The Republican Voter ID laws don't actually address using an ID from a deceased relative where there could be enough of a family resemblance to do that or cases of multiple voting. The Republican Voter ID laws address voter impersonation fraud that could be committed without an ID being presented when voting at the polls. The problem is that voter impersonation at the polls is all but non-existant in the United States. Pennsylvania passed a Voter ID Law (since struck down by a federal court) but had no known cases of voter impersonation at the polls. North Carolina passed a Voter ID Law but had no known cases of voter impersonation at the polls. Texas passed a Voter ID law and only had four suspected cases covering four elections so even if confirmed it would only work out to be one vote per election that was fraudulent. Why are we imposing a condition on voting that doesn't address any known problem? These new Republican Voter ID Laws are just the 21st Century's version of the racist Jim Crow voting laws that existed in the South prior to the Civil Rights Movement and everyone knows that. They are created exclusively to disenfranchise poor minority US citizens from voting and for no other logical purpose.
Given the number of reported incidents of voter fraud, there is probable cause to justify further steps. Requiring ID is just one of them. If fraud persists, then we can pursue others. Equating providing ID with Jim Crow would be laughable if I did not believe that you believe that, so it just makes it a sad distortion of history instead.
No, I haven't dropped any links, because my statements didn't depend on their existence. But I have presented facts. My points just require you to actually think about it. No need for stupid straw men, mate. It only degrades yourself. Look, we can debate honestly here - there's no need for you to throw out blatant lies to try to defend yourself. This is the first time you've used a link in response to my posts on this thread. Oh, and don't insult yourself, the Brennan Center isn't a university. It's a think tank, named after a famous liberal judge, based out of NYU law. Further, the link you gave wasn't to any study, it was just to a statement on the Brennan Center website - no study, no facts. Now, I've done your legwork and found the study you probably wanted here. There have been studies by University of Nebraska, University of Missouri, American University, the last one conducted by Dr. Pastor who was Carter's Senior Adviser, all basically coming up with opposite results. That's 3-1. Further, there have been countless Heritage studies (a right think tank) debunking the Brennan Center's "see no fraud, hear no fraud..." approach. This information was compiled by the NRLA, with actual links to each study here. Regardless, even if it wasn't debunked, the study that you should have provided doesn't back up your earlier claims. "The rational applied by Liberals is that voter fraud has been thoroughly investigated, we know it's rare because of the real world data that has been gathered. The only people who "suspect it may be widespread" are ignorant of the data, and have been mislead purposely. Were you fooled into thinking that voter fraud may be widespread?" post #16 "You have seen it, you just ignore it, because you don't want to believe it..... The Bush Justice Department made voter fraud a priority, 100 cases over 8 years, and they spent millions pursuing it. There is a record of every vote, you can check to see who voted, you can call them and interview them. There are no missing voters, get over it..." post #18. Note you haven't actually provided any study, I've provided the Brennan Center study FOR you, and shown that it's been debunked by the Heritage Foundation, and that three universities have disagree with it's findings. But that's okay, you've seen it, you just ignore it, because you don't want to believe it.
So what you have is the National Republican Lawyers Blog, saying that voter ID wouldn't be a burden to most people. What you don't have is any data that suggests that voter impersonation is a problem. Why are you so all fired determined to launch a big government program to address a problem that doesn't actually exist? A couple of years ago the state of South Carolina was pretty sure that nearly a thousand dead people had voted, some had been dead for years, and extensive investigations determined that the actual number of those nearly 1000 votes that were illegal was ZERO. Now we have some similar hoopla going on in North Carolina, where 600 odd voters share the same first and last name and the same last 4 digits of the social, as someone who voted in one of 23 other states, a pool of 150 million voters. And the final results will be the same. There is no significant voter fraud for a reason, it's because it doesn't make sense. Last election there were two Republicans that tried to vote fraudulently "to show how easy it was" both were arrested. Because the system has plenty of safeguards as it is. The voter rolls contain the name and address of every one who votes, and that is enough to eliminate fraud. Where are the big exposes? Where are the voter rolls being checked and illegal voters being found? Nowhere! Now plenty of those voter rolls have been checked, it's just that nothing has been found, because fraudulent voting exposes a person to significant legal penalty for NO REWARD. That's the thing, you risk prison, for one extra vote for your guy. People don't do that, for the same reason that people don't litter the streets with $20 bills, because it would be stupid. It's too much trouble for nothing in return. One vote isn't going to sway an election. And massive organized voter fraud simply doesn't exist, because large numbers of people can't keep a secret, and it would cost way too much to organize, for the return. So show me enough voter impersonation taking place to justify voter ID laws. You can't because there isn't any.
Quite right, and I'm glad you brought that up. It would be utterly foolish to commit voter fraud one vote at a time. One would naturally tamper with the counting of the votes, not the casting of them. One would do it on an industrial scale. Of course this means that just a few cases of voter fraud are necessary to rig an election, so even "rare" cases of fraud would have a huge impact.
Certainly not a single, in-person voter with a fake ID need cast a ballot. It is extremely rare for a single legit vote to have an impact on an election, let alone the very unusual fake one.
But if by pretending to protect against a non-existent threat, you can skew the vote, that is the perfect election fraud.
you can cover your eyes and block your ears, you might not see or hear what is right in front of you, but it's there. I provided the Brennan study that you did not, so it remains that you have yet to provide A SINGLE study, whereas I've provided you one study, and links to five studies debunking that one single study that you think verifies your position. nor did I say I do have any - you have a serious problem with straw men. But if you think that is sufficient reason to NOT have strict voting regulations... I GUARANTEE that's going to fly in the face of your rationale on nearly every other 'proactive' action of the government. So fired? I've calmly provided the facts, even your 'facts' (which were subsequently disproven by studies done by three universities and two by the Heritage Foundation). You're the one all fired, determined to prevent any photo verification, even if the states cover all costs related to getting the ID and provide voters ample time to acquire one. You have a real knack for making very specific claims and not providing any source whatsoever. And each time when asked, you've failed to back any of your specific factual claims up. So I ask you again, back yourself up goober. I'm honestly getting annoyed with your unsubstantiated claims, straw men, and extraneous rants. How about this - tell me why you're opposed to any voter ID laws, under any circumstances. look, if you're having that much difficulty reading the studies that have ACTUALLY been provided (you haven't provided any studies yet, I've provided a link which contains links to five, and I've been kind enough to provide the study that you SHOULD have put forward). You believe that there "isn't any" voter impersonation. You've got your head in a hole. More importantly, I want to know why you require proof of rampant voter fraud before you'll agree to common sense regulations. I'm sure you're fine with restricting civilian rights to own new automatic firearms that haven't been the cause of any problems. ^_^
Voter ID is one of those issues where the issue itself is pretty irrelevant, and it's basically just a "we disagree because they're leftists/rightists" sort of situation. To the left: moving ID from voter registration to the polling booth is hardly discriminatory, get off your high horse. Requiring ID at the polling booth is perfectly legitimate. To the right: let's be honest, voter fraud is an infinitesimally small issue. What would ID at the polling booth actually accomplish? Practically nothing. No changed election results, maybe a few extra arrests each election year. But it would also disproportionately affect Democratic demographics. [hr][/hr] Rather than trying to come up with a decent compromise, both sides stubbornly insist the other is racist. Perhaps when one registers to vote an image could be taken of the voter and this could be checked against the person voting on polling day. Maybe I don't have all the answers, but there surely exists a better one than perpetual partisan bickering.
And since fake voter IDs flashed at poll nannies easily circumvents the proposed safeguard against the non-existent problem, that woefully inadequate measure would have to be upgraded to fingerprint analysis, retinal scans, and/or dna testing, thus creating additional layers of bureaucratic red tape and governmental scrutiny - which, while we're about it - might as well be extended to gun purchases. Now, look where the "vast voter fraud" conspiracists who just wanted to discourage particular voters have brought us!
It's amazing how much you libs are opposed to Voter ID! Can't you win an election without voter fraud? I can't believe you are opposed just because of legal voter suppression! Soon you will be trying to sell us the Brooklyn bridge again!
And for people who buy into every lunatic conspiracy theory there is, vast voter fraud will remain a viable explanation for the election of Barack Obama. But for rational people, it doesn't work....
And it just doesn't happen now because of, get this, free market theory. The idea that people's behavior is affected by incentives and disincentives, this is something the left accepts, and the right finds incomprehensible. They point out that you need to show ID to buy liquor if you look young, they are oblivious to the incentives for young people to get a hold of alcohol. They point out that you need to show ID to cash a check, they are oblivious to the incentive of cashing a bad check. They insist that people should have to show ID to vote, they are oblivious to the lack of incentives to impersonate another voter. The sheep are unfamiliar with the application of theories they claim to support, a sign of cult membership..... - - - Updated - - - Do you believe that some people will not vote because of the difficulty of obtaining a picture ID?
I do not buy into the "lunatic conspiracy" you bought into which was to elect the lying, non-transparent B. Hussein Obama! Your gullibility and ignorance IS transparent however!
It's a helpful talent in real life. How many cases of voter impersonation do you think would be prevented by voter ID laws? How much are you willing to see your taxes raised in order to fund these laws?
It had nothing to do with how names were registered. Republicans hired a company to purge voter rolls of criminals who weren't eligible to vote. But the company didn't match the full first, middle, and last names. They matched partial names but did match race perfectly. Because more African Americans have been in the penal system that meant more African Americans were falsely accused at the polls of not being eligible to vote. Enough and more than enough to change the outcome of the election. Even without the butterfly ballots, which were used to disenfranchise voters as well.
Most people already have an ID. If not, let them buy one. We should not pay for it with taxes. It would not be a "poll tax." That's stupid to say that! I believe thousands of cases of fraud would be prevented if the truth be known.
Of course not. Nor have the picadors who wish to inflict the additional bureaucracy and red tape upon the electorate been able to provide anything beyond extremely rare and ineffectual instances despite diligent attempts to uncover any evidence for their conspiracy pretexts. The votes they would suppress by creating such a superfluous barrier to voting are calculated to bar those most likely to vote in a way they do not like. Coincidence? Universal background checks to keep firearms out of the hands of homicidal maniacs and criminals are going too far, but the same punchinellos demand that the poor and elderly must buy a picture ID, legit or fake, to flash at a poll nanny? Who do they think they're kidding? - Beyond themselves.
Do you have proof it doesn't? Common sense says it does especially with the assistance of Obama and AKORN.
