Users who Dugg This
Agnostic_god_
1868 Followers
Comgen & Dr. Socks' love child
12544 Followers
Mik Wilker
1448 Followers
rjoplingFeb 15, 2012
if they want to pass voter id laws then they should also make it so people dont have to register to vote. just show up with your id and vote. all they did was add one more step and that is uncalled for from the same people who want to streamline the government.
norman619Feb 15, 2012
You do have to register to vote. LOL!!!!! This is in ADDITION to registering to vote.
cme884Feb 15, 2012
He's saying you shouldn't have to. If you've got a valid ID, you should be able to vote, regardless of registration.
drmangrumFeb 15, 2012
If there was a way to track when and where the person voted, I would agree. What we don't need is a system were a person could vote in one precinct, then hop to another precinct to vote again and have their vote count more than once.
wineincFeb 15, 2012
We could use blue ink on fingers like they did in the Iraqi and Afghani elections
rjoplingFeb 16, 2012
we could give out free ID cards to everyone of age to vote that uses their SS# and full name on a magnetic strip. all they would have to do is show their ID, it gets swiped into the system and they vote. then using tracking software we could keep track of where,when, and who voted. if they tried again somewhere else it could be flagged and the police would know exactly who did it. then just to drive the point home, if they get caught make it so their original vote gets deleted or make it so they cant vote again next election. it wouldnt be that hard of a system to get into place.
Closed AccountFeb 16, 2012
What I don't get is why those on the right aren't convinced that the stiff penalties currently in effect aren't a sufficient deterrent. Why do you keep talking as if you know for a fact this is a common practice? The reason O'Keefe and his fellow weasels didn't actually cast votes last month during their little stunt is because they knew what their fate would be. Think about it. If they wanted to prove it was possible, why didn't they just go ahead and do it? Ask yourself that question...
rjoplingFeb 15, 2012
did you even read my post?
troy64Feb 15, 2012
If you did not register to vote, what would keep people with valid IDs going from one polling station to the next and presenting their ID and voting. Without a list of registered voters there is nothing to crosscheck.
Ouzel7Feb 15, 2012
Amazing how many people dugg up the original post without considering your valid point.
AxiologyFeb 15, 2012
what info is contained in the magnetic strip on our ID's? Couldn't they just swipe it and check you off?
troy64Feb 15, 2012
If they could set up registration that way it would be great. Where I vote there are 3 eighty year old people who look my name up in a book. There is not a computer to be found.
rjoplingFeb 16, 2012
the internet has been around since the 90's. we could use that to centralize data. have them type in your name and s.s.# and have it automatically add in where you voted(biased on the location of the computer used). this would be shared nation wide and with it voter fraud would be nonexistent. i know that old people typically do this job and computers are not their strong point but we could make so user friendly that anyone could work it. above all else, we shouldnt make it harder to vote.
seanstuartFeb 15, 2012
You are 100% correct. The media gets this wrong every freakin' time they open their mouths. The people pushing this ID crap wink and smirk at each other because the whole point is adding more bureaucratic hoops before people can vote. And this will largely impact new young voters, students away from home, and minorities less skilled at navigating American bureaucracy, largely Democratic voters.
Fraud, my ass. If voter fraud was a thing, then there would actually be cases of it beyond well-connected people who already have IDs.
DiggPiggletFeb 15, 2012
"less skilled at navigating American bureaucracy,"
Do you want these people picking our leaders?
Closed AccountFeb 15, 2012
I don't want people who don't realize they're sad, right wing tools who are brainwashed to believe they are always victims. I don't want Bush voters choosing our leaders. I don't want people who can't grasp basic statistics to vote (or be allowed to use firearms).
DiggPiggletFeb 15, 2012
What about sad left-wing tools who are brainwashed to believe they are always victims? You're OK with them?
Closed AccountFeb 15, 2012
I've never met any. ;-P
GentlemanGhost542Feb 20, 2012
when it comes to the amount of ideological tools the right has way more ; )
quisquisFeb 15, 2012
None of those things describe any political group.
Closed AccountFeb 15, 2012
Oh...come on. Right wingers are always victims. Clint Eastwood hates them. No one will cut their taxes to zero. They can't deny women birth control without the President giving them a hard time. They're always falsely being accused of racism. Their religion is constantly "under attack". The "liberal media" has its boot on their necks. "Activist judges" are out to get them. Poor people and "illegals" are tainting elections. The climate change people are "shouting them down." Somebody was mean to Elizabeth Hassleback that day and she smeared her lip gloss. Everybody hates them because they're such hard workers and they're rich. Everybody wants to spend "their" tax dollars. People give them a hard time for hating on Muslims. No one will allow them to bully gay kids in peace. "Their" blacks are under attack. They're just so very oppressed. It's so unfair. ;-(
quisquisFeb 15, 2012
Who wants to deny women birth control?
Of course I could attack every idiotic thing you said individually, but that's too much work, so we'll just do this one.
So, who wants to deny women birth control?
Closed AccountFeb 15, 2012
You can't attack squat and you're not going to bait me into a crazy assed exchange about that nutjob Rick Santorum. If you don't know which filth on the right is anti-birth control that's *your* severe ignorance. Don't try to lure me into your silly sh*tstorms.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Ouzel7Feb 15, 2012
So...you got nothin' Koolaid?
Closed AccountFeb 16, 2012
Ouzie, sweetcheeks? At worst, that makes us even. ;-)
quisquisFeb 16, 2012
Chill out dude. All you've done now is resort to angry bitching.
The fact of the matter is you want to believe the other side is evil, so you distort their motivations from their rational roots to something crazy in order to dismiss them without having to consider them on the merits.
You can't be Anti-Koolaid when you've already saturated your head with the stuff.
Closed AccountFeb 16, 2012
Don't you dare lecture me about what's rational. You people *don't* have any compelling or credible evidence that voter fraud or voter election fraud are a serious problem. And you have no morals or scruples either. Why are all these horsesh*t stories about alleged voter fraud scandals and Black Panthers "intimidating" voters *only* in the crappy fringe right wing media? Why can't you losers find ANY source in the mainstream media to back up your claims? How is that the ONLY sites you rely on are far right wing sources? Because your claims are pure, unadulterated HORSESH*T. They're all baseless lies.
Here are the facts: Sick troll Breitbart, that fleabag weasel O'Keefe and the rest of your filthy inbred neocon thugs crushed ACORN under your jackboots and now you're going after even more of the least powerful Americans. You're ALWAYS going after the people with the least power. You want to stop the poor and minorities from voting. Period. That's what this is all about and I don't know why you think you're fooling anyone. The Koch scumbags have you marionettes skulking and skanking about like sleazy prostitutes on sites like Digg because the GOP has given up all pretense of LEGITIMATELY earning votes anymore. I'm reading post after post from wingers here who think that it's somehow a conservative principle to create new laws based on illegal activity you're *IMAGINING* occurs. How the HELL would you determine the efficacy of these ID laws (you've suddenly decided you simply MUST have) if you can't even freaking prove the illegal activity is happening in the first place? How is that supposed to work? What? You'll know the laws are working because you'll suddenly FEEL that voter fraud is no longer happening? What will be your next excuse to stalk and harass people?
The reason we KNOW you people are FOS is because you're trained (and I do mean trained) like lasers on this ONE approach (you can't even explain how it would work) to addressing alleged voter fraud. That and the fact that you're doing everything in your power to make it as DIFFICULT as possible for people to vote. So don't you even THINK of lecturing me about "angry bitching". You clowns ALWAYS do this. You behave in the sleaziest and scummiest most racist ways and then you try to turn it back around on your accusers when we call you out.
Get this through your thick pea brains: Black people will NEVER vote for Republicans again after the way you've treated this President. You know this. You're alienating women, you're pissing off gay people, you're treating undocumented immigrants as if they're farm animals, and now you want to force the government to have old people dig up their SS cards and haul their asses down to the freaking DMV to get an ID they will use only once every few years. Like the song asks, how low can you people go? You've been stalking and harassing these people for years and you NEVER learn. These elections are so close now because you clowns have antagonized and harassed your way to virtual obscurity. Reagan is doing somersaults in his grave watching this party and the rest of the world is looking at this circus and they're wondering why in the hell anyone should trust Americans to run so much as a lemonade stand. Stop projecting your beliefs onto others and look at your damned selves. Look in the mirror.
quisquisFeb 16, 2012
I'm one of the poor you f**king moron.
Like I said, you misconstrue the argument of your opponent in order to try and dismiss their ideas without thought.
"You want to stop the poor and minorities from voting. Period."
I want to stop myself from voting?
When you pull your head out of your ass and decide that your ideological opponents are coming from a rational position (just like I assume you think you are) instead of the insane idea you're holding in your head right now (namely, that ~50% of the population is trying to destroy the lives of 99%), then maybe we can start talking.
Until then, you're just another person shouting slurs in the crowd.
quisquisFeb 16, 2012
"That and the fact that you're doing everything in your power to make it as DIFFICULT as possible for people to vote."
We could do more... We could be like the democrats in Milwaukee, WI who slashed the tires of of some vans that were part of a "get out the vote" type effort put on by republicans.
http://www.wisn.com/news/4113353/detail.html
But yeah, it's the republicans who are trying to keep people from voting...
Closed AccountFeb 17, 2012
You must have severe brain damage. Which Democrats in Congress slashed someone's freaking tires? Are you really that thick and literal minded?
quisquisFeb 17, 2012
You're a troll.
/spit
rjoplingFeb 16, 2012
why not? who are you to say who can vote and who cant? they make up the majority of the population that your leader makes decisions for. they have every right to pick the one they feel is better for the country.
DiggPiggletFeb 16, 2012
I don't want idiots to vote. I realize Democrats need idiots to stay in power and I understand your willingness to protect them.
rjoplingFeb 16, 2012
what if i were to claim that you were an idiot? would that mean that your right to vote should be taken away? btw, republicans want the ignorant, the easily influenced, and the people who fail to realize what critical thinking is. they thrive off of the people who will blindly follow anything they say. that is the only reason there is a republican party to begin with. the one thing i am wondering about though, is what makes your judgement so much better than anyone else's? are you now the supreme ruler? do you make all choices for everyone? you are no more special than the toilet paper i used to wipe my ass with, except it served a purpose unlike you.
glassagateFeb 20, 2012
Um, some libs are idiots, just as some
conservatives are, too.
They ran on small government policies,
and are pushing many huge, draconian
government policies:
(1) State, federal laws against gay marriage,
civil unions, domestic partnerships
(2) State federal Constitutional amendments
against gay marriage, civil unions, domestic
partnerships.
(3) A whole slue of stuff against a women's
right to choose...mandatory vaginal probes?
How is this small government?
(4) Ending birth right citizenship
(5) Keeping an American citizen off of
the ballot (Google Obama Georgia ballot)
(6) Slashing the budget by ending useful
social programs, which only amount to
a few million dollars, while adding to the
tens if not hundreds of billions in defense
spending waste.
(7) Conservative representatives acting
as if we try those in Gitmo in civilian
courts will somehow threaten out country,
when it will only make it stronger.
If we don't try them, at least send those who
bomb Planned Parenthood locations to
Gitmo.
Also, many of those in Gitmo...we know that
they're innocent, but aren't letting them go.
Need I go on?
(8) Keeping the Bush tax cuts, which is
not good at all, for the deficit.
DiggPiggletFeb 16, 2012
If I was not smart enough to know how to get my voter ID card then YES you could call me an idiot and not let me vote.
"republicans want the ignorant, the easily influenced, and the people who fail to realize what critical thinking is."
Both parties have that problem. There are many voters out there that vote for the prettiest candidate. Just recently Samuel Jackson said he voted for Obama because he was black.
"... what makes your judgement so much better than anyone else's? are you now the supreme ruler?"
Do you have to be the supreme ruler to not be an idiot? Exaggerate much?
rjoplingFeb 17, 2012
all that i am saying is you have NO POWER to make decisions for anyone but your self and your kids. the only reason there should ever be to deny someone the right to vote is a felony. whats your next idea, letting only land owners vote and the more they own the more there vote counts?
DiggPiggletFeb 17, 2012
But you guys on the left want felons to vote. It's takes idiots and scum to empower Democrats.
http://www.aclu.org/voting-rights/voter-disfranchisement
rjoplingFeb 17, 2012
i could understand why they want this. they served their time, took their punishment and after they are finished with their parole. they are essentially law abiding citizens again. i personally dont agree with it though. depending on the original charge(violent crimes/fraud/child abuse/multiple charges) the punishment should be greater. the problem is, over 70% of convicted felons have been convicted of non-violent drug related crimes. these people should not get the same treatment. this goes with another of my beliefs that even though drugs are bad and can cause people to ruin their lives, it should not be against the law to hurt yourself. all drugs should be legal. drugs do not cause people to commit crimes. they make that choice themselves. and i believe that the law should stick with helping those harmed not those who harm themselves.
DiggPiggletFeb 17, 2012
It depends on the crime. If the felony involved harming people then I say the convict have should never have voter rights. Felons convicted of victimless crimes like pot growers are debatable with me.
rjoplingFeb 17, 2012
agreed
glassagateFeb 20, 2012
That's the way I feel about tea party people
who vote.
Their leaders run on limited government,
and then speak out in favor of a federal
Constitutional amendment to outlaw
gay marriage. Usually, there is a
5 minute difference between the two
actions.
Of course, just because I disagree with them,
that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be able
to vote, or that the system should be kept
complex, hence possibly discouraging them
from even trying.
drmangrumFeb 15, 2012
The whole reason you register to vote is to make sure people vote only in a precinct they are assigned. That is stop people from voting multiple times. Until the states can create a reliable, accurate, and tamper-proof online system to track who voted and when, we have to rely on registration.
Without registration, you'd see people (on both sides of the political spectrum) going to as many voting locations as they can to vote for their candidates. Under the status quo, and without registration, it would be near impossible to track the fraud.
rjoplingFeb 16, 2012
true we would need a complete overhaul but i believe that we are technologically advanced enough to do this. we already have a system in place that could keep track of who voted and where(the internet) and all it would take to use it would be to have the people running the booths enter the data as it came in. granted, we would have to trust these people to do their jobs right or have it done by the police. the registration process needs an update, we already have people voting in multiple states and people in the system that died years ago. making a centralized data system would stop all of this.
rjoplingFeb 16, 2012
why set precincts to begin with? it only serves as another tool the repubs use to stack the deck. have you seen a map of them? there is no reasoning in their layout besides making sure there are enough repubs to counter the dems. its all a sham. people should get to vote, period. if you want to vote in another precinct/town/state it should not matter. keep track of who voted and dont allow another by the same person, simple as that. its not science fiction, we have the technology and the security to make it happen but that would allow too many people to vote and the right is afraid of that.
glassagateFeb 20, 2012
@ rjopling
I think that what you're referring to is that once
a state's citizen is old enough, and is eligible,
that the state register's them automatically.
I like the idea.
Also, change it so that voting starts on Friday afternoon,
and ends on Monday afternoon.
johnnickFeb 14, 2012
The basic question that rarely gets asked is which result we want in the case of error: would we prefer to make sure that all those who should be allowed to vote can, even if it means that some who might not be allowed to vote slip through, or do we want to maximize the prevention of unauthorized votes at the risk that such prevention will disenfranchise some who should have been allowed to vote?
One of the premises of our legal philosophy is that you are innocent until proven guilty, and that we would prefer to allow a guilty person to go free rather than risk incarcerating an innocent. The principle is that we would rather risk not punishing a violator in favor of protecting the rights of the non-violator.
If we apply that same philosophy to voting, then it seems clear that we should be maximizing the ability to vote, while using reasonable methods to minimize fraud that do not increase the risk of disenfranchising legitimate voters.
Since there has yet to be any significant evidence of voter fraud, and since there has been evidence that the proposed rules would be likely to disenfranchise certain groups, it seems like the proposed voter ID laws are contrary to our fundamental philosophy. Thus, we should assume that those voting are legitimate unless there is some material reason to believe otherwise.
treehugger87Feb 14, 2012
It is far more important that those who should be allowed to vote are able to vote. Of course, if you are a power-hungry minority you don't want that at all and will make up any reason to prevent it.
drmangrumFeb 15, 2012
That's a matter of opinion. While I think everyone (provided they meet the legal requirements) should not only be able to vote, but SHOULD vote, I think it's far more dangerous to allow 1000 false votes than deny 100 real votes.
Of course, you could flip that around, but it's pretty damn easy to register to vote, to get to a voting location, and cast your vote. Just imagine the chaos that would rise up if voting rules were relaxed and the radical political groups found ways to cheat the system.
What would the courts do if they found a precinct had been compromised? Would they throw out the entire precinct and thereby losing a lot of real votes in an effort to disregard the fraudulent votes? Would they allow the fraudulent votes and make the real votes inconsequential? If the votes are thrown out, a fringe group could make fraudulent votes and then anonymously report their own fraud.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
johnnickFeb 15, 2012
Valid questions, but the point is that there has yet to be any evidence of the kind of widespread fraud you're talking about. As far as I know, there has yet to be any analysis of the consequences of permitting "false votes" as opposed to disenfranchising legitimate votes.
So, all of the voter ID laws are (allegedly) based on the hypothetical fear that there might be significant risk of voter fraud, despite the lack of evidence of such fraud, and without any analysis of the consequences of such fraud vs. the consequences of disenfranchisement. And it's being done in a way that is similar to methods that have historically been used to suppress minority voting.
We have no cost-benefit analysis for these proposed laws, so all we're doing is saying things like, "I think it's far more dangerous to allow 1000 false votes than deny 100 real votes." without any factual support.
drmangrumFeb 15, 2012
While there may or may not be any existing widespread fraud, we don't want to alter the system in such a way that fraud is encouraged (or at least not discouraged).
The system could certainly use some updating and perhaps even some uniformity. The trick is finding the balance point between access and security.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
treehugger87Feb 15, 2012
The "system" is the individual rules set by 50 different states and thousands of different municipalities. In my life I have voted in 4 different states. Sometimes I have had to sign a piece of paper with a signature that matches the signature that you registered with. Sometimes I have had to answer a simple question, and sometimes I have had to present a piece of paper that was mailed to be in advance of the election.
None of these were excessive requirements that I had to take time out of my life to satisfy. All of them discourage in person voter fraud.
You present the case like presenting a photo ID is the only way to discourage in person voter fraud and that until these states thought of it nobody was doing anything about it, that is simply not true.
treehugger87Feb 15, 2012
I suppose it's a matter of opinion, but I present for you the 60,000 registered voters in the state of Florida who were denied the right to vote and any recourse back in 1999. 60,000 votes, ALL likely Democrat votes, was more than enough to sway that entire state. All of the evidence that it occurred exists, none of it is theoretical or "what if". That fact more than any other determined which man became President in 2000.
There is simply no equivalent when it comes to in-person voter fraud. Someday in the future when in-person voter fraud is demonstrably the reason behind a travesty of justice on this scale I would agree that we should do something about it.
aveterenFeb 15, 2012
"ALL likely Democrat votes, was more than enough to sway that entire state. All of the evidence that it occurred exists, none of it is theoretical or "what if"."
Then please show us the evidence. We would like to see it. If it exist then why wasn't it brought to light.
Oh, I know...democrats live in the dark. They don't like the light. It shows the truth. When you live in the dark you can make all kinds of wild accusations that don't exist. You know here on Digg Central you have a ready made cheering section.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
treehugger87Feb 15, 2012
The legal case, NAACP vs. Katherine Harris
http://www.aclufl.org/legislature_courts/legal_department/briefs_complaints/naacp_v__harris.cfm
The story
http://www.salon.com/2000/12/04/voter_file/
An academic paper from the NYU Annual Survey of American Law
http://www.law.nyu.edu/ecm_dlv1/groups/public/@nyu_law_website__journals__annual_survey_of_american_law/documents/documents/ecm_pro_064636.pdf
and I was wrong. There weren't 60,000 registered voters removed from the roles, there were 600,000. 60,000 is the estimated number of votes that it is believed Gore would have won by if these legitimate voters had not been purged.
dougchristianFeb 15, 2012
"I think it's far more dangerous to allow 1000 false votes than deny 100 real votes."
You know you're off track when you have to phrase it like that.
What about 100 false vs 100 real? What about something closer to what the evidence actually suggests: 1 fraudulent vote vs 100 disenfranchised votes?
quisquisFeb 15, 2012
He said that... His next sentence was:
"Of course, you could flip that around..."
And jesus... don't act like you've got access to any hard numbers
"What about something closer to what the evidence actually suggests: I'm making up numbers to try and support my point".
Fixed that for ya.
dougchristianFeb 16, 2012
Then flip it around and ask yourself the damn question. Why do you have no concern for the concept of disenfranchised voters? You realize we all see right though you and it's damn ugly. Spinning something dishonestly to try to take away people's ability to vote against your ideas is about as un-American as it gets.
The estimates are that as many as 5% would have trouble producing an ID. Even if it's 1%, we're talking about a couple MILLION people. I'm being generous in granting you the concession of there being something like 20,000 cases of fraud in any given election. The truth is you have no evidence of this fraud at all.
quisquisFeb 17, 2012
Every fraudulent vote is a disenfranchised vote.
Where's this 5% estimate coming from?
There's little evidence of fraud because it's insanely hard to track imo.
You're refusing to fix REAL disenfranchisement based on the imagined disenfranchisement the fix would cause.
"You realize we all see right though you and it's damn ugly. "
I'M SO f**kING SICK OF BEING CALLED NAMES BECAUSE I BELIEVE SOMETHING DIFFERENT FROM YOU!
You're an assh**e.
You and everyone who responds with that kind of vitriol are the problem
Closed AccountFeb 17, 2012
"Every fraudulent vote is a disenfranchised vote."
--And? So what? What about every vote that doesn't get cast due to the approaches you advocate? Are you worried about those too? Every murder is terrible. Are you going to try to eliminate murder from the planet. Is that a realistic goal? You're only GUESSING how much voter fraud there is but you somehow KNOW the problem is serious enough that we need to pass laws that would almost certainly prevent more legally registered voters from voting than it would block illegal voting?
"There's little evidence of fraud because it's insanely hard to track imo."
--This is one of the most freaking ridiculous lines of reasoning on this issue I've encountered. Period. Who the hell are you to think you know this for a fact? Simply because people like you FEEL (on no rational basis whatsoever) that the problem is bigger than you can prove, we should write new laws affecting every voter in the country? You actually think that is a sane argument?
"You're refusing to fix REAL disenfranchisement based on the imagined disenfranchisement the fix would cause."
--No. You're the one with the overactive imagination. Based on your 100% UNSUBSTANTIATED (as in who the hell are you to think you know more than election officials-- people who get paid to root out fraud every single day?) fears and concerns, you want to create new laws that will treat all citizens like potential felons at the ballot box. You cannot prove the problem is more serious than has been documented (but, in your extreme arrogance, you somehow know for a fact you're right) but you're convinced YOU are the one who is disenfranchised? Is that what you're saying? Also, your statement is ridiculous on its face.Neither of us has to imagine that voters will be disenfranchised because, if you're honest, you know that a lot Americans (particularly seniors) will be turned off or discouraged by these new requirements and they won't bother to vote anymore. What you don't seem to realize is that far MORE Americans would be turned off than you are likely to find committing voter fraud. In case you weren't aware, we have a serious problem with voter apathy in our country as it is. The last thing on earth we should be doing is discouraging Americans from voting.
glassagateFeb 20, 2012
>> I think it's far more dangerous to allow 1000
>>false votes than deny 100 real votes.
Um, voter fraud is basically non-existent.
murxFeb 15, 2012
Wait, I thought the 'fundamental philosophy' of the USA had evolved into 'fear everything including your own shadow' and bomb it.
You must be quit old to have a different one in mind!
bersercFeb 15, 2012
Everyone can vote on the day of election using a provisional ballot. It presumes they meet the residency requirement and allows them to vote even if due to clerical error they are not on the voting list.
Closed AccountFeb 15, 2012
I've noticed that many of the states that are pushing voter ID laws don't require a permit to own a gun and/or they don't require firearms to be registered. Also, it seems that in many places, anyone can buy a gun at a gun show on the spot. Do you think it's right that in some states it's easier to buy a gun illegally than it is to vote?
bersercFeb 15, 2012
Voting is actually easier than buying a gun. First off it doesn't require any money. Second if you run into any problems voting you can cast a provisional ballot. There is no provisional gun ownership where they give you the gun even if you don't have the money to buy it.
Closed AccountFeb 15, 2012
Thanks. I think the point I was making had to do with registering to buy a gun.
ChuppacabraFeb 15, 2012
Actually, as usual, you have no point.
Just red herring stupidity you toss out to try and make your rambling, incoherent hypocrisy palatable to the rest of the Digg-Cum-PoopsComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountFeb 15, 2012
@chuppsy: berserc was making the issue about affordability. I'm saying that's a side issue. Republicans don't want people to be able to register and vote on the same day but they're happy to sell a deadly weapon to someone on the spot.
ljseinfeldFeb 15, 2012
Voting (if you believe it actually does anything) is *way* more dangerous than guns.
Closed AccountFeb 15, 2012
I think a lack of voter participation is the more serious problem.
drmangrumFeb 15, 2012
Depends on what you mean by participation.
Do you mean that not enough people vote? I would agree.
Do you mean that voters don't do enough to keep themselves informed? I would agree.
We need more people to vote, but I prefer they keep their vote to themselves if they can't put forth a modicum of effort to educate themselves outside of listening to their choice news outlet (and that goes for all outlets: CNN, Fox, MSNBC, NYTimes, etc).
A vote can be more dangerous than a bullet. It needs to be wielded with the respect it deserves.
Closed AccountFeb 15, 2012
But that's a slippery slope. If we all start deciding for others what it means to educate oneself, no one would be allowed to vote.
drmangrumFeb 15, 2012
I didn't say someone should have to prove they're knowledgeable to vote, only that it would be nice if those who don't educate themselves would admit to themselves they don't know enough about the issues and/or candidates and just not cast their vote.
Voting should be about more than just clicking the name of the guy with a D or R next to their name and going home. The choices should be seriously considered before pressing the button.
If you've only ever voted for one party and have never considered voting for the other party, chances are you're part of the problem.
aveterenFeb 15, 2012
@drmangrum
"those who don't educate themselves would admit to themselves they don't know enough about the issues and/or candidates and just not cast their vote."
You are an idiot......and you diffidently are anti-constitutional. The constitutional says nothing about if you are educated or not on any subject. As a matter of fact most people back then were not.
Anybody who is a citizen of the U.S., 18yrs of age, and can show proof of this are eligible.
This is America. Get a grip...................
We have so few rights left as it is and you want to take someones away from them because YOU don't think they are smart as YOU are. Wow. I know without knowing that you are a liberal democrat.
FREEDOM IS FOR EVERYONE......
Be a real believer of the constitution. Let freedom be for everyone. Not just a privileged few YOU deem are smart enough to vote.
Closed AccountFeb 16, 2012
"I didn't say someone should have to prove they're knowledgeable to vote, only that it would be nice if those who don't educate themselves would admit to themselves they don't know enough about the issues and/or candidates and just not cast their vote."
--Ok...This is something *only* neocons do. Seriously... You're just lying. Either that or you don't know how to read your own words. You said:
"...I prefer they keep their vote to themselves if they can't put forth a modicum of effort to educate themselves..."
--What's was that? What WAS that? In essence, you're saying that others should have to prove they are educated-- based on YOUR criteria. Right? I mean, WTF? Why are you backpedaling when you just freaking said that one post earlier?! Is this Mitt Romney? ;-x
rjoplingFeb 15, 2012
"innocent until proven guilty" is no longer the case the US anymore. now its guilty until you can prove your innocence that or until you throw enough money at the problem and get it thrown out of court. the courts have been bought just like the rest of the government.
Closed AccountFeb 15, 2012
"If we apply that same philosophy to voting, then it seems clear that we should be maximizing the ability to vote, while using reasonable methods to minimize fraud that do not increase the risk of disenfranchising legitimate voters. "
--You make many excellent points. I think that in emphasizing the latter vs the former, the proponents of these ID laws have made their true motives clear. They absolutely don't want more voter participation.
ChuppacabraFeb 15, 2012
Actually what they don't want is more dead people voting for Democrats, more illegal aliens on the public teet voting for Democrats, more minorities bussed into several districts so they can vote multiple times for Democrats, more people being given bricks of cheese at the voting locations so they'll vote for Democrats, etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum.
I know. Its us uptight assh**e Republicans wanting people to play by the rules again.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountFeb 15, 2012
Then they should fix their voter rolls--because the phenomenon you talk about (even though they're a product of your imagination) wouldn't be addressed by requiring votes at the ballot box.
Closed AccountFeb 15, 2012
I meant...by requiring *ID* at the ballot box.
slang4catFeb 15, 2012
It's the only way they'll ever get their candidate elected.
Closed AccountFeb 15, 2012
What's sad is that the only reason you can conceive of losing is if elections are stolen from you. You have *no* idea what's wrong with the GOP and you're not interested in trying to figure it out either. Oh well, keep playing the victim. I'm sure that's productive.
ChuppacabraFeb 16, 2012
We know exactly whats wrong, and the only conceivable way you can win 2012 is because we aren't jumping behind RINOs anymore.
But you can't hide the dumb s**t your Democrats have been doing for the last 5 years.
Closed AccountFeb 16, 2012
LMAO. You don't know who you're "jumping behind" from one minute to the next.
ChuppacabraFeb 18, 2012
@AntiKoolaid
I know.
Its almost as confusing as the last time you tried to confirm your paternity.
laurahoustonFeb 15, 2012
I think the voter supression is a very serious issue..I want the Federal gov to step in and upgrade Americas voting system.
History repeats itself in America. It did not go well the last time the Federal gov did nothing and let the states deal alone with the voting public.
ref http://www.pbs.org/tpt/slavery-by-another-name/watch/
laurahoustonFeb 15, 2012
. I'm more concerned about vote tally fraud, voter suppression, and vote machine hacking.
"Computer scientists have demonstrated a hack that uses off-the-shelf hardware to tamper with electronic voting machines that millions of Americans will use to cast ballots in the 2012 presidential elections."
ref http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/09/28/diebold_electronic_vote_tampering/
kasha34Feb 15, 2012
Okay, it's official. Digger lib/lefty/progressive/looters are not interested in documented cases of organized voter fraud. Got it.
concusionFeb 15, 2012
Yeah I know about the biggest case of voter fraud ever. George Bush and the 2000 election. Thanks for that.
ribarnicaFeb 15, 2012
That's more like judicial fraud.
aveterenFeb 15, 2012
"BIGGEST case of voter fraud ever" I think not.........
Damn are you out of touch with reality.....You need to do more research. This example of voter fraud was in 1982. The biggest voter fraud was in Chicago in 1960.
Where There's Smoke, There's Fire: 100,000 Stolen Votes in Chicago/By Hans von Spakovsky/April 16, 2008
Grand Jury Findings in Chicago 1982:
-Preying on the Disabled and Elderly.
-Impersonating Absent Voters.
-Registering Aliens.
-False Registrations.
-Casting Fraudulent Absentee Ballots.
-Buying Votes.
-Altering the Vote Count.
(All of the above is why we need voter ID at the voting polls.)
Other findings of the Grand Jury:
Interference by Democratic Party Officials. Precinct Captains in Chicago did not work for the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners. They were democratic political appointees of the ward committeemen and therefore answered only to the democratic committeemen and their political party.
1960 Prsidential Election: (this one helped steal the presidency for Kennedy)
Chicago, Illinois: News reporters witnessed so much voter fraud by the Democrats that the Chicago Tribune stated "the election of November 8 was characterized by such gross and palpable fraud as to justify the conclusion that Richard Nixon was cheated of victory." (As quoted by the Washington Post.)
The Republican National Committee filed a lawsuit challenging the Chicago results. Not coincidentally, the lawsuit was assigned to the courtroom of a judge known to be friendly to Richard Daley and the Democratic party, Circuit Court Judge Thomas Kluczynski. After predictably dismissing the Republican suit, Kluczynski was rewarded by "President" John F. Kennedy with an appointment to the federal bench.
(Known for corrupt party politics, Richard Daley was the prototypical "machine" politician, and his "Chicago Democratic Machine", based on control of thousands of patronage positions, was instrumental in bringing a narrow 8,000 vote victory in Illinois for John F. Kennedy in 1960, following a three week delay and multiple re-counts of votes cast by paper ballot in districts primarily on the south side of Chicago.)
-This same "Chicago Democratic Machine" trained Obama-
Earl Mazo was a reporter for the New York Herald Tribune in 1960. He investigated charges of Chicago voter fraud in the 1960 Kennedy / Nixon elections. Mazo found a cemetary in one Chicago precinct where the names on the head stones were registered democrat voters who had actually voted! Reporter Mazo also visited the Chicago address where 56 Kennedy voters listed their address. What he found was an abandoned, demolished house.
After numerous Democratic judges dismissed Republican charges of voter fraud, Kennedy was finally inaugurated.
Following Kennedy’s inauguration, the U.S. Department of Justice performed an inconclusive investigation into the accumulated evidence of voter fraud. The head of the DOJ was none other than U.S. Attorney General "Bobby Kennedy", brother of you-know-who. JFK
Closed AccountFeb 15, 2012
You still don't get it...None of the situations you mentioned would be addressed by the voter ID laws the GOP is pushing.
craigstellmacheFeb 14, 2012
"100,000 Minnesotans without voterID today"--Senator John Marty, that's an order of magnitude greater than the 9,000 recount difference between Dayton (D) and Emmer (R).
quarterbrewFeb 14, 2012
The next state wide election in MN is the Primary on 8/14/12. That's 6 full months from today to get registered, which is FREE. Plenty of advance time, and quite affordable to most everyone.
If you need an absentee ballot, in MN, they are FREE, and mailed or emailed 46 days prior to the election date.
Now, show me the "disenfranchised" who cannot vote because they don't have voter ID on election day.
I've said it above, voting is a matter of DESIRE. If you want to vote, and you are a legal citizen, you can. If election day comes around, and "OMG, I don't have a voter id, those facist Republicans!!" is bullcrap, you didn't want to vote, live with it.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
craigstellmacheFeb 14, 2012
Well, we have a bunch of senior citizens would you believe, without birth certificates? They're in walkers and wheelchairs too. Probably don't believe me, but I'll be interviewing some soon I hope, and I'd like trace the hurdles they must jump over to prove their family's have been here for hundreds of years. I'm actually talking germans and norwegians and... Strange category I know, but right now I'm seeking numbers on this...
Craig
Closed AccountFeb 15, 2012
Sorry but you don't get to decide what is or isn't convenient for others based on your politically biased and uninformed opinions. Whether the ID are free or they cost a million dollars, you don't have a legitimate basis for requiring one at the ballot box. You can't prove that such enforcement is necessary and you can't prove that your proposed remedy would address the problem (that is, such that you'd then shut the hell up and stop trying to come up with new hoops for people to jump through in the future). America sees right through you people so stop acting crazy. You're wrong.
quisquisFeb 15, 2012
"Sorry but you don't get to decide what is or isn't convenient for others based on your politically biased and uninformed opinions."
What the hell dude... what's wrong with handing out FREE identification cards in order to identify people at the polls?
Why do we need to prove such enforcement is necessary, and who gets to be the judge of said proof?
For about 50% of the population, there's already enough proof; stop pretending like your standard of proof is the same standard everyone else must live by.
Closed AccountFeb 16, 2012
"What the hell dude... what's wrong with handing out FREE identification cards in order to identify people at the polls?"
--Cost is beside the point. We have no compelling or credible evidence that the current system is broken.
"Why do we need to prove such enforcement is necessary, and who gets to be the judge of said proof?"
--LOL...This is fairly hilarious. Right wingers love to bitch that hate crimes laws penalize people for what they are thinking (like when they bash some guy's head in because he's gay) and now you want to create laws based on illegal activity you're only *imagining* occurs? Wow. I love it. You cons are a hoot n a half. ;-x
"For about 50% of the population, there's already enough proof; "
--That's because you're biased and you think your imagination qualifies as proof.
"stop pretending like your standard of proof is the same standard everyone else must live by."
--I'm not dictating a standard. You're not meeting any standards because you have no evidence. ;-(
quisquisFeb 16, 2012
"...you're only *imagining* occurs"
No, you simply demand an unreasonable level of proof imo.
Look around in this thread (or wherever you like, really) if you want evidence. I'm not interested in you enough to source s**t like I'm writing a paper.
It happens every year. Just because you don't think it happens enough to warrant new laws doesn't mean everyone else agrees with you, nor does it mean that anyone else is unreasonable in disagreeing with you.
In closing, I'm pretty sure you're a troll.
"Right wingers love to bitch that hate crimes laws penalize people for what they are thinking "
That's totally irrelevant. The problem republicans have with hate crime laws is that they can be so widely applied; particularly, they can be (and have been) applied to people who were not in any way committing their crimes based on race. And like I said, it has nothing to do with what we're talking about.
Having said all that, I'm pretty sure you're trolling at least a little bit. That's disappointing. :/
Closed AccountFeb 16, 2012
"No, you simply demand an unreasonable level of proof imo."
--You want to pass laws that could discourage millions of US citizens from voting and you don't think you should be obliged to thoroughly explain why? You don't understand why we shouldn't just dismiss your concerns as partisan, paranoia-based desperation?
"it happens every year. Just because you don't think it happens enough to warrant new laws doesn't mean everyone else agrees with you, nor does it mean that anyone else is unreasonable in disagreeing with you."
--Every day someone is struck by lightning or dies in a car or plane crash. Is this proof we should never venture out of our homes and travel anywhere? Is it realistic to believe that no one will ever be struck by lightning or die in a plane crash? Exactly. Nor is it realistic for you to think we can eliminate every single case of voter fraud. It's not about what I think. Voter fraud is statistically non-existent. It virtually never happens. That's just reality. It doesn't occur frequently enough to compromise elections and the idea that right wingers want to spend money and have the government force people to produce ID at the ballot box (when you can't even prove how that would address the alleged problem) is simply ludicrous. If it's so important for you to make sure not even one single illegal vote occurs. Put your money where your mouths are and at least ACT like you care about other kinds of election fraud. Put your money where your mouths are and STOP trying to make it as difficult as possible for people to vote. Put your money where your mouths are and at least PRETEND to care about the possible negative impact your laws would have on voter participation. When you stop obsessing over this one issue almost to the exclusion of everything else, then MAYBE your motives won't be so suspect.
"That's totally irrelevant. The problem republicans have with hate crime laws is that they can be so widely applied; particularly, they can be (and have been) applied to people who were not in any way committing their crimes based on race. And like I said, it has nothing to do with what we're talking about."
--It's absolutely relevant and I don't know how you can't see it. What I've heard repeatedly from right wingers is that hate crimes laws penalize people for what they are thinking. I just think it's ironic that you would want to pass laws based on what you imagine is happening at the ballot box.
"Having said all that, I'm pretty sure you're trolling at least a little bit. That's disappointing."
--No. I'm very serious.
DiggPiggletFeb 15, 2012
I love the hopeless ramblings of the left-wing idiots who say that the physically and intellectually lazy idiots who support their idealism and stupidity can't vote. Do these sorry ass voters need delivery of their rights like pizza?
Second post.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ieatskunkFeb 15, 2012
if you dont have it together enough to get yourself an ID then how do you have it together enough to go vote?
Closed AccountFeb 16, 2012
It's not your place to judge what it means for someone else to have it together just because they don't live by your rules. You're not the boss of anyone but yourself.
GentlemanGhost542Feb 14, 2012
The big issue is voter suppression. The GOP has already been caught one using tactic called caging.
rjoplingFeb 15, 2012
not to mention all the fliers being sent out giving the wrong date to vote.
sheopleherderFeb 15, 2012
Thumbprints. Darn near everyone has a thumb, no need for an id. If you don't think that it would work, then why does the US make it's puppet states vote with their thumbs: Iraq and Afghanistan, both elections being counted by thumbprints. The only disenfranchised people would be the ones with no arms.
Ouzel7Feb 15, 2012
They aren't really using thumbprints. They dye the finger purple so that people can only vote once.
sheopleherderFeb 16, 2012
It doesn't make the idea any less valid. It can be done electronically now, we don't need ink. Would this disenfranchise people is the real question, if so how?
Ouzel7Feb 16, 2012
You could still vote in the wrong location.
sheopleherderFeb 16, 2012
Until they make road signs in every language and find cure for dementia we are going to have this problem.
You don't really have much faith in America do ya?
slang4catFeb 18, 2012
I like the idea.
slang4catFeb 18, 2012
The other problem is making sure only people who have the RIGHT to vote are actually voting. I know liberals will tell you there has never been a person who ever voted without having the right to vote, but keep in mind there are no measures in place to even determine that. Sure it's against the law. But so is anal sex.
FalalisFeb 14, 2012
Voter ID laws tend to be nothing but poll taxes in a flimsy disguise.
barackalypseFeb 15, 2012
The US Supreme Court disagrees.
"The relevant burdens here are those imposed on eligible voters who lack photo identification cards that comply with SEA 483.[2] Because Indiana’s cards are free, the inconvenience of going to the Bureau of Motor Vehicles, gathering required documents, and posing for a photograph does not qualify as a substantial burden on most voters’ right to vote, or represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crawford_v._Marion_County_Election_Board
rjoplingFeb 15, 2012
not every state is free.
barackalypseFeb 15, 2012
Sorry, all States with voter ID laws have zero cost options that qualify, this is how they avoid it being a poll tax. Feel free to link me to any State you can find where this isn't the case.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
rjoplingFeb 15, 2012
http://www.azdot.gov/mvd/faqs/scripts/FAQsResponse.asp?Category=1&Keyword
in Arizona it cost $12 for an ID. a drivers license cost $10-25 depending on age. you may eat your foot now.
not sure about the rest but im guessing most of the red states are like this.
barackalypseFeb 15, 2012
So sorry, but you don't need a photo ID to vote in Arizona, you only have to establish identify, which can be any 2 of these:
List 2 - Acceptable forms of identification without a photograph that bear the name and address of the elector (two required)
-Utility bill of the elector that is dated within 90 days of the date of the election. A utility bill may be for electric, gas, water, solid waste, sewer, telephone, cellular phone, or cable television
-Bank or credit union statement that is dated within 90 days of the date of the election
-Valid Arizona Vehicle Registration
-Indian census card
-Property tax statement of the elector's residence
-Tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification
-Arizona vehicle insurance card
-Recorder's Certificate
-Valid United States federal, state, or local government issued identification, including a voter registration card issued by the County Recorder
-Any mailing to the elector marked “Official Election Material”
http://www.azsos.gov/election/prop_200/poll_identification.htm
rjoplingFeb 15, 2012
so on a different topic, how does this stop election fraud?
rjoplingFeb 15, 2012
here is Missouri's
http://dor.mo.gov/drivers/license.php
barackalypseFeb 15, 2012
Thanks for playing, but once again no photo ID is actually required, a bank statement or utility bill count or other voter document from the local election authority count.
http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/voterid/
rjoplingFeb 15, 2012
again how does this stop anything? i know that stealing someones mail is illegal but so is voter fraud.
rjoplingFeb 15, 2012
Texas
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/DriverLicense/dlfees.htm
barackalypseFeb 15, 2012
Thanks for playing, but once again no photo ID is required:
What if I don't have a driver's license, personal identification number, OR a social security number? Can I still register to vote in Texas?
A voter who has not been issued a driver’s license or social security number may register to vote, but such voter must submit proof of identification when presenting himself/herself for voting or with his/her mail-in ballots, if voting by mail. These voters’ names are flagged on the official voter registration list with the annotation of “ID.” The “ID” notation instructs the poll worker to request a proper form of identification from these voters when they present themselves for voting. Acceptable identification includes:
-a driver's license or personal identification card issued to the person by the Department of Public Safety or a similar document issued to the person by an agency of another state, regardless of whether the license or card has expired;
-a form of identification containing the person's photograph that establishes the person's identity;
-a birth certificate or other document confirming birth that is admissible in a court of law and establishes the person's identity;
-United States citizenship papers issued to the person;
- a United States passport issued to the person;
- official mail addressed to the person by name from a governmental entity;
-a copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document that shows the name and address of the voter; or
-any other form of identification prescribed by the Secretary of State.
http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/pamphlets/largepamp.shtmlComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
rjoplingFeb 15, 2012
do i need to go on?
barackalypseFeb 15, 2012
Actually, yes, because you haven't shown a single State that requires a photo ID that doesn't also provide a free qualifying ID. Most of the States you linked don't require photo ID, they merely require ID which can be bank or utility bills or other documents.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
rjoplingFeb 15, 2012
nothing but a poll tax
rjoplingFeb 15, 2012
here i thought we were talking about needing one at the voting booth. most of your links are for registering to vote. not the same thing.
ieatskunkFeb 15, 2012
Thanks for the info barackalypse. I the democratic party is blowing this issue up to draw attention away from other issues. Requiring identification to vote is common sense. Turning it into a race or minority issue is nonsense.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
rjoplingFeb 16, 2012
the point is why would you need to show it more than once? you already need to register to vote. all this is, is another way to make it harder for common people to get their vote in. its just another way to keep the old/young/poor/homeless out of the voting booths. everyone deserves to have their vote counted. and with your response i really doubt that you are a democrat or you would already know this. they are trying to do this to stack the cards in their favor. the same goes for them taking away the rights of unions. all they see is a threat and they are trying anything to stop it.
ieatskunkFeb 15, 2012
facts shmacts
bersercFeb 15, 2012
Look up provisional ballot
DiggPiggletFeb 15, 2012
I love the hopeless ramblings of the left-wing idiots who say that the physically and intellectually lazy idiots who support their idealism and stupidity can't vote. Do these voters need delivery of their rights like pizza?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
rjoplingFeb 15, 2012
troll much?
kasha34Feb 15, 2012
You need photo ID to buy Sudafed.
But it's too much to vote?
hydianFeb 15, 2012
Buying Sudafed is a basic right and duty as a citizen of this country?
kasha34Feb 15, 2012
Give up. Polls show an overwhelming majority of Americans favor voter photo ID.
Closed AccountFeb 15, 2012
The polls don't show whether people know if current laws are already effective enough.
kasha34Feb 15, 2012
Nobody knows if "current laws are already effective enough" because no one has really looked.
A news radio station in Florida tried simply looking at people who were called for jury duty (meaning they are registered to vote). But who begged off telling the judge they weren't citizens.
There were thousands and thousands. And, according to the story, no one had thought to check this. Some of the people admitted they'd voted many times, even though they weren't citizens.
You want the link? No, you're happier not knowing.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
hydianFeb 15, 2012
Why would I give up on pointing out the mental gymnastics being undertaken to justify it? Pointing and laughing is too much fun. :)
The sad thing is that some of those who are fighting for this have a very valid (if possibly overblown) concern, but they have been fooled into thinking that an ID requirement at the polls will fix it. It does not. Making stupid claims and comparisons does not help your cause. It just makes all of you look like moronic zealots. Sadly, this is what is called political discourse in this country anymore.
The point is that there is an upside and a downside to these types of laws. The question that *must* be addressed is whether the downside is worth the potential upside. Is possibly eliminating an unknown, but seemingly small, amount of voter fraud by implementing a requirement that 16 year old girls can get around to drink in bars worth disenfranchising potentially millions of legitimate voters? That's the real question here.
kasha34Feb 15, 2012
Okay. It's official.
Digger lefty/libs feel safer not knowing about a NAACP official in prison now for voting multiple times for Obama.
rjoplingFeb 16, 2012
what polls? do you mean the 1000 people they cherry picked to ask? how many democrats regularly go to Rasmussen? and how would you know if people only CLAIMED they were democrats to skew the results? you dont. all you have is a crappy poll that tells you exactly what you knew it would say.
Closed AccountFeb 16, 2012
"Nobody knows if "current laws are already effective enough" because no one has really looked."
--If you don't think we've looked at the situation carefully, why are you so obsessed with forcing these ID laws on people? Shouldn't you wait until you're sure you have all the facts before petitioning the government to card old people at the ballot box?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountFeb 15, 2012
There's a basis for requiring it to buy Sudafed. A problem actually exists. The voter fraud problem is largely a figment of the right winger's imagination.
kasha34Feb 15, 2012
Want a couple examples? How about an NAACP leader who voted for Obama multiple times under multiple names?
Or does that contradict your liberal/lefty faith too much?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountFeb 15, 2012
kashy, no one cares what horsesh*t story you slurped up from some hateful, raw sewage infused far right wing web site masquerading as a legitimate news source. The only story I want to see from you is one that explains how requiring voter ID at the ballot box will eliminate fraud. Thanks.
rjoplingFeb 16, 2012
but then according to YOU, he was jailed. then the system works and voter fraud is taken care of. this still doesn't mean that you get to imply EVERYONE is doing it. if they were they would be in jail too.
kasha34Feb 16, 2012
How about U.S. News & World Report? Is that a "far right wing web site "?
How about a member of the NAACP executive counsel that "received a five-year prison term for each of the ten counts—for a total of 50 years–"
Voted for Obama ten times.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountFeb 16, 2012
LOL...I don't care, kashy. Get over it. It doesn't prove your case anyway.
ShovelbabyFeb 15, 2012
Where are all these poor people who have never had to show an id to buy booze, drive a car, cash a check, open a bank account, adopt a pet, purchase a rifle, get a passport, board a plane, get insurance, rent an apartment, get a job, get a hotel room, rent a car, enter certain government buildings, get a mailbox from the Post Office, get married, apply for a loan, etc? Better hope they don't need to buy Drano in Illinois.or want to attend a townhall with Democrat congressman Gene Green (http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs/2009/08/gene_green_town_hall_id.php).
I'm sorry but anybody that is screaming that this is disenfranchisement is only concerned about disenfranchising illegal votes.
Closed AccountFeb 15, 2012
You must not know any poor people if you don't know how people can get by without ID. For many of the purposes you mention, people can easily get a friend or family member to obtain an item or arrange for a service on their behalf. In any event, if they don't have an ID for situations that actually make sense, what would make you think they would agree to present an ID based on a controversy entirely manufactured by right wingers?
slang4catFeb 15, 2012
You also needed ID to register to vote.
Closed AccountFeb 15, 2012
Let me see if I can make this as clear as possible: I don't care if my social security number is tattooed on my ass in all caps using the Arial Black font with block letters. If you don't have a compelling reason for me to show it to you, ya ain't gonna see it. Period. ;-0
hydianFeb 15, 2012
I suppose that you had a point in there somewhere, but I couldn't find it in the ridiculous list you pounded out. I'm surprised that you didn't list needing ID to buy a TV at Goodwill or something, too, since people are apparently hung up on poor people owning TVs.
Booze? Who gets carded for that once they're in their mid 20's (and if you go to the right places even before then?)
Drive a car? You obviously have a fancy car that requires you to swipe an ID before it starts up...poor people just need keys.
Pet & Rifle? No ID needed for these in most places either.
Passport, Plane, Insurance, Loan, Hotel Room, Car Rental, Post Office Box? What do you consider to be poor? Less than $100k a year?
Job? No photo ID needed for this.
Marriage? Govt Buildings? Not a common need.
The fact is that this is an attempt to make it more difficult for the poor and elderly to vote. It doesn't need to be impossible, just more difficult. Voting is already enough of a pain that most people don't do it. Ratcheting up the discomfort a little bit will cause some percentage of people to drop out.
There is a lot of arguing back and forth that this benefits one "side" over the other, but that is because people aren't looking at the larger picture. This benefits the establishment over those who would buck the system. The goal is to keep everybody fighting over Jack Johnson vs John Jackson rather than giving us real choices that matter.
As far as fraud at the polls...that is a red herring. If your name is on the list, you get a vote. Requiring ID at the polls isn't going to stop illegal voting any more than it stops underage drinking. The real voter fraud issues are in registration and counting. If you aren't registered, it doesn't matter if you have ID or not and if someone has compromised the voting machines it likewise doesn't matter if you are voting or not.
miklkitFeb 14, 2012
I do believe that lately the only ones being accused of election fraud are republicons.
anomaly100Feb 14, 2012
Funny how that works.
slang4catFeb 14, 2012
https://www.google.com/search?q=acorn+voter+registration+fruad
https://www.google.com/search?q=acorn+voter+registration+fraud+convictions
If you can register a phony voter, and that voter doesn't need to show any ID when he shows up to vote, what if anything is going to prevent voter fraud?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
novenatorFeb 14, 2012
http://www.google.com/search?q=santorum+slang
btw, can't help but notice you don't know how to spell the word 'fraud'. Here's a little hint, the 'u' doesn't come first.
slang4catFeb 14, 2012
OMG Novey found a misspelled word!
Very hard to do while getting DP'd I hear.
pc25Feb 15, 2012
pnɐɹɟ/ıʞıʍ/ƃɹo˙ɐıpǝdıʞıʍ˙uǝ//:dʇʇɥ
˙uıɐƃ ʎɹɐʇǝuoɯ ǝʇɐıpǝɯɯı uɐɥʇ ɹǝɥʇɐɹ ǝƃıʇsǝɹd uıɐƃ oʇ `ǝɔuǝıɔs uı `˙ƃ˙ǝ `,,sǝıɹǝʌoɔsıp,, ʇuǝlnpnɐɹɟ uǝǝq oslɐ ǝʌɐɥ ǝɹǝɥʇ ʇnq `pnɐɹɟ ɟo ǝsodɹnd uoɯɯoɔ ɐ sı sǝlqɐnlɐʌ ɹo ʎǝuoɯ ɟo sǝıʇıʇuǝ ɹo ǝldoǝd ƃuıpnɐɹɟǝp ˙uoıʇɐloıʌ ʍɐl lıʌıɔ ɐ oslɐ puɐ `ǝɯıɹɔ ɐ sı pnɐɹɟ ˙uoıʇɔıpsıɹnɾ lɐƃǝl ʎq sǝıɹɐʌ uoıʇıuıɟǝp lɐƃǝl ɔıɟıɔǝds ǝɥʇ ˙ʇuǝlnpnɐɹɟ sı ǝʌıʇɔǝɾpɐ pǝʇɐlǝɹ ǝɥʇ ؛lɐnpıʌıpuı ɹǝɥʇouɐ ǝƃɐɯɐp oʇ ɹo uıɐƃ lɐuosɹǝd ɹoɟ ǝpɐɯ uoıʇdǝɔǝp lɐuoıʇuǝʇuı uɐ sı pnɐɹɟ ɐ `ʍɐl lɐuıɯıɹɔ uı
ʍʇq puɐ `ǝlʇıʇ ǝɥʇ uı ʎɐʍ ʇɐɥʇ pǝllǝds s,ʇı `ʇoɥsʇoɥ ʎǝɥ
˙ʇsɹıɟ ǝɯoɔ ʇ,usǝop ,n, ǝɥʇ `ʇuıɥ ǝlʇʇıl ɐ s,ǝɹǝɥ ˙,pnɐɹɟ, pɹoʍ ǝɥʇ llǝds oʇ ʍoɥ ʍouʞ ʇ,uop noʎ ǝɔıʇou ʇnq dlǝɥ ʇ,uɐɔ `ʍʇqComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
rjoplingFeb 15, 2012
how do you type upside down? or is my computer acting up
pc25Feb 15, 2012
upside down? I guess i had too many beers tonight
http://www.sherv.net/flip.html
TGRHvWGAFFeb 14, 2012
I notice you had to do a search for "acord voter registration fraud" as opposed to just "acorn election fraud". Wonder why that is.
slang4catFeb 14, 2012
The thing is, once you register a person under a false name, there is nothing stopping that person from waltzing in and casting a vote using it.
Closed AccountFeb 15, 2012
You're just speculating. We don't change laws based on what we imagine is occurring.
rjoplingFeb 15, 2012
how about all the rich people who register in multiple states or the use of dead people that are still in the system. funny you have to register more than once but these same dead people make it to the voting booth every election. how about Bush's second term and how the electronic voting machines were taken over by HIS OWN EMAIL COMPANY.
miklkitFeb 14, 2012
Guess what? Acorn got their funding back.
http://gawker.com/#!5508190/okeefe-and-breitbart-acorn-videos-severely-edited
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/09/23/acorn_sues_okeefe_giles_and_br.html
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/3/12/judge_instructs_fed_agencies_to_resume
slang4catFeb 14, 2012
Irrelevant.
"At least 70 ACORN/Project Vote employees have been convicted of voter registration fraud in a dozen states since 2006. According to a 2009 House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform report, approximately a third of the 1.2 million new registrations turned in by the two groups in 2008 were fraudulent."
http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/2012/01/justice-department-coordinates-suits-acorns-project-vote/165096
f**king criminals.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
eraptorFeb 14, 2012
@slang4cat,
You're right, there are far more incidences of voter fraud in this country than there SHOULD be. The problem is that the troubles originate from those who complain the most about it. Furthermore, conservative "voter ID" efforts do precious little to stop the worst of it. Here's just the "tip of the iceberg":
2012 Republican Primary:
http://www.nbcwashington.com/blogs/first-read-dmv/Afternoon-Read-Virginia-AG-Launches-Investigation-Into-Gingrich-Campaign-138429029.html
2011 Wisconsin election irregularities:
http://www.punditpress.com/2011/04/evidence-of-wisconsin-voter-fraud.html
2004 election irregularities in Presidential race:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_United_States_election_voting_controversies
Conservatives lack credibility on the issue of election fraud.
mtownFeb 15, 2012
http://youtu.be/8ePGGyvp7Hc
miklkitFeb 15, 2012
Yes. Dispelling the myths about ACORN.
particleman420Feb 15, 2012
Election Fraud and Registration Fraud are two different beasts entirely.
slang4catFeb 17, 2012
Does that make either one okay?
particleman420Feb 17, 2012
no, but it makes them non-interchangeable issues.
slang4catFeb 17, 2012
In a way that buying a gun and stealing the getaway car is "non-interchangeable" to robbing a bank.
particleman420Feb 17, 2012
yes. if you werent being sarcastic i would congratulate you on understanding basic ideas.
unfortunately you're only pretending.
slang4catFeb 18, 2012
Sorry, I didn't realize I wasn't allowed to change the subject. You are right, voter fraud and voter registration fraud are two different things. One we know is f**king rampant, and the other we have know idea because there are no measures in place to collect that data.
slang4catFeb 18, 2012
I mean, if someone voted illegally, do you know of any methods or measures that are in place that would be able to detect it? I don't. But I guess if we don't look for it, we'll never find it, therefore it never happened, so there is no need to prevent it.
slang4catFeb 17, 2012
Let me ask you this. What is your opinion of Net Neutrality laws?
It's clearly not an issue, yet many liberals support it. Why?
particleman420Feb 18, 2012
what does that have to do with the non-interchangablity of voter fraud and voter registration fraud?
i'll explain it a little better:
if you are arguing against voter fraud and then you have to stay with that. showing us registration fraud doesnt do anything since it's not the same thing.
and changing the subject to censorship isnt going to help any either. But it's nice to see that you freedom-loving RWNJ's dont feel that Censorship is an issue. that's a real big concern you have for the constitution. I guess the it only applies when it's not corporations that want to strip our freedoms.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ChuppacabraFeb 15, 2012
lmao...
Look how the (In)DiggNation spewed forth from the bowels to digg that cite down.
The Left never found an inconvenient truth it couldn't supress by shouting it down.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
particleman420Feb 17, 2012
and you've never found a comment that actually says anything of worth.
ChuppacabraFeb 18, 2012
And you apparently need to retake English101 (assuming you graduated High School).
treehugger87Feb 14, 2012
Not just accused, but convicted and sentenced. It's one thing to be accused, but a whole other thing to be found guilty.
- http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57371606/ind-election-chief-found-guilty-of-voter-fraud/
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChllDGERjaQ
slang4catFeb 14, 2012
There are no measures in place to prevent it.
treehugger87Feb 14, 2012
There is no evidence that measures need to be put in place.
anomaly100Feb 14, 2012
Slang wants more regulations. Welcome to Bizarro world.
slang4catFeb 14, 2012
I want people to be expected to assume a certain level of personal responsibility. I know it's a lot to ask of a Democrat, but give it a try.
treehugger87Feb 14, 2012
Requiring a person to have and show a photo ID in order to vote isn't a regulation? Say what?
Closed AccountFeb 15, 2012
@slang4: You said:
"I want people to be expected to assume a certain level of personal responsibility. "
-- Here's a tip: Why not start by assuming that, unless you have compelling and credible evidence to the contrary, Americans are decent, responsible adults who shouldn't be treated like potential felons at the ballot box?
slang4catFeb 14, 2012
The number of voter fraud convictions tell otherwise.
treehugger87Feb 14, 2012
You must be using a different Internet than the one I'm using. I can't find anything.
4Herp2Derp0Feb 14, 2012
Well you seem to be very educated in the numbers so why don't you share with us the two most important ones:
1. Number of fraudulent ballots from 2000-2010
2. Total number of ballots submitted from 2000-2010
Putting these two numbers side by side will show you a much different picture than simply focusing on the first one alone.
rjoplingFeb 15, 2012
herp-
that would require him to look at facts and you know how republicans like facts.
slang4catFeb 15, 2012
There are absolutely no measures currently in place that can identify a falsely cast ballot.
If you believe there are, list them.
rjoplingFeb 15, 2012
where are YOUR numbers? care to leave a link.
eraptorFeb 14, 2012
Classic projection. The guilty always accuse the innocent of crimes THEY commit under the mistaken assumption "everyone else is doing it".
Of course, it never gives them the "cover" they assume.
barackalypseFeb 15, 2012
And yet the only election I can find being over-turned because of voter fraud saw the Democrat stripped of the office...
"Saying Philadelphia's election system had collapsed under "a massive scheme" by Democrats to steal a State Senate election in November, a Federal judge today took the rare step of invalidating the vote and ordered the seat filled by the Republican candidate."
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/02/19/us/vote-fraud-ruling-shifts-pennsylvania-senate.html
See how fun partisan politics is? You try and mention the sins of only one party, I'll come post about the sins of the other party and make fun of you. As an alternative you could just admit both sides are corrupt and its time to play this game different.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
johnnysoftwareFeb 15, 2012
different-ly*
CrashingDownFeb 15, 2012
I always laugh my ass off when f**kheads on Digg resort to grammar and spelling corrections as a reply to someone's argument.
bookantFeb 15, 2012
It about as pointless and useless and mindlessly reciting the "personal responsibility" catchphrase on every single issue.
slang4catFeb 19, 2012
Personal responsibility? No one will ever expect that of you. You can rest assured.
kasha34Feb 15, 2012
Want several examples of Democrat organized voter fraud? Voting multiple times? Forged absentee ballots?
Or do you want to keep stroking each other with the false narrative that there is not voter fraud?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountFeb 15, 2012
Voter fraud occurs extremely rarely. It's statistically irrelevant. That's the facts, jack.
kasha34Feb 15, 2012
You punks keep claiming there's none.
Closed AccountFeb 15, 2012
That's because statistically irrelevant is almost exactly the same as none. There's virtually no difference between those two terms.
rjoplingFeb 15, 2012
your using math again. they dont understand math
barackalypseFeb 15, 2012
It was relevant enough to over-turn a State Senate election:
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/02/19/us/vote-fraud-ruling-shifts-pennsylvania-senate.html
And a Senate election was once decided by just a 2 vote difference, so you can claim voter fraud is rare, but I just showed you two cases where it did or could have had a huge impact.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_New_Hampshire,_1974Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountFeb 15, 2012
"it was relevant enough to over-turn a State Senate election"
--The fraud in that case involved absentee ballots. Do you actually understand what you read? What does that have to do with carding people at the ballot box?
"And a Senate election was once decided by just a 2 vote difference, so you can claim voter fraud is rare, but I just showed you two cases where it did or could have had a huge impact."
--Either of those cases could have been tainted by lots of different types of fraud. That we know of, neither of them were marred by fraud involving people impersonating others at the ballot box. Keep trying.
kasha34Feb 15, 2012
Just so we're clear:
Fraud involving absentee ballots is okay.
Now, are you interested in a fraud case by Democrats involving impersonating people at the ballot site?
Or would you rather not know about that?
How about an NAACP leader in prison for voting for Obama under multiple names? Or would you rather not know?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
treehugger87Feb 15, 2012
Your correction just shows that these people aren't interested in fair results, they're just interested in results that they agree with. They know perfectly well that showing an ID is going to prevent people who would never vote for a conservative extremist if their life depended on it from showing up at the polls.
Closed AccountFeb 15, 2012
LOL. No, kashy... you people keep trying to change the subject and make this about voter fraud in general. The issue is VOTER ID LAWS. You just want to talk about every single episode of voter fraud you ever read about on newquax or hotgas or the weaklystand-dud. No one is suggesting that voter fraud never occurs--only that it occurs far too infrequently for us to be changing laws and treating senior citizens like potential felons.
laurahoustonFeb 14, 2012
The whole voter system needs to be taken out out of the state and federal govs hands and moved to an independent agency.
Voting needs to be online and easy to access for anyone.
Not through thousands of different voting machine companies, thousands of districts with thousands of different people in charge.
SPATIALGUYFeb 14, 2012
I would love to agree that online access would be great and much easier for voters... But can you imagine what would happen if the online system was hacked. As resent events have shown, nothing is hack proof.
Having online voting could open the doors for a small group to dramatically alter our election outcomes. If credit card, security authentication companies, government agencies, and banks can be hacked, sure as heck a online voting system can be.
I fully want everybody to have access to voting... and what the GOP has done is downright shameful.
johnnysoftwareFeb 15, 2012
Most online voting systems have been implemented using Windows and scientists easily hacked them when setting up simple experiments.
The track record is bad in actual use practice as well.
treehugger87Feb 14, 2012
It would be good to put the whole process into independent hands, but I don't know who you could ever trust to be truly independent. Everyone stands to benefit from something...
I think election day should be a national holiday. Everything closes so everyone votes. Walmart, MacDonald's, L.L. Bean, Highway tolls, etc.
SPATIALGUYFeb 14, 2012
treehugger87... that is a very, very good idea, wow. Make, the voting day sometime in the early summer, when the weather makes it easier for voters to get out. Then If they could abolish the electoral collage and move to a popular vote. That would make the entire process much simpler.
Maybe making it possible for voters to cast their vote at any voting station regardless of where they happen to be.
treehugger87Feb 14, 2012
It works in Australia and other countries. A Federal holiday on election day is a no-brainer
bluto36Feb 15, 2012
why? most of your side is already on federal holiday as it is
rjoplingFeb 15, 2012
or make it on a saturday/sunday when we have the day off already. anythings better than missing work on a Tuesday.
Closed AccountFeb 15, 2012
I was just thinking about how shameful it is to know other nations (particularly nations we're invading to "spread democracy") are looking at us and comparing our Election Day craziness (with people waiting in long lines and being turned away) to the time and effort and money we invest in things like Valentine's Day and the Superbowl and Oscar night and Halloween and Christmas and Independence Day. It's truly embarrassing.
slang4catFeb 14, 2012
Online huh? Because people without ID's are likely to be online.
particleman420Feb 15, 2012
i already have to show an ID to vote, why would we need another?
slang4catFeb 15, 2012
That's nice. But in most states you don't need to show any ID to vote. That's the problem. I think having to show ID is reasonable. Don't you?
Closed AccountFeb 15, 2012
No. It's unreasonable. You don't have a valid, compelling reason to ask for one at the ballot box.
slang4catFeb 15, 2012
For the same reason you'd ask for it when you register.
Closed AccountFeb 16, 2012
You register to establish your ID and citizenship. That's perfectly rational. Asking people to flash their ID every time they come to vote-(when you have no evidence that fraud is a problem at that stage) is irrational. We don't go around making new laws to appease the severely paranoid. It's like paying a blackmailer. Sooner or later, you'll be imagining something else is the cause of your extreme failure at the ballot box. Then what?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
slang4catFeb 18, 2012
But all along I've heard nothing to suggest that voter registration fraud is a bad thing. Every time anyone mentions ACORN, all I hear is that voter registration fraud does not equal voter fraud. Yet in your own words: "You register to establish your ID and citizenship."
Gee, I'd say that's kinda important than wouldn't you?
particleman420Feb 15, 2012
no i dont.
but i live in the teabagger police state of arizona. we've got a moron teabagger governor (jan brewer) and a nazi-like county sheriff (sheriff joe) who's never met a camera he didnt like. we're sort of used to being treated like s**t and having our rights trampled.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
slang4catFeb 18, 2012
Where I live, the Federal Government dictates what type of light bulbs I use, what my kids eat for lunch, what type of car I drive, what type of fuel I use... Awful.
bluto36Feb 15, 2012
oh noes 420 is suppressed...
i knew it anyone reading 420's comment history can see the pattern of suppression
it is epidemic
slang4catFeb 15, 2012
He can't afford the $2 it takes to get an ID because he spent all his money on pot.
particleman420Feb 15, 2012
who said i was oppressed? i just said that i have to show my ID, which i do since i have one, considering i have to drive to the poll and it's illegal to drive without a license.
and slang: ID's in my state are $15. i forget what a driver's license costs since it's been a LONG time since i got one. i think it was something like $25. then if you add in the 2-3 hours the DMV takes, thats more time and money.
why would i need to get yet another ID just for voting? just so you nutjobs, who are pretending that it's no big deal to get yet another ID, can pretend that voter fruad is some sort of issue, even though you've got no proof of it happening at all.
but i'm not surprised that you right wing nazis are all for people having to carry their papers around. it fits right in with your giant totalitarian government full of regulations like this, while pretending to be for "small" government and less regulation. It's typical of you sacks of s**t. say one thing while doing the other. unfortunately for you, people are noticing and arent interested in your christian sharia law theocracy where you need to carry and show your papers whenever the police state wants to see it.
barackalypseFeb 15, 2012
Lovely, then we'll start seeing political malware. It wouldn't take too many people getting the horrid "Romney2012" virus to shift the election.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
miklkitFeb 15, 2012
We have had that since 2000, and it is still a bad idea.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0310/S00211.htm
barackalypseFeb 15, 2012
Internet voting will be much worse since it involves attacks to potentially tens of millions of devices spread all over instead of securing a limited number of Diebold machines at staffed polling locations.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
miklkitFeb 15, 2012
Those Diebold machines are hard proof of election fraud in 2000 and 2004.
http://archive.democrats.com/display.cfm?id=248
http://archive.democrats.com/display.cfm?id=181
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0828-08.htm
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/usa_vote_facts.html?q=usa_vote_facts.html
The diebold machines have been hacked by a chimpanzee.
bluto36Feb 15, 2012
oh oh race card
Mark_LincolnFeb 15, 2012
The efforts ignore the real problems in our voter registration process and address problems which largely exist only in the minds of proponents.
Closed AccountFeb 15, 2012
What's sad about this issue is that the people here defending these laws are only being sucked into this phony controversy because they suck at math and they have no grasp of basic statistics. They don't realize or care that the GOP turns off more and more voters every day. They don't feel they should have to actually *earn* their votes. They need to believe that when they lose elections, it has to do with outside forces and nothing to do with the fact that their ideology is bankrupt and Americans are turned off by their extreme rightward tilt.
slang4catFeb 18, 2012
Why would liberals, who want to give everyone an unlimited amount of welfare, not want to give poor people a $2 ID card often required to get a job?
kantspelwriteFeb 16, 2012
The Brennan Center for Justice who did this study is headed by Michael Waldman, former Director of Speechwriting for President Bill Clinton from 1995–1999. Could there be some bias here? Naw, not in New York....naw, not by a Clinton crony .....lol
whiteravenFeb 16, 2012
Remove all political considerations from the question and just think about it calmly and rationally.... should we verify (to a reasonable standard without undue burden) the identity of people casting votes? Remembering that in a "one person, one vote" system it is necessary to know that a person is not voting more than once.
There is only one rational conclusion. We need to take reasonable measures to identify voters. They system is meaningless if we don't. Operating on the honor system is absurd when dealing with decisions that will ultimately be *imposed* on the populace.
angrycat70Feb 15, 2012
I support Voter ID laws to insure the integrity of the system.
I have to show my ID three times a day and I am very suspicious of anyone that doesn't have one.
derran15Feb 15, 2012
Could they simply require a social security number? I mean, everyone that's legally a resident has one, and if they've committed a felony then that would show up when they tried to vote, thus eliminating their vote. Doesn't that take care of it without requiring a fee?
And if that doesn't work, we'll just get Obama to bail out the democrats ;)
rshewmakerFeb 15, 2012
If you are a legal citizen over the age of 18, I don't see why the hell is everyone complaining about proof of ID. If you want to vote, register. Don't bitch about something that you weren't probably going to do in the first place.
ieatskunkFeb 15, 2012
The voting process is important and it is worth safeguarding. You need an ID in order to register to vote so I dont see what the problem is in requiring you to bring that ID with you again.
StopAnimalTortureFeb 15, 2012
The "Extreme" part is the use of that kind of rhetoric in the title of the article. Other than that this is only a so-so interesting topic that holds significance not because it is so urgent or critical either way, but because it is a convenient "Bashing Point" politically for those who want to "Prove" that the other side is "evil". Other than that... ho-hum. Very few people will be effected by this in a practical sense either way. Big deal.
On the other hand when elections lately are being decided on a razor's edge of votes... it becomes significant. Of course, I've often wondered in the past few election cycles what the odds of voting being so damn close actually are. It seems almost unbelievable that all across the country at the large and small scale that the sides are so incredibly evenly split. I would think the odds are against it. But then again, there you have it. From the 2000 election forward it seems that a lot of elections have been almost 50/50 split. Therefore voter fraud can have an impact on outcomes. And therefore it becomes an important issue. But to my mind that's an anomaly. Or should be.
In this case I would argue that it is important to ensure that those who are voting are who they claim to be, and are legally eligible for the vote. That this adds extra burden seems unfair, though. So I tend to agree with the idea that if you have a Voter ID, I'm not sure I see the benefit of also having to register. Why not just have a Voter ID?
aveterenFeb 15, 2012
A new Rasmussen poll shows that a vast majority of Americans want voters to be required to show valid identification when voting.
Seventy percent (70%) of registered U.S. voters believe voters should be required to show photo identification such as a driver’s license before being allowed to cast their ballot. A new Rasmussen Reports survey finds that just 22% oppose this kind of requirement.
Voter ID laws are essential to the democratic process. What the voter fraud people do not want is photo IDs because they couldn't vote multiple times or for dead people.
This is just one example.......
While some people may say there is no need for the ID, a Mississippi woman was convicted of voting 10 times in the 2008 presidential race. (guess who she voted for)
http://dailycaller.com/2011/07/29/mississippi-naacp-leader-sent-to-prison-for-10-counts-of-voter-fraud/
johnnysoftwareFeb 15, 2012
Everyone has already noted that whichever party is in power for the past couple decades or so, the opposite party suddenly gets hit with a bunch of political/election/campaign violations. Right?
The pendulum is starting to sound like a freaking metronome.
Really need to change the music.
It's not just the two extreme "sides" that are wrong.
Something in the middle of it all is broken and needs to be straightened out.
mikelistFeb 15, 2012
if you've looked at the news of late, there have been widespread accusations of voter fraud and irregularity. oddly enough, most of the accused are republicans (and most of the prosecutors who are investigating seem to be, as well). maybe they have a point.
StopAnimalTortureFeb 15, 2012
Would you kindly provide a source for your assertion (a factual one, please)? I'd be curious to follow that thread and see where it leads.
mikelistFeb 15, 2012
look for yourself, start by looking for the indiana official convicted of voter fraud, the investigations of voter fraud (several) in wisconsin, hell even newt gingrich is being investigated, after it was found that 1500 signatures on his virginia petition were found to be 'fraudulent'. these come to mind immediatel, i'm sure google will bring more instances. i'm aware of one democrat who has been accused, but the majority seem to be, as i said, republicans.
StopAnimalTortureFeb 15, 2012
ok so it's just your impression. not something you read anywhere statistically, or anything like that. ok. I was wondering if anyone had documented this. thanks.
ribarnicaFeb 15, 2012
I need an ID to cash a check, why shouldn't I need an ID to cast a vote? This is really a pretty low-activation-energy requirement. Most people have an acceptable ID. The few that don't can get one. And if they simply can't find the time, then I'm dubious that they'd bother to vote in the first place!
treehugger87Feb 15, 2012
Cashing a check is not a right guaranteed to you in the U.S. Constitution. Do you need to show your ID to exercise free speech?
ribarnicaFeb 17, 2012
If people precluded from voting (felons, non-citizens) still vote, or if people vote multiple times, that dilutes the already small effect of my individual vote. By requiring ID, I am allowed to fully exercize my voting rights.
Closed AccountFeb 17, 2012
What about the voters your approach would discourage? What about their rights?
treehugger87Feb 17, 2012
But if requiring an ID reduces the number of legitimate voters who would vote if not for the requirement, it amplifies your vote. This is why people like me are so upset about it, and people like you are not.
ribarnicaFeb 27, 2012
And what kind of people am I?
Closed AccountFeb 15, 2012
It doesn't matter how hard or easy it is to get. It's not necessary.
nelliedawg82Feb 15, 2012
I call BS. How is it these ID less disenfranchised masses can receive their free medicaid benefits,food stamps, and welfare checks with no ID!! I'm not buying it this is leftwing propaganda.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
stevanoskiFeb 15, 2012
Exactly
grannysrightFeb 15, 2012
This is pure bulls**t and you leftwing sobsisters are either really ignorant, or think you can pull a fast one on the majority of people in this country.
We have voter ID here and no one is complaining. Most everyone in this country who is of voting age, has an ID for something.
Why don't you people do something worthwhile, like go work in a food kitchen or maybe rent out a room to the homeless. Do something for God's sake beside sitting around lying to the people and trying to destroy what we have left.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountFeb 15, 2012
"This is pure bulls**t and you leftwing sobsisters are either really ignorant, or think you can pull a fast one on the majority of people in this country."
--No.You people are desperate beyond belief. You *need* to suppress the vote and cheat in any and every way possible. Your ideology means virtually nothing and Americans avoid the GOP like the plague. That's reality. Deal with it and stop playing the victim.
"We have voter ID here and no one is complaining. Most everyone in this country who is of voting age, has an ID for something."
--Whether or not someone has ID is irrelevant. You can't give a compelling reason to force Americans to show one at the ballot box. You clowns will do ANYTHING to steal an election (even if it means millions of Americans are denied their voting rights. How low can you sink?
"Why don't you people do something worthwhile, like go work in a food kitchen or maybe rent out a room to the homeless. Do something for God's sake beside sitting around lying to the people and trying to destroy what we have left."
--We're trying to save the country from poorly educated right wingers who vote against their own damned interest and blindly support the extremely rich. America can't afford another Republican presidency. That's my idea of hell on earth. It ain't gonna happen. Stop trying to suppress the vote and stop playing the martyr all the time. Thanks.
grannysrightFeb 15, 2012
'--Whether or not someone has ID is irrelevant. You can't give a compelling reason to force Americans to show one at the ballot box. You clowns will do ANYTHING to steal an election (even if it means millions of Americans are denied their voting rights. How low can you sink?'
There are thousands of illegal votes cast in every election across the country. Right there is reason enough to demand an ID. What part of that don't you understand? See I know you do understand and do not want to ruin your fixed elections, but bet on it, we will stop you guys from stuffing the ballot box.
America cannot afford another progressive President who has just about destroyed anything and everything that is good about our country. Especially in making sure the Justice department did nothing about the illegal registering of illegal voters, that and dead ones.
You people are a disgrace to this country that you would lie, cheat, intimidate, coerce, and downright force through unions, people to vote the way you want them to.
No martyr here baby, I worked for my living, and now I work making sure I can keep some of it.
quarterbrewFeb 14, 2012
Yet, no one has shown a piece of legislation that says voter registration only applies to those voting democrat.
TGRHvWGAFFeb 14, 2012
That's because no one would ever write a piece of legislation that way, it would be too obvious. But what about when those voter ID laws go into effect and in the fine print we find out that a student ID is not acceptable (even though it's a state-issued identification card) but a concealed carry permit is? Let's cut the BS shall we.
quarterbrewFeb 14, 2012
So, only Democrats have student ID cards, and only Republicans have concealed carry permits?
And I suppose you have a piece of legislation that has those restrictions that you can link? If so, I will gladly write and call my reps and senators against a bill like that.
I'm actually against overboard voter registration laws. I tend to want to fix the root cause more.. if it's illegal immigrants voting when they shouldn't, don't make it harder for citizens to vote, get rid of the illegal immigrants.
However, I'm also against the cries from the left claiming that Republicans are doing this only to win elections via underhanded methods, yet have nothing to support that accusation that shows it favors one side or the other.
And please, let's cut the BS.
novenatorFeb 14, 2012
This IS designed by conservatives so that Republicans can win elections however. These voter suppression techniques will stop the following groups from voting:
students (who move around a lot)
minorities (who often don't have their documentation)
elderly (who don't have an ID with their current address)
All 3 groups vote Democratic in overwhelming numbers. This is nothing more than a power grab by the fascist right, and it tears at the very fabric of democracy.
quarterbrewFeb 14, 2012
Sorry, I have to throw the BS flag on this..
Students who leave their "home" state for school, don't change residency when they go to school. If I could do an absentee ballot while I was in the Persian Gulf on an Aircraft Carrier during Desert Storm, students can stop drinking beer long enough to vote.
If minorities don't have their documentation, I would identify that as a ROOT CAUSE of the issue, why don't they? It's free and available by mail so you don't have to go anywhere.
I moved a few months ago, and was able to change my address on my state issued drivers license in 15 minutes. I have a full time job, wife and 2 kids and I found time. A retiree certainly can find time. If they are able to get out to vote, they are able to get out to update their IDs.
It all comes down to desire. If anyone, Democrat or Republican WANT to vote, and they are a citizen, they CAN vote.
But then, perhaps I'm just naive, and believe that generally people on both sides of the aisle think they are acting in the best interest of their constituents. "Think" of course, being the operative word.
slang4catFeb 14, 2012
"students can stop drinking beer long enough to vote."
Evidently not Democratic students...
novenatorFeb 14, 2012
You are required to have resided in the state that you are voting in for a certain amount of time. Getting residency in non-reciprocity states can take up to a year.
You are required to have your CURRENT address when you vote. Not sure about you, but when I was in school, I lived in at least 3 places every year. No student is going to go back over and over to keep updating their driver's license with their current address.
ID is NOT free in any state, much less having the base documentation in order to get a photo ID. Do you have any idea how hard it is for someone to get a certified copy of their birth certificate if they've been bouncing around their whole life?
All of this is irrelevant though. We ALL have a right to vote in America, it's in the constitution. What we probably need is the UN to come in and monitor elections, and just ink up fingers so everyone can vote, regardless of their registration status.
slang4catFeb 14, 2012
Oh horse-s**t!
"students (who move around a lot)
minorities (who often don't have their documentation)
elderly (who don't have an ID with their current address)"
Heaven forbid a Democrat be asked to have a little personal responsibility!
I mean why would a minority be more likely than a non-minority to leave their ID at home?
bluto36Feb 14, 2012
responsibility? that is not very "progressive"
but 1.8million dead people eligible to vote???
very very super "progressive"
norman619Feb 15, 2012
Slang: They are going out of their way to make minorities and the elderly sound and look like complete idiots. They ignore the fact that to function in our society you can't function w/o a state ID. No way you are going to cash a check, open a bank account, and so on without one. To get a state ID you have to provide proof of citizenship and identification. Which are the same things you need to provide when you register to vote. There is no valid argument against the verification of identification of people showing up to vote.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
TGRHvWGAFFeb 15, 2012
@Bluto: Shut the hell up before you hurt yourself.
@Norman: Cashing checks and opening bank accounts are not constitutionally protected rights. Voting is.
Closed AccountFeb 15, 2012
No, norms. They are going out of their way to stop lying cons from stealing elections and flushing our country further down the crapper than they did under 8 years of Bush. That's our only agenda.
TGRHvWGAFFeb 14, 2012
"So, only Democrats have student ID cards, and only Republicans have concealed carry permits?"
When you run the numbers, certain demographics are more likely to vote with certain tendencies. Young people tend to lean liberal. Older people tend to lean conservative. Gun owners tend to lean conservative. Poor people tend to lean liberal. Do I really need to explain that? This can't be news to you.
"And I suppose you have a piece of legislation that has those restrictions that you can link?"
http://brennan.3cdn.net/d16bab3d00e5a82413_66m6y5xpw.pdf
Bottom of page 5 to top of page 6, with an entire section on student ID's on page 8. In both Texas and Tennessee, a concealed weapons permit lets you vote whereas a student ID does not.
"I'm actually against overboard voter registration laws."
Then you should be against almost every piece of Voter ID-related legislation that hit state legislatures within the last year. The only one that's not insanely draconian is Rhode Island's.
quarterbrewFeb 14, 2012
I am against the vast majority of the ones I've looked at. On the whole, I'm in the "Enforce the laws we have before we dream up new crap laws that won't get enforced" camp.
However, like I said above, I'm also against the idea that this is a vast right wing conspiracy against the people.
From your source, bottom of page 6:
"The U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that states that require their voters to present
government-issued photo IDs for voting must make such IDs available to voters free of charge."
That includes students, minorities, elderly, concealed carry licensees, Democrats, Republicans. Everyone. Free.
The way it should be.
miklkitFeb 15, 2012
That is a nice theory, but the devil is in the details.
How are you going to get your voter id if the only place you can get it is the DMV, and the local DMV just got closed so you have to travel to another county.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/07/25/998594/-Wisconsin:-After-signing-Voter-ID,-Walker-makes-it-harder-to-get-IDs
TGRHvWGAFFeb 15, 2012
In a vacuum, I'd agree with you Quarter. Thank you for your service btw.
When viewed as part of the same trend that includes the CEO of now-defunct e-voting company Diebold attending a fundraiser at which he promised to hand the state of Ohio to Bush in 2004, that includes targeted mailers reminding people to vote on November 15th, that involves insufficiently staffed polls open on election day to the point that a judge has to order the polls to stay open, one can't help but notice a bit of a pattern.
The fact is, very few of us are "swing" voters. There are those of us who have our minds made up going into an election season barring any major event of change of perception that challenges those preconceived notions, and then there are those of us who, when you run the numbers, will start undecided but end up with a predictable preference. Case in point, a gay black woman is almost guaranteed to lean liberal... if nothing else for the fact that the GOP demonizes her and those like her in order to drum up their own support.
Elections are really a contest of who has the highest turnout, to a much greater degree than they're a contest of who can convince the most people. And in that contest of turnouts there are analysts on all sides who can predict with certainty which voting precincts in which counties are likely to lean one way or the other. So it's not beyond the realm of possibility that one could put that knowledge to use for nefarious purposes.
bersercFeb 15, 2012
Student ID is created by a university.
Carry permits are created by the government.
Case closed.
norman619Feb 15, 2012
Student ID's are supported by GOVERNMENT documents schools use to REGISTER and identify students when they enroll.
bersercFeb 15, 2012
Norm - The same scrutiny they use for state ID is not used for student ID. This isn't against students, it's against fraud.
TGRHvWGAFFeb 15, 2012
A student ID issued by a state-run university in many ways has more attention paid to it than a driver's license. Have you registered for college lately? Not only do you have to provide multiple identification documents, but you also have to provide proof of residency (unless you're paying out of state tuition like a sucker) and proof of immunizations.
hydianFeb 15, 2012
Proof of residency was established at registration and is not needed at the time of voting. The purpose of the ID at the polls is purportedly to establish identity.
gamearchiveinfoFeb 18, 2012
Download Games Free-Full PC Games-The World of Games at : http://gamearchive.info
gamearchiveinfoFeb 18, 2012
welcome to http://gamearchive.info
idoubledareuFeb 17, 2012
It can't really be a power grab if Republicans and democrats are being held to the same standard. Why should anyone mind producing an ID?
Closed AccountFeb 17, 2012
Haven't you been reading posts here?
kasha34Feb 16, 2012
Again, I can show you multiple cases of Democrats being convicted of voter fraud.
Forged absentee ballots. Voting under multiple names. And none of you have the balls to even look at it.
jpurdyFeb 15, 2012
The American Legislative Exchange Council is largely responsible for the totally unnecessary voter id laws -
http://www.theroot.com/views/who-alec-and-why-are-they-so-powerful
nasirmughalFeb 15, 2012
you follow me and i follow you
http://rabiulawal-zahid.blogspot.com/2012/02/muhammad-pbuh.html
witney_in_memoryFeb 15, 2012
Thats all,yep.
slang4catFeb 14, 2012
What policies are currently in place to prevent voter fraud?
Simple question really.
treehugger87Feb 14, 2012
Irrelevant. There is no evidence that voter fraud is actually occurring. The Bush/Cheney White House spent 5 years seeking evidence that it was occurring and came up completely empty.
slang4catFeb 14, 2012
What policies are in place to determine whether or not voter fraud is occurring?
particleman420Feb 15, 2012
the voter registrations process.
particleman420Feb 15, 2012
what evidence do you have of voter fraud occurring?
slang4catFeb 14, 2012
Let me put it this way: I don't have any evidence that my e-mail account has been hacked, but I take measures to prevent that it doesn't.
Also voter fraud does occur. People do get convicted of it:
https://www.google.com/search?q=covicted+of+voter+fraud
Yet no reasonable effort made to prevent it. And it's f**king shocking.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
novenatorFeb 14, 2012
So you would remove the right of over 5 million people to vote because you can find less than a dozen documented cases of actual voter fraud.
How is that not fascist again?
slang4catFeb 15, 2012
5 million people vote and don't have ID's?
Where did you get that bulls**t number?
You have the the right to vote, as long as you can prove you have that right. There are too many people living in this country who actually don't have that right. So many it's f**king ridiculous.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountFeb 15, 2012
And you don't have evidence proving any of them are casting votes, do you? Exactly...
novenatorFeb 15, 2012
I guess you don't know how to google a basic figure. Here is the citation: http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/voting_law_changes_in_2012#summ
Do you hate democracy?
treehugger87Feb 15, 2012
@slang. I see now that you underestimated the impact of the ID requirement. Now that you know that it's 5,000,000 voters effected I will expect you to change course and be against the requirement.
treehugger87Feb 14, 2012
That's a fine example, except that there IS substantial evidence that email accounts can be and are hacked. A reasonable person would expect to be hacked if they do not take steps to avoid being hacked.
Closed AccountFeb 15, 2012
The difference is that you have reasons to believe that the threat of your account being hacked is legitimate. The existence of the threat is demonstrable. With voter fraud, that isn't the case. You want laws to be created based on your paranoia. Where does it end?
countess666Feb 15, 2012
"Let me put it this way: I don't have any evidence that my e-mail account has been hacked, but I take measures to prevent that it doesn't."
because there is plenty of evidence that e-mail accounts are being hacked on a regular bases.
BuriedBodyFeb 14, 2012
Ask your state representative, it's up to them minus breaking some federal rules.
cybersaurFeb 14, 2012
Vote fraud is already a felony. Has been for decades.
slang4catFeb 14, 2012
That's not what I asked. I asked what policies are in place to prevent it.
cybersaurFeb 14, 2012
Seems to be working as vote fraud is essentially non-existent.
slang4catFeb 14, 2012
There is no way you can know that, as there are also no measures in place to verify the veracity of a placed ballot.
It's like saying aliens don't exist because we have no evidence of them.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
cybersaurFeb 14, 2012
Unless you can show evidence that vote fraud has occurred then there is no reason to believe it has taken place. It would be unwise to pass restrictive laws against voters just because some agitated folks on the Internet have convinced themselves that fraud has occurred.
Closed AccountFeb 15, 2012
But if you're only imagining there is a problem, how will you determine that it's been addressed by the measures you're supporting? IOW, what would it take to make you stop coming up with new excuses to make people jump through your hoops?
bersercFeb 15, 2012
In my state ID is required the first time you vote. Once that is done anyone who claims to be Joe Smith can vote as Joe Smith as long as they sign in on entry. If you take a look at the voting lists there are thousands of people that are dead or who have moved still on the lists. It doesn't take a genius to realize that if you get that list you can then have people go from poll to poll voting as dead or moved people. The list is available free from my county for anyone who wants it.
Closed AccountFeb 15, 2012
That's very unrealistic and very labor intensive. Also, as I state in my post immediately above (or below), there are plenty of reasons that would discourage those who would go through so much effort to screw up an election. In order for something like that to work, *all* the players involved would have to execute the fraud perfectly. If one domino goes down--they ALL go down. So basically someone is risking a helluva lot for a payoff that isn't even guaranteed if they succeed.
Closed AccountFeb 15, 2012
"What policies are currently in place to prevent voter fraud?"
--For starters:
A) The threat of a prison sentence
1) an orange jumpsuit
2) really bad food
3) free forced nightly anal probes
B) being branded a convicted felon for life
C) thousands of dollars in fines
D) suspension of your voting rights
E) possible deportation if you're not a citizen.
ancientshoesFeb 15, 2012
this coming from a website called "freak out nation"
atomheartmotherFeb 16, 2012
I thought the same thing when I first saw this blog a long time ago...just reeks of uptight hippie...then I thought, yeah, idiotic name but maybe the content's worthwhile.
Nope. And that's a brief but vast understatement.
Dr_RightFeb 14, 2012
Yeah.... How dare they challenge our right to vote early and often.......
.....and why shouldn't illegals vote?
.......and why not dead people vote?.... they used to be alive.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
novenatorFeb 14, 2012
Well, it does seem like the only fraud in actual elections usually comes from conservatives, so I guess you would know about voting "early and often"
Dr_RightFeb 14, 2012
Whoaa, nove..... You got me there.....
We all know those dark panther guys with the billy clubs were forcing people to vote Republican.... you know .... the ones Holder refused to prosecute.
Oh yeah, and this didn't happen:
A Nevada judge on Wednesday gave ACORN, the defunct grass-roots community organization, the maximum fine for its illegal voter-registration scheme in that state.
District Court Judge Donald Mosley was blunt and unsparing in his criticism of the discredited activist group. Citing the long history of voter registration fraud allegations that engulfed ACORN across the country, he slapped the group with a $5,000 fine for violating Nevada election law during the 2008 presidential election.
ACORN was a big Republican support group.... right?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kaegroFeb 14, 2012
"ACORN was a big Republican support group.... right?"
What about the Okeef guy or what ever.
novenatorFeb 14, 2012
Keep spreading those lies and distortions like a good little propagandist!
There were a few overzealous folks in Acorn that indeed did sign up some folks who don't exist, but check this out, that was a miniscule fraction of the real people they registered to vote, and none of the fake people could ever possibly vote in the first place!
In other words, you're just grasping at straws to try to prove voter fraud exists to justify your fascist attempts to stifle democracy.
slang4catFeb 14, 2012
A few? A minuscule fraction?
"At least 70 ACORN/Project Vote employees have been convicted of voter registration fraud in a dozen states since 2006. According to a 2009 House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform report, approximately a third of the 1.2 million new registrations turned in by the two groups in 2008 were fraudulent."
http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/2012/01/justice-department-coordinates-suits-acorns-project-vote/165096Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
novenatorFeb 14, 2012
70 out of 500,000? Like I said, a miniscule fraction. Plus, you link to an opinion piece on the examiner. Please cite a real source for the 70 figure.
slang4catFeb 15, 2012
Here is a link to the report from the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform:
http://tinyurl.com/6wovtjf
"To date, nearly 70 ACORN employees have been convicted in 12 states for voter registration fraud, though no federal charges have been filed against ACORN’s directors. In fact, Pennsylvania judge Richard Zoller – after holding a low-level ACORN employee liable for election law violations – noted that “somebody has to go after ACORN.”"
"One-third of the 1.3 million voter registration cards turned in by ACORN in 2008 were invalid."
novenatorFeb 15, 2012
voter registration. That's not voter fraud.
slang4catFeb 15, 2012
I don't have to prove that it exists. I think it's reasonable to expect the simplest measures to prevent it.
CrashingDownFeb 15, 2012
I swear @Novenator, i just want to live in your world for just a moment. I bet it's all happy with unicorns and rainbows.
CrashingDownFeb 15, 2012
@Novenator - so what you're saying is because it's only 70 out of 500,000 that makes it alright?
Pretty twisted logic.
miklkitFeb 14, 2012
ACORN got their funding back and Okeefe had to plea bargain to stay out of jail.
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/3/12/judge_instructs_fed_agencies_to_resume
BuriedBodyFeb 14, 2012
Illegal voter registration != vote fraud. Completely different animal. Still bad but not nearly as bad.
slang4catFeb 14, 2012
Once registered there are no measures in place to keep you from casting a ballot.
BuriedBodyFeb 14, 2012
The voter registration ACORN was fined for in Dr_Right's example was for paying volunteers to register votes (illegal in NV). To get the money, volunteers would register the dead or made-up voters:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/08/10/judge-gives-maximum-and-fines-acorn-5000-for-illegal-voter-registration-scheme/#ixzz1UgHOfY8Z
None of those registrations could have been validated and resulted in votes. Just because registration forms were submitted for "Micky Mouse", it doesn't mean I can show up and vote as Mick Mouse.
Specifically, in the case for Nevada you need to submit:
1) Proof of residency (driver's license, usually) Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 293.517 (2009)
2) Driver's license number OR last four digits of their SS number. Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 293.507 (2009)
Without that information, the registration isn't valid. So, ACORN was fined for knowingly submitting false registrations. No voter fraud.
boo1Feb 14, 2012
First off, the black panther case was never pursued because no one came forward to file a complaint. Not one. (other than the poll worker, who was not voting) therefore, no case.
Second, why is it good doctor, that republicans only want to crusade for one potential form of fraud?
Think about it herr doctor; voter id only pursues one form of voter fraud. What about electronic fraud? Why is no republican worried that an election could be stolen via electronic voting? It has been demonstrably proven that voter fraud is not only possible, but has quite probably occurred via the electronic voting machines.
So, what does the republicans stand to gain, by creating voter id laws of this sort?
Lastly, can you cite any voter fraud cases that would be affected by this law. There has to be tons of it, because if not, that would mean that out of the millions that vote in any given state, that 10 per election, per state is still meaningless given the pool.....ie 10x50='s 500.......so out of say 1 million that vote in a state, only 10 are fraudulent. Which is .00001%
PS ....real convictions, not accusations of fraud.
Lastly, while reading up on the subject, I cam across this cite by the Brennan Center for Justice.
http://www.truthaboutfraud.org/
Download the PDF's.....interesting stuff!
Dr_RightFeb 14, 2012
So, it's okay to hang around outside polling places with billy clubs and intimidate voters?
The big question is.... Why do you lefties support voter fraud?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
bluto36Feb 14, 2012
because voter fraud is very very Chiacago style Progressive.
thats how you win and stay in "progressive" power.
boo1Feb 14, 2012
derp
Closed AccountFeb 15, 2012
Or maybe you're losing because you don't believe you should have to earn votes. Maybe it's that voters are turned off by right wing extremists? ;-(
boo1Feb 14, 2012
Is it ok to hang out with billy clubs?
No! .....absolutely not!
I am explaining to you why it was not prosecuted....also,l believe it was brought under the Bush admin.....not Obama.
"The big question is.... Why do you lefties support voter fraud?"
So, out of everything i wrote above, and then listed research on actual voter fraud, you put your fingers in your ears and yell ..."la, la, la, voter fraud...i can't hear you."?????
So here....I' ll post it again in case you missed it.
http://www.truthaboutfraud.org/
Just don't respond if you are going to run around going"la, la, la, la...."
Dr_RightFeb 14, 2012
I don't believe anything in your post....
...........So, tell us why you support voter fraud.
boo1Feb 15, 2012
I can't believe you stuck you fingers in your ears again.
Actually that would be ear. I have no doubt you would have nothing to do with a left ear...lolComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
particleman420Feb 15, 2012
are you referring to those 2 people that no one pressed charges on that were standing outside 1 polling station in an election that potentially involved 300million people?
that sure sounds like a widespread problem!
Dr_RightFeb 15, 2012
"........the Justice Department filed a civil lawsuit against the New Black Panther Party and three of its members, saying they violated the 1965 Voting Rights Act by scaring voters with the weapon...." Holder dropped the charges.
Your commment that no -one pressed charges is not true.....
.... So you do support voter intimidation and voter fraud?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
particleman420Feb 15, 2012
oh, well s**t, it's 3 instead of 2?!?!?!
why didnt anyone say anything! that changes the whole situation!
Closed AccountFeb 15, 2012
I think you watch too much FOX.
Dr_RightFeb 15, 2012
That has nothing to do with the left's support for voter fraud.
Closed AccountFeb 15, 2012
@DR: Duuuuhh...no no no...That has nothing to do with the right's support for voter suppression. Ha! There. That's all I need to trump your argument. So there. Nyaaah...;-x
particleman420Feb 15, 2012
@dr.rightwing:
except you havent shown us any evidence of voter fraud. particularly since you were talking about scary black men and not voter fraud.
are you just going to change the subject and pretend you are concerned about new things every time your stupid arguments are shown to be nothing but propaganda?
"scary black men were intimidating people at a single voting station, except no one complained about it!"
"yes, and what about it?"
"well you're supporting voter fraud!!!!1!!"
"what does that have to do with black panthers?"
"voter fraud liberal birth certificate various catchphrases i heard on fox flail flail flail!!!!"
ferretmanFeb 16, 2012
It's a cute meme that the Diggerals have going here in this echo chamber, but it won't affect the real world.
Voter ID is the only logical, sane possibility when it comes to voting--it's frankly an oversight on the part of the Founders that it's not enshrined in the Constitution.
Closed AccountFeb 21, 2012
It's insane, big government intervention that lying hypocrite cons are desperately pushing because you know you can't win elections legitimately. You've been trained like seals to believe that the reason you lose election is not that your ideology is bankrupt but that elections are being stolen from you. And you suck it all down just like a good little conjob.
zumaliciousFeb 15, 2012
Welcome, right wing nutjobs. Geez.
aveterenFeb 15, 2012
Am I eligible to vote?
In order to vote in the United States, you have to meet certain basic requirements. Regardless of what state you live in, you must:
•Be a citizen of the United States.
•Be a resident of the state in which you're planning to register.
•Be at least 18-years-old at the time of the next election.
Beyond that, each state has its own laws and regulations for voter eligibility.
https://registertovote.org/faq/am-i-eligible-to-vote.html
You know all this bulls**t about showing an ID at the polls to vote is just stupid. You have to show some kind of ID that you are a citizen of the U.S., that you are a resident of the state you live in and are going to vote in, and that you are 18yrs old, just to register. If you don't you will not get a voter registation card. Without a registation card there is...........
NO VOTING.........PERIOD.
Use some common sense people.
USE THE SAME ID's YOU USED TO REGISTER.
If they are good enough to register with, then they are good enough ID's to vote with.
What the hell is the problem???
American Citizens Against Voter Fraud,,ACAVF