Voter ID: How about this?

[M14 Shooter]

Yes, we do want to restrict the vote to eligible voters voting once as themselves. I'm not seeing the issue.

Exactly.
And yet, people will oppose this.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Voter fraud and voter ID is trying to find a solution to a problem that does not exist.

The meaningful exercise of the right to vote is based on the prospective voter being who he says he is and is voting in the right place.
Thus, the state has a compelling interest to verify that the person at the poll is who he says he is.
The least restrictive means to this end is to require a state issue photo ID.

All of this is true regardless of any demonstrable issue with voter fraud.

 

[Rikurzhen]

One has to wonder what the true motives for Voter ID are when it does not achieve its stated goals, but succeeds in wasting taxpayer dollars that could have been spent on things which actually do stop voter fraud.

What's the true motive people have for paying for police departments when it costs more to send out a cop to investigate a shoplifting case than the value of the goods that are stolen? Secondly, the one benefiting is the shop-owner who had a candy-bar stolen and not the citizens, so why are we paying at all?

Why are we paying for public school for kids whose parents are drop0outs, for they have a high probability of becoming drop-outs themselves and so those children are likely never going to return to society the money that society invested into them. Why bother paying to have these kids educated?

Measures to insure the integrity of the vote are not a fiscal issue, they're a symbolic issue. If people feel strongly about the symbolic issue, then it's worth spending the money on to help tamp down feelings that elections are being stolen by Democrats committing fraud.

As for the more effective measures, it's a false dilemma to posit that acting on the former precludes addressing the latter.

 

[Rikurzhen]

So what about it, Voter ID people? How about we automatically register people to vote when they sign up for welfare or food stamps?

You don't need to do that, we have the systems in place.

Whenever a citizen first gets an idea, one of the requirements is to prove citizenship with a birth certificate and notarized statement from two other citizens to attest to identity. The piece of ID which is then granted makes note of citizenship status. That agency's backroom then verifies the authenticity of the birth certificate by checking with the granting state's vital records agency.

When other ID is granted, it too notes citizenship status but relies on the first ID as proof, thus bypassing the need for continual verification.

Voter registration does a more thorough job of maintaining and authenticating its data.

That should go a long way towards preventing Democratic Party election fraud.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Nonsense. Those older voters must have ID to get Social Security payments.

Do you support automatically registering people to vote when they sign up for Social Security payments?

No. Voting and Not Voting are both equally valid choices. Forcing an "opt out" version is government overreach.

You didn't answer his question

You are concerned about voters having proper credentials. Do you support the issuing of credentials and registering to vote for people signing up for Social Security or Welfare?

Yes.

 

[Rikurzhen]

It is hard working with retards.

You show them that Voter ID does not stop fraud.

Since I logged on this morning I've been witnessing you spazzing about this, post after post and all you've been doing is asserting that Voter ID does not stop fraud, you haven't SHOWN anyone anything. If you showed us in a post from a few days ago, well I can't remember what you wrote and I'm not going to looking for some potential post. I have no clue what your unstated position is, all I see you doing is frothing at the mouth because people don't subscribe to your asserted position.

The retard is usually the guy having the spazz attack. Just saying.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Voter ID proponents are like a stuck record. Even though it has been empirically proven that Voter ID does not stop fraud, they still want money wasted on it!
Amazing.
They cannot explain themselves. All we get is retarded responses like, "Because South Africa." Holy SHIT!!!
Because South Africa.
Never mind that Voter ID does not stop fraud, we must have it "because South Africa."
We're talking serious mental retardation here.
Voter ID. Does. Not. Stop. Fraud.

G5000 has been reduced to clapping his hands over his ears and yelling "ICANYHEARYOUICANTHEARYOU!"
This makes him more useless than usual.

I see you are dodging the truth. You cannot provide an example of actual voter fraud which was caught by Voter ID.

The blind man could never produce evidence of seeing his housekeeper stealing from him.

Twelve states, including the battleground state of Virginia, now require voters to show some form of photo identification (see table below), with approximately thirteen other states pursuing similar legislation.​

 

[kaz]

Two options, neither necessarily to the exclusion of the other:

If you do not have or cannot afford (scoff) a state-issued picture ID....

1: Register to vote, get your picture taken. That picture goes into a database, similar to that of the BMV, if not the same one. When you show up to vote w/ your state issued photo ID. the poll workers go to the database, check you against the picture in the database, and then give you a ballot. If there is any question among the poll workers, you get a provisional ballot to be verified later.

2: Register to vote, get your thumbprint scanned. When you show up to vote w/o your state-issued picture ID,. you run your thumb over the scanner and given a green/red light to vote. A red light might be an error, so you cast a provisional ballot to be verified later.

This eliminates any cost to or burden on a low-income voter and therefore eliminates any argument regarding discrimination against same for political purposes.

What say ye?

Why are you so interested in voter suppression? Your stance on guns is one of no compromise on anything. Yet you seem comfortable denying the right to vote to others. Explain this dichotomy.

Vote early, vote often, that's your philosophy.

Yes, we do want to restrict the vote to eligible voters voting once as themselves. I'm not seeing the issue.

As there is little evidence of wide spread voter fraud, it seems that this move to suppress the vote is an answer in search of a problem.

Ask yourself a few questions: which political ideology is seeking to suppress the vote by requiring IDs?

Which voters would be most impacted by an ID requirement?

Now, aren't those same voters more likely to vote for the political ideology NOT seeking to suppress their votes?

It amounts to a political move by one ideology to suppress the voters from an opposite ideology. Politics turned against the constituency. But it makes sense to Conservatives. Why? Conservatives always take the obtuse view of a problem rather than seeing the obvious.

None of that equates to you having supported your assertion that anyone wants to suppress votes. People proving who they are doesn't stop anyone legitimate from voting. No one. And every State that requires ID offers a free ID to vote, so there is no cost. You haven't established anything, you just make a blind accusation.

 

[g5000]

So what about it, Voter ID people? How about we automatically register people to vote when they sign up for welfare or food stamps?

You don't need to do that, we have the systems in place.

Whenever a citizen first gets an idea, one of the requirements is to prove citizenship with a birth certificate and notarized statement from two other citizens to attest to identity. The piece of ID which is then granted makes note of citizenship status. That agency's backroom then verifies the authenticity of the birth certificate by checking with the granting state's vital records agency.

When other ID is granted, it too notes citizenship status but relies on the first ID as proof, thus bypassing the need for continual verification.

Voter registration does a more thorough job of maintaining and authenticating its data.

That should go a long way towards preventing Democratic Party election fraud.

So when Voter ID tards whine that you have to show ID to get food stamps, how come you don't point out the illogic of their argument? Apples and oranges.

 

[g5000]

None of that equates to you having supported your assertion that anyone wants to suppress votes. People proving who they are doesn't stop anyone legitimate from voting. No one. And every State that requires ID offers a free ID to vote, so there is no cost. You haven't established anything, you just make a blind accusation.

Are Voter IDs made by elves? Because that is the only possible way they could be "no cost."

Taxpayers pay for "free" Voter IDs, the same way taxpayers pay for "free" roads.

Voter ID costs the taxpayers money. A lot of money. Therefore, you must demonstrate the need to spend that money.

Since Voter ID does not stop fraud, you are wasting taxpayer money. And a lot of time.

 

[Rikurzhen]

You would think that if millions of illegals were voting, several of those sneaky bastards would have been caught by now.

Critics contend that such laws are unnecessary because "impersonation fraud" at the polling place simply does not exist. It is true that direct evidence of such fraud is hard to come by, but this is for a simple reason: Election officials cannot discover an impersonation if they are denied the very tool needed to detect it-an identification requirement. The Seventh Circuit noted "the extreme difficulty of apprehending a voter impersonator" unless the impersonator and the voter being impersonated (if living) arrive at the polls at the same time, which is a very unlikely occurrence. . . .

The grand jury report revealed extensive voter registration and voter impersonation fraud in primary elections in Brooklyn between 1968 and 1982 that affected races for the U.S. Congress and the New York State Senate and Assembly. According to Holtzman, "[t]he grand jury investigation has uncovered a systematic attack on the integrity of elections in Brooklyn." Holtzman warned that unless there were immediate changes in procedures, there was "a danger that serious fraud could occur in connection with the upcoming election."[9]

This 14-year conspiracy was detailed by witnesses who participated in the fraud and were able to describe in great detail how it was accomplished. The grand jury found evidence of fraudulent and illegal practices in "two primary elections for Congress held in 1976 and 1982, four primary elections for the Assembly in three different assembly districts, three primary elections for the State Senate in one senatorial district and two elections for state committee in two different districts."[10] For 14 years, the conspirators engaged in practices that included:

the forgery of voter registration cards with the names of fictitious persons, the filing of these cards with the Board of Elections, [and] the recruitment of people to cast multiple votes on behalf of specified candidates using these forged cards or the cards of deceased and other persons.[11]​

 

[tinydancer]

Two options, neither necessarily to the exclusion of the other:

If you do not have or cannot afford (scoff) a state-issued picture ID....

1: Register to vote, get your picture taken. That picture goes into a database, similar to that of the BMV, if not the same one. When you show up to vote w/ your state issued photo ID. the poll workers go to the database, check you against the picture in the database, and then give you a ballot. If there is any question among the poll workers, you get a provisional ballot to be verified later.

2: Register to vote, get your thumbprint scanned. When you show up to vote w/o your state-issued picture ID,. you run your thumb over the scanner and given a green/red light to vote. A red light might be an error, so you cast a provisional ballot to be verified later.

This eliminates any cost to or burden on a low-income voter and therefore eliminates any argument regarding discrimination against same for political purposes.

What say ye?

Why are you so interested in voter suppression? Your stance on guns is one of no compromise on anything. Yet you seem comfortable denying the right to vote to others. Explain this dichotomy.

Vote early, vote often, that's your philosophy.

Yes, we do want to restrict the vote to eligible voters voting once as themselves. I'm not seeing the issue.

As there is little evidence of wide spread voter fraud, it seems that this move to suppress the vote is an answer in search of a problem.

Ask yourself a few questions: which political ideology is seeking to suppress the vote by requiring IDs?

Which voters would be most impacted by an ID requirement?

Now, aren't those same voters more likely to vote for the political ideology NOT seeking to suppress their votes?

It amounts to a political move by one ideology to suppress the voters from an opposite ideology. Politics turned against the constituency. But it makes sense to Conservatives. Why? Conservatives always take the obtuse view of a problem rather than seeing the obvious.

Bullshit. Why do you think your minorities are less intelligent or less capable than people in third world countries? How can they pull off these elections with international monitors requiring voter ID?

The argument is bogus that this leads to voter suppression.

Why not abandon the notion of voter suppression and drop calls for voter ID altogether?

Electoral integrity. It's a simple notion utilized in democracies and struggling democracies across the globe.

 

[g5000]

The blind man could never produce evidence of seeing his housekeeper stealing from him.

Twelve states, including the battleground state of Virginia, now require voters to show some form of photo identification (see table below), with approximately thirteen other states pursuing similar legislation.​

This is not evidence of Voter ID catching fraud. This is evidence of twelve states which are wasting taxpayer money.

 

[kaz]

Two options, neither necessarily to the exclusion of the other:

If you do not have or cannot afford (scoff) a state-issued picture ID....

1: Register to vote, get your picture taken. That picture goes into a database, similar to that of the BMV, if not the same one. When you show up to vote w/ your state issued photo ID. the poll workers go to the database, check you against the picture in the database, and then give you a ballot. If there is any question among the poll workers, you get a provisional ballot to be verified later.

2: Register to vote, get your thumbprint scanned. When you show up to vote w/o your state-issued picture ID,. you run your thumb over the scanner and given a green/red light to vote. A red light might be an error, so you cast a provisional ballot to be verified later.

This eliminates any cost to or burden on a low-income voter and therefore eliminates any argument regarding discrimination against same for political purposes.

What say ye?

Why are you so interested in voter suppression? Your stance on guns is one of no compromise on anything. Yet you seem comfortable denying the right to vote to others. Explain this dichotomy.

Vote early, vote often, that's your philosophy.

Yes, we do want to restrict the vote to eligible voters voting once as themselves. I'm not seeing the issue.

As there is little evidence of wide spread voter fraud, it seems that this move to suppress the vote is an answer in search of a problem.

Ask yourself a few questions: which political ideology is seeking to suppress the vote by requiring IDs?

Which voters would be most impacted by an ID requirement?

Now, aren't those same voters more likely to vote for the political ideology NOT seeking to suppress their votes?

It amounts to a political move by one ideology to suppress the voters from an opposite ideology. Politics turned against the constituency. But it makes sense to Conservatives. Why? Conservatives always take the obtuse view of a problem rather than seeing the obvious.

Bullshit. Why do you think your minorities are less intelligent or less capable than people in third world countries? How can they pull off these elections with international monitors requiring voter ID?

The argument is bogus that this leads to voter suppression.

Why not abandon the notion of voter suppression and drop calls for voter ID altogether?

You know Democrats are cheating, there is no other reason for you to want it to continue. If fraud were benefiting Republicans instead of you, you'd be setting yourself on fire in Lafayette Park demanding voter ID.

 

[g5000]

1. Electoral integrity. It's a simple notion utilized in democracies and struggling democracies across the globe.

   And yet you cannot prove Voter ID stops fraud.
   

 

[M14 Shooter]

None of that equates to you having supported your assertion that anyone wants to suppress votes. People proving who they are doesn't stop anyone legitimate from voting. No one. And every State that requires ID offers a free ID to vote, so there is no cost. You haven't established anything, you just make a blind accusation.

Exactly.
It is impossible to honestly and soundly argue that either of the suggestions in the OP in any way imply a desire to suppress votes, especially given that both of them are designed to provide the effect of a voter ID for low-income people w/o any cost to same.

 

[g5000]

You know Democrats are cheating, there is no other reason for you to want it to continue. If fraud were benefiting Republicans instead of you, you'd be setting yourself on fire in Lafayette Park demanding voter ID.

It is Voter ID proponents who want fraud to continue. They are deliberately wasting taxpayer money on a completely ineffective government program. That money could be put to use toward things which would actually stop fraud.

Therefore, it is blazingly obvious Voter ID proponents want fraud to continue. They have wasted money on a government program which allows it to continue unabated.

How do you sleep at night when you advocate the wasting of taxpayer money?

 

[g5000]

Critics contend that such laws are unnecessary because "impersonation fraud" at the polling place simply does not exist. It is true that direct evidence of such fraud is hard to come by, but this is for a simple reason: Election officials cannot discover an impersonation if they are denied the very tool needed to detect it-an identification requirement.

If you spent 30 seconds thinking about it, you would know why in-person impersonation fraud is extremely rare.

So THINK about it. Show me you can figure out why that is.

I will give you a hint. Every case of impersonation fraud the Voter ID tards have posted on this forum as evidence we need Voter ID has been absentee ballot fraud. Every single one!

And Voter ID cannot stop absentee ballot fraud, which is what makes their feeble examples so hilarious.

Come on. Give your brain a workout. See if you can figure out why in-person impersonation fraud is so rare.

 

[Rikurzhen]

You know Democrats are cheating, there is no other reason for you to want it to continue. If fraud were benefiting Republicans instead of you, you'd be setting yourself on fire in Lafayette Park demanding voter ID.

It is Voter ID proponents who want fraud to continue. They are deliberately wasting taxpayer money on a completely ineffective government program. That money could be put to use toward things which would actually stop fraud.

Therefore, it is blazingly obvious Voter ID proponents want fraud to continue. They have wasted money on a government program which allows it to continue unabated.

How do you sleep at night when you advocate the wasting of taxpayer money?

The teenage pregnancy rates in Minnesota and North Dakota are nearly identical yet Minnesota spends taxpayer funds on classroom sex education classes. Clearly they're not having an effect. Why aren't you railing about that wasted money?

 

[g5000]

You know Democrats are cheating, there is no other reason for you to want it to continue. If fraud were benefiting Republicans instead of you, you'd be setting yourself on fire in Lafayette Park demanding voter ID.

It is Voter ID proponents who want fraud to continue. They are deliberately wasting taxpayer money on a completely ineffective government program. That money could be put to use toward things which would actually stop fraud.

Therefore, it is blazingly obvious Voter ID proponents want fraud to continue. They have wasted money on a government program which allows it to continue unabated.

How do you sleep at night when you advocate the wasting of taxpayer money?

The teenage pregnancy rates in Minnesota and North Dakota are nearly identical yet Minnesota spends taxpayer funds on classroom sex education classes. Clearly they're not having an effect. Why aren't you railing about that wasted money?

I rail against many kinds of wasted taxpayer money. You are assuming I am a liberal. You are wrong. I am an old school conservative and I abhor these idiots who think they are conservatives who advocate Voter ID.

You know what we used to call people who wasted taxpayer dollars on an ineffective government program that further intrudes into our lives?

LIBERALS.

The people who advocate Voter ID are acting just like liberals. They are wasting taxpayer money. They are wanting more totalitarian controls on our lives ("Papers, please!). And they are helping voter fraud to continue by taking money away from things that would actually work, and by giving themselves and their fellow tards a false sense of security that they have made things safer.

It does not get more retarded liberal than that.

So go right ahead and keep tossing those red herrings out there. It does not deter from the FACT that Voter ID accomplishes NONE of its stated goals.