chads, hanging chads

[thegreekdog]

I may not be remembering correctly, but wasn't the 2000 voter fraud hubbub about counting the votes and not about voter identification?

hanging chads, hanging chads

So the problem of hanging chads will be solved by voter identification laws? I'm asking PS.

[jimboston]

Why is this a debate?

Let me ask opponents of Voted ID Laws a question or two...

1) How many of the potentially disenfranchised people actually vote?

(... by potentially disenfranchised I mean those people so downtrodden by society that getting a picture ID would be an enormous burden.)

2) How many of these people (those who do vote, but wouldn't be able to because of onerous voter ID laws) take any time to pay attention to any of the issues in a given election?

[AndyDufresne]

Why is this a debate?

Let me ask opponents of Voted ID Laws a question or two...

1) How many of the potentially disenfranchised people actually vote?

(... by potentially disenfranchised I mean those people so downtrodden by society that getting a picture ID would be an enormous burden.)

2) How many of these people (those who do vote, but wouldn't be able to because of onerous voter ID laws) take any time to pay attention to any of the issues in a given election?

I think this addresses one or both your points.

From: http://www.brennancenter.org/content/re ... ification/

As many as 10% of eligible voters do not have, and will not get, the documents required by strict voter ID laws. Approximately ten percent of voting-age Americans today do not have driver’s licenses or state-issued non-driver’s photo ID. Based on Americans’ moving patterns, many more do not have photo ID showing their current address. And getting ID costs substantial time and money. A would-be voter must pay substantial fees both for ID cards and the backup documents needed to get them-up to $100 for a driver’s license, up to $45 for a birth certificate, $97 for a passport, and over $200 for naturalization papers. The voter may also have to take several hours off of work and travel significant distances to visit government offices open only during select daytime hours. Finally, many identifying documents cannot be issued immediately, so potential voters must allow for processing and shipping, which may take from several weeks to an entire year.

ID requirements fall hardest on people who have traditionally faced barriers at the polls. The impact of ID requirements is even greater for the elderly, students, people with disabilities, low-income individuals, and people of color. Thirty-six percent of Georgians over 75 do not have a driver’s license. Fewer than 3 percent of Wisconsin students have driver’s licenses listing their current address. The same study found that African Americans have driver’s licenses at half the rate of whites, and the disparity increases among younger voters; only 22% of black men aged 18-24 had a valid driver’s license. Not only are minority voters less likely to possess photo ID, but they are also more likely than white voters to be selectively asked for ID at the polls. For example, in New York City, which has no ID requirement, a study showed that poll workers illegally asked one in six Asian Americans for ID at the polls, while white voters were permitted to vote without showing ID.

--Andy

[thegreekdog]

Why is this a debate?

Let me ask opponents of Voted ID Laws a question or two...

1) How many of the potentially disenfranchised people actually vote?

(... by potentially disenfranchised I mean those people so downtrodden by society that getting a picture ID would be an enormous burden.)

2) How many of these people (those who do vote, but wouldn't be able to because of onerous voter ID laws) take any time to pay attention to any of the issues in a given election?

Most, if not all, conservative Republicans like to point out the unconstitutionality of various items. Anti-gun laws is a great example. The Constitution grants the right to bear arms. Many proponents of anti-gun laws point to the benefits of not having guns out there. Opponents of anti-gun laws (conservative Republicans) yell "Constitution!" So in the conservative's mind the potential benefit of "saving lives" does not outweigh the Constitution. I count myself in that group.

And yet when we come to voting laws, we hear one side screaming "Constitution!" and it's the not the conservative side. It's the liberal side. The government cannot impede or make more difficult the right to vote. It's in the Constitution. And yet most conservative Republicans do not find it troubling to support voter identification laws. In the conservative's mind the potential benefit of making sure the two cases a year of voter fraud not happening outweighs the Constitution.

So, from a pure constitutional perspective, we find such ridiculous hypocrisy it makes me a little sick. Nevermind the taxpayer cost associated with this sort of program, which should cause any self-respecting conservative to think twice about voter identification laws.

But to answer your questions:

(1) If it's even one person, it outweighs any perceived need for voter identification laws.
(2) This is irrelevant.

[Woodruff]

Player, in your opinion, in the wake of 2000 election and the competitiveness and passion of today's politics, how would you describe our election process today? Very tight and accurate? Very loose and corrupt? Somewhere in between? Where?

If this was such a problem in 2000, why is it that these laws are primarily being pushed just now, starting about nine months prior to a Presidential election? It literally smacks of intent to defraud.

[Phatscotty]

Why is this a debate?

Let me ask opponents of Voted ID Laws a question or two...

1) How many of the potentially disenfranchised people actually vote?

(... by potentially disenfranchised I mean those people so downtrodden by society that getting a picture ID would be an enormous burden.)

2) How many of these people (those who do vote, but wouldn't be able to because of onerous voter ID laws) take any time to pay attention to any of the issues in a given election?

Most, if not all, conservative Republicans like to point out the unconstitutionality of various items. Anti-gun laws is a great example. The Constitution grants the right to bear arms. Many proponents of anti-gun laws point to the benefits of not having guns out there. Opponents of anti-gun laws (conservative Republicans) yell "Constitution!" So in the conservative's mind the potential benefit of "saving lives" does not outweigh the Constitution. I count myself in that group.

And yet when we come to voting laws, we hear one side screaming "Constitution!" and it's the not the conservative side. It's the liberal side. The government cannot impede or make more difficult the right to vote. It's in the Constitution. And yet most conservative Republicans do not find it troubling to support voter identification laws. In the conservative's mind the potential benefit of making sure the two cases a year of voter fraud not happening outweighs the Constitution.

So, from a pure constitutional perspective, we find such ridiculous hypocrisy it makes me a little sick. Nevermind the taxpayer cost associated with this sort of program, which should cause any self-respecting conservative to think twice about voter identification laws.

But to answer your questions:

(1) If it's even one person, it outweighs any perceived need for voter identification laws.
(2) This is irrelevant.

Voter ID has been held up as Constitutional in many states....not just mine. The decisions were 7-2 and 8-1 here.

Also, it is possible that the rule, at least in my state, will pay for itself, and is projected to save 1 million dollars. Of course that is a political projection, but it's one we can measure down the road after we pass and implement Voter ID.

[thegreekdog]

Why is this a debate?

Let me ask opponents of Voted ID Laws a question or two...

1) How many of the potentially disenfranchised people actually vote?

(... by potentially disenfranchised I mean those people so downtrodden by society that getting a picture ID would be an enormous burden.)

2) How many of these people (those who do vote, but wouldn't be able to because of onerous voter ID laws) take any time to pay attention to any of the issues in a given election?

Most, if not all, conservative Republicans like to point out the unconstitutionality of various items. Anti-gun laws is a great example. The Constitution grants the right to bear arms. Many proponents of anti-gun laws point to the benefits of not having guns out there. Opponents of anti-gun laws (conservative Republicans) yell "Constitution!" So in the conservative's mind the potential benefit of "saving lives" does not outweigh the Constitution. I count myself in that group.

And yet when we come to voting laws, we hear one side screaming "Constitution!" and it's the not the conservative side. It's the liberal side. The government cannot impede or make more difficult the right to vote. It's in the Constitution. And yet most conservative Republicans do not find it troubling to support voter identification laws. In the conservative's mind the potential benefit of making sure the two cases a year of voter fraud not happening outweighs the Constitution.

So, from a pure constitutional perspective, we find such ridiculous hypocrisy it makes me a little sick. Nevermind the taxpayer cost associated with this sort of program, which should cause any self-respecting conservative to think twice about voter identification laws.

But to answer your questions:

(1) If it's even one person, it outweighs any perceived need for voter identification laws.
(2) This is irrelevant.

Voter ID has been held up as Constitutional in many states....not just mine. The decisions were 7-2 and 8-1 here.

Also, it is possible that the rule, at least in my state, will pay for itself, and is projected to save 1 million dollars. Of course that is a political projection, but it's one we can measure down the road after we pass and implement Voter ID.

I don't think there has been a constitutional challenge to voter identification laws that was heard by the US Supreme Court. No offense to state courts or circuit courts, but they don't really have final say.

I'd like to see the logic behind the voter identification laws saving 1 million dollars.