Yahoo/AP: Tough ID laws could block thousands of 2012 votes

[Slateman]

My Voter Identification Card?  

Was not an option presented.

[ABQCOWBOY]

It's interesting how choosy folks get when deciding what to trust the government to handle.

Not you in particular, mind you..  just overall.

In this case, the feeble incompetent government that can't be entrusted to fix a leaky faucet much less run any sort of program, is being called upon to oversee and regulate arguably the single most important freedom the people have.

and yet this same government is constantly accused of doing everything it can to clamp down on every freedom the people have, and depending on how far into the wingnut-o-sphere you want to go, every regulation the government comes up with is an infringement on freedom, and the reasons for them doing it are so they can do anything from spy on your computer to round us up for extermination camps.

 

this is not an issue. There is no demonstrable problem of voter fraud.

As Kilmer says it's not 100%  clean of it all, and just as anything in society there will be people who try to abuse the system.

But there is no conspiracy to sham our elections up..   overseas you see 99% votes for guys like Hussein and Putin.

This isn't us. we don't have corruption like this in our elections.   (he says with trepidation...)

 

So how is the government..  this same evil entity that wants to register gun owners for the purpose of knowing who to kill first.. this same entity that can't run a pencil sharpening operation without completely screwing it up with miles of red tape and political nonsense..  this same entity that  should NEVER be trusted when it says "I'm the government and I'm here to help"

is expected to HELP a problem that isn't there?

 

Overall th system works (as intended.. whether it WORKS,, well that's another debate,...) Fraud plays little to no part in the decisions.

And so to insure that, we want to turn it over to the incompetent government.

 

I don't follow the logic, especially when you see that the government (and the corrupt ****s who make up 'government'), when able to have a hand in elections, does things like ridiculous gerrymandering so individuals and political parties can rig it legally to keep themselves in power.

So they should have a heavier presence while we decide which of them stays and which of them goes. ..?

 

~Bang

 

 

Are you sure Bang?   I agree that the proof for voter fraud is not as nearly widespread as some may think but we have no real idea how many illegal voters there are in any give election.   Hell, we don't even know how many illegals are actually in this country.   Just because it's not stuffing the boxes or fixing results, does not mean that illegal voting practices are not going on. 

 

It's as if this part of the discussion is completely ignored.  

[twa]

Got it. 

 

Militarty ID - doesn't have to meet criteria. 

 

Student ID - well, if it meets this criteria. 

 

But it's not because we're trying to suppress student votes, but not military votes.  Nah, it's because the criteria is so important. 

 

military id does meet and exceed the criteria, but even with that fraud occurs.

 

next ya are gonna tell me college kids are too incompetent to get valid id

[ABQCOWBOY]

military id does meet and exceed the criteria, but even with that fraud occurs.

 

next ya are gonna tell me college kids are too incompetent to get valid id

 

This is true.  There really is no reason for things like Ballots not getting accepted from the Military because they are too late.  The Military is structured.  It's an easy fix if anybody wanted to fix it IMO.

[Larry]

Was not an option presented.

 

Thank you for indicating that your criteria of what's important changes, depending on which "options are presented". 

military id does meet and exceed the criteria, but even with that fraud occurs.

Really? Military ID has the person's address on it?

(I sure don't think it used to, but I'm aware that they changed it, a while back.)

Are you sure Bang?   I agree that the proof for voter fraud is not as nearly widespread as some may think but we have no real idea how many illegal voters there are in any give election.   Hell, we don't even know how many illegals are actually in this country.   Just because it's not stuffing the boxes or fixing results, does not mean that illegal voting practices are not going on. 

 

It's as if this part of the discussion is completely ignored.

Yes, we get it.

When the topic is whether we need this solution, the standard is "Well, if it might be happening once, that's enough".

When the topic is whether this solution is disenfranchising legitimate voters, the standard is "Well, it doesn't seem to be big enough to show up in the grand totals."

[Larry]

This is true.  There really is no reason for things like Ballots not getting accepted from the Military because they are too late.  The Military is structured.  It's an easy fix if anybody wanted to fix it IMO.

Actually, your statement (which, I confess, I'm having trouble figuring out your point) does remind me of something Florida did, that I think I have to give them props for.

Background: Remember the famous "Florida Election" of 2000? There was a big fight in the media about what the right tried to claim was Al Gore trying "to suppress military ballots". (It wasn't quite true. But it was kinda close).

What Gore was actually asking, in court, was for Florida state law to be followed. Florida law, at the time, stated that, to be accepted, absentee ballots have to be postmarked on election day (or sooner).

The problem apparently involves how the military mail system works. Apparently, when a soldier overseas sends a letter, that letter is taken by military personnell, via a kind of military post office. The military delivers the mail to an "APO or FPO post office", in the US, where the mail is then handed over to the US postal service, which takes it the rest of the way.

Supposedly, said military mail often doesn't get postmarked till it arrives in the US, and frequently doesn't get postmarked at all.

So, complying with Florida law would have resulted in discarding lots of absentee ballots that may have been mailed on election day, but didn't get to the US till days later, or items which had no postmark at all.

Well, jump forward to the election of 04. Seems that Florida changed the law for absentee ballots. The new law is that ballots must arrive, in the county election office, by election day.

I have to say, I'm surprised. Florida actually changed an election law, to require absentee ballots to be mailed earlier that previously required.

In effect, they made it tougher to vote absentee.

This was surprising to me. Absentee ballots generally favor Republicans.

Props to Florida for passing an election law that wasn't strictly done for the purpose of helping Republicans.

That's the only case I'm aware of, of an election law being changed that wasn't to the advantage of the majority Party. I think props are due, so I felt like I had to recognize them.

[Corcaigh]

If the Founding Fathers required that voters present photo ID, then it's good enough for me.

[Kilmer17]

If the Founding Fathers required that voters present photo ID, then it's good enough for me.

I agree. Let's follow the FFs vision of who can vote, when they can vote, and who they can vote for.

[Corcaigh]

I agree. Let's follow the FFs vision of who can vote, when they can vote, and who they can vote for.

The womenfolk and my staff request my direction and guidance on how to cast their vote.

[Kilmer17]

The womenfolk and my staff request my direction and guidance on how to cast their vote.

Lol.

[Bang]

Are you sure Bang?   I agree that the proof for voter fraud is not as nearly widespread as some may think but we have no real idea how many illegal voters there are in any give election.   Hell, we don't even know how many illegals are actually in this country.   Just because it's not stuffing the boxes or fixing results, does not mean that illegal voting practices are not going on. 

 

It's as if this part of the discussion is completely ignored.  

it hasn't been ignored.

it's been studied.. with all the hollering about it every cycle these days elections are closely monitored, especially since the Bush / Gore fiasco.

And it keeps coming back that there's no significant amount of it that it affects anything, if it ever exists.

 

No one is ever sure anything has ever been done until concrete evidence presents, and the absence of evidence is not evidence to be ramping up security.

here's the thing to me. I really don't see the harm in having people show ID. I really don't. In fact it seems sensible. 

However, since studies and reviews by experts are really all we have to go with as typical citizens, I can look at both sides and see that there is evidence that this could potentially affect millions of people's ability to vote.

On the other hand, i see very little evidence that the problem exists to the point where we have to start ID-ing everyone, if only because it will make it difficult for citizens who want to vote to be able to do so.

So the lesser of two evils is to keep it as is.

if we come up with a solution that can include everyone, I'd be open to discuss it. i think the idea of mobile registration centers coud be good. If we eventually do require photo ID then make these services as readily available as can humanly be. If inner cities or elderly centers have problems getting out to go to a place to register like a DMV, then open offices in these neighborhoods. Hell, HR Block does it every year, we can do it too. Open a storefront in the neighborhoods for a few months, and make it readily accessible, free, and easy.

 

Things like that i could listen to.

 

~Bang

[mcsluggo]

Nothing can stop your undying affliction to put me into a predetermined box friendo. Enjoy your weekend.

 

your asinine comments put you on the doorstep already in the box, stamped, addressed, and with a big giant bow.   don't pin it on anybody else

 

I know it drives the discussion for many many people.   Many many people cannot imagine that anyone else lives in a situation different than they do.  

 

Literally tens of millions of American citizens who are constitutionally entitled to vote would be cut out by these laws.  My daughter, who is 18 but has no driver's license, could not vote in many states.  My friend's elderly mom, who has no drivers license, could not vote.  The urban poor, who have no cars but are citizens the same as you and me, could not vote.    

 

This is a solution with real world impact in search of a problem that doesn't actually exist.  To use a terrible analogy, if you had a leaky faucet in your house, the solution is not to shut down the water main that also serves the nearby fire station.

 

i am MOSTLY appalled that your daughter will be voting in this election.... rather that skipping across a soccer field chasing butterflies

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Are you sure Bang?   I agree that the proof for voter fraud is not as nearly widespread as some may think but we have no real idea how many illegal voters there are in any give election.   Hell, we don't even know how many illegals are actually in this country.   Just because it's not stuffing the boxes or fixing results, does not mean that illegal voting practices are not going on. 

 

It's as if this part of the discussion is completely ignored.  

 

Even though there is no proof of illegal voting practices, we have to act as if there are illegal voting practices.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Yes, we get it.

When the topic is whether we need this solution, the standard is "Well, if it might be happening once, that's enough".

When the topic is whether this solution is disenfranchising legitimate voters, the standard is "Well, it doesn't seem to be big enough to show up in the grand totals."

 

 

On the contrary.  I'm in favor of using valid picture ID so, I think your last statement is not representative of my opinion.  Voters don't have to be disenfranchised.   That's the argument against but it doesn't have to be that way.  

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

if we come up with a solution that can include everyone, I'd be open to discuss it. i think the idea of mobile registration centers coud be good. If we eventually do require photo ID then make these services as readily available as can humanly be. If inner cities or elderly centers have problems getting out to go to a place to register like a DMV, then open offices in these neighborhoods. Hell, HR Block does it every year, we can do it too. Open a storefront in the neighborhoods for a few months, and make it readily accessible, free, and easy.

 

Things like that i could listen to.

 

~Bang

 

I'm sure James O'Keefe will not immediate descend on those offices dressed as a character in a blackploitation film and convince FoxNewsVendors that those services are little more than outreach offices for the Democrats.

On the contrary.  I'm in favor of using valid picture ID so, I think your last statement is not representative of my opinion.  Voters don't have to be disenfranchised.   That's the argument against but it doesn't have to be that way.  

 

And demanding these IDs disenfranchises voters. That's what you seem to not get.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Even though there is no proof of illegal voting practices, we have to act as if there are illegal voting practices.

 

Not true.  Illegals are voting. 

And demanding these IDs disenfranchises voters. That's what you seem to not get.

 

They are not disenfranchised.   There is noting stopping anybody from obtaining a valid ID.  If they chose not to do this, then the decision is on them.

 

How many people actually can't go get an ID?   I suspect the number is fairly small.  There are ways to assist in this process but it would mean that you want to actually do this. 

[TheGoodBits]

 

 

They are not disenfranchised.   There is nothing stopping anybody from passing a literacy test. 

 

Perspective... 

[ABQCOWBOY]

it hasn't been ignored.

it's been studied.. with all the hollering about it every cycle these days elections are closely monitored, especially since the Bush / Gore fiasco.

And it keeps coming back that there's no significant amount of it that it affects anything, if it ever exists.

 

No one is ever sure anything has ever been done until concrete evidence presents, and the absence of evidence is not evidence to be ramping up security.

here's the thing to me. I really don't see the harm in having people show ID. I really don't. In fact it seems sensible. 

However, since studies and reviews by experts are really all we have to go with as typical citizens, I can look at both sides and see that there is evidence that this could potentially affect millions of people's ability to vote.

On the other hand, i see very little evidence that the problem exists to the point where we have to start ID-ing everyone, if only because it will make it difficult for citizens who want to vote to be able to do so.

So the lesser of two evils is to keep it as is.

if we come up with a solution that can include everyone, I'd be open to discuss it. i think the idea of mobile registration centers coud be good. If we eventually do require photo ID then make these services as readily available as can humanly be. If inner cities or elderly centers have problems getting out to go to a place to register like a DMV, then open offices in these neighborhoods. Hell, HR Block does it every year, we can do it too. Open a storefront in the neighborhoods for a few months, and make it readily accessible, free, and easy.

 

Things like that i could listen to.

 

~Bang

 

This is why I say that it would be a good idea to actually have this as a Federal Law.  That way, a nation wide plan on providing ID could be implemented.  

 

Bang, I live in New Mexico and I see illegal voters voting.  It is happening here.  If it's happening here, it's happening elsewhere. 

Perspective... 

 

 

My perspective of this post is, in a word, poor.

 

This is not what I said, this is what you have said in my name.  Yeah, perspective is an interesting word to use.

[Corcaigh]

I live in New Mexico and I see illegal voters voting.

What evidence do you have for that claim? How many have you seen? How do you know they were illegal?

[TheGoodBits]

 

 

My perspective of this post is, in a word, poor.

 

This is not what I said, this is what you have said in my name.  Yeah, perspective is an interesting word to use.

 

Point was that it's basically the same thing in a different era. Laws expressly intended to suppress the minority vote. Not prevent, but just make it a lot more difficult for a lot of people.

What evidence do you have for that claim? How many have you seen? How do you know they were illegal?

 

Because they were speaking Espanol, duh. 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Point was that it's basically the same thing in a different era. Laws expressly intended to suppress the minority vote. Not prevent, but just make it a lot more difficult for a lot of people.

 

 

 

How do you see it as the same thing?

[The Evil Genius]

Screw id cards.

 

Lets go the implant route and mandate RFIDs in the neck.

[ABQCOWBOY]

What evidence do you have for that claim? How many have you seen? How do you know they were illegal?

 

Spanish in the U.S. and Spanish spoken in Mexico is different.   You can easily tell people who are Mexican and those who are born and raised here locally.   It's really not hard if you understand the language. 

Because they were speaking Espanol, duh. 

 

Amazingly enough, this is true.

[TheGoodBits]

How do you see it as the same thing?

 

Because it is. Republicans didn't like that they were losing elections so they decided to make it harder for minorities to vote. They can claim all the bull**** reasons they want. They aren't valid and every one of these laws is part of a larger coordinated effort to disenfranchise minorities. It's really simple and really horrific if you think about it. 

[Corcaigh]

Spanish in the U.S. and Spanish spoken in Mexico is different.   You can easily tell people who are Mexican and those who are born and raised here locally.   It's really not hard if you understand the language.

That's hardly convincing evidence. And people of Mexican origin are assumed to not be citizens?