What is so evil about requiring id to vote?

[cvfd1399 0]

Quote

So are you saying when a current administration...

Has nothing to do with voter ID laws.

In reply to:
or fraudulent voters are going to...

The question is not 'will they?' It is (as Kallend pointed out) 'have they?'

Have they?

In reply to:
Its like...

It's not like that.

You sure have trouble thinking outside the box dont you. So you never foresee people taking advantage of future voting if allowed to vote multiple times per day cross multiple locations?

[rhaig 0]

cvfd1399

Would you be ok with requiring ID to vote if the government facilitated resources such as help obtaining birth certificates, transportation, and registration?

maybe mobile ID stations that could drive to the remote areas of the state. (google Texas mobile ID stations)

maybe waiving ID fees for those who can't afford it (already available in Texas)

there are some hardline republicans who want to enforce voter ID because they want to disenfranchise some voters. sure. There are also some far left democrats who don't want voter ID because they support voter fraud. we will see numbers about how small of a problem voter fraud is. we will have several elderly people in remote areas of the state mentioned as being disenfranchised. the numbers are about a wash so let's not get into them. disenfranchisement is a problem. so let's support programs like the mobile ID stations and waiving of ID fees to make disenfranchisement not happen. Then we can also make voter fraud not happen.

--
Rob

[cvfd1399 0]

I'm 1000% on board with all of that. If you live in America legally I WANT ALL of you to vote. I just want to secure the voting system is all.

[jcd11235 0]

cvfd1399

Ignoring all your other comments because I have addressed them.

No, only ignored them.

cvfd1399

Quote

Pretty simple, really. Put a system in place to verify citizens are only registered in one voting precinct.

How would that system work? Fingerprint?.....ID?

Ummm, no. An ID wouldn't make any difference with that. It would have to occur with the registration process.

That's the thing about requiring a picture ID. It wouldn't do anything to prevent people from voting in multiple precincts. But, since that isn't an actual problem, it's a moot point.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jcd11235 0]

rhaig

There are also some far left democrats who don't want voter ID because they support voter fraud.

That's complete bullshit.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[JerryBaumchen 1,363]

Hi 1399,

Quote

I just want to secure the voting system is all.

This is for all of you posting on this issue.

You ( all of you ) should study what Oregon has done.

All voting is done by mail. * You register, then you get your ballot in the mail ( very much like getting your ballot early because you will be out of town on election day ).

It works great; you should study it.

Jerry Baumchen

* On Election Day you can drive to a polling drop-off location and save the stamp.

[cvfd1399 0]

Quote

That's the thing about requiring a picture ID. It wouldn't do anything to prevent people from voting in multiple precincts.

Completely incorrect. Where I live you have to register to vote you can only register in 1 district. This puts you in the books. When you show up to vote your name is on a list with an open spot next to it. You show your id, sign in the block next to your name no one can vote for you anywhere else period.

If you are not registered there is a way to vote same day at the polls. You have to provide Id. When polls close the logs of persons who voted by id only have to be verified to ensure they only voted once before the Secretary of State verifies the election results.

[rhaig 0]

jcd11235

***There are also some far left democrats who don't want voter ID because they support voter fraud.

That's complete bullshit.

So you assert that there do not exist any democrats that support voter fraud?

I'll give you credit that you're smart, and your reply was just a kneejerk emotional response.

--
Rob

[jakee 1,489]

Quote

You sure have trouble thinking outside the box dont you. So you never foresee people taking advantage of future voting if allowed to vote multiple times per day cross multiple locations?

Thinking outside the box is useless if you haven't yet figured out what's inside the box.

If it is as easy as you suggest, why isn't it already rampant? There's no point in speculating about the future until you have that answer.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[cvfd1399 0]

If you do not think people will eventually take advantage of a situation that would allow them to get valuable items for free, please post your bank account details and PIN number and let's see how that works out.

[jakee 1,489]

cvfd1399

If you do not think people will eventually take advantage of a situation that would allow them to get valuable items for free, please post your bank account details and PIN number and let's see how that works out.

See that's the difference between you and me - you're an optimist and I'm a cynic. I don't think they would take advantage of it eventually, I think they would take advantage of it straight away.

So why aren't they?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[wmw999 2,447]

Why not just punish them when they're caught. It seems that illegal voting happens a whole lot less than illegal gun buying, and "punish them when they're caught" is the most common way suggested to address that.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[wmw999 2,447]

Quote

waiving ID fees

The biggest problem with that is that it's only the ID fee that's waived. You still have to pay to get your birth certificate (which takes two forms of ID many places and costs money for the certified copy) or have some other form of ID. Or two or three forms, depending on what documentation you have. And yes, if you've changed your name for marriage or any other reason, you have to have the (paid-for) certification of that as well.

It's attractive to make someone pay for something they get, but when they haven't needed it for years, it seems kind of silly and malicious.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[jcd11235 0]

cvfd1399

Quote

That's the thing about requiring a picture ID. It wouldn't do anything to prevent people from voting in multiple precincts.

Completely incorrect. Where I live you have to register to vote you can only register in 1 district. This puts you in the books. When you show up to vote your name is on a list with an open spot next to it. You show your id, sign in the block next to your name no one can vote for you anywhere else period.

That's pretty much how it works most places. But if someone manages to register in two precincts, a picture ID requirement won't stop anyone from voting in the first precinct, then driving to the second precinct and voting there. A picture ID requirement won't prevent that at all.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jcd11235 0]

rhaig

So you assert that there do not exist any democrats that support voter fraud?

You made the claim, the onus is on you to provide supporting evidence.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jcd11235 0]

cvfd1399

If you do not think people will eventually take advantage of a situation that would allow them to get valuable items for free, please post your bank account details and PIN number and let's see how that works out.

Wow. Talk about a red herring!

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[rhaig 0]

jcd11235

***So you assert that there do not exist any democrats that support voter fraud?

You made the claim, the onus is on you to provide supporting evidence.

there is VERY little ever posted in this forum that ever remotely resembles evidence. I've seen videos of Wendy Davis campaign volunteers discussing using their husband's absentee ballot to vote. I'd go spend time looking for that video, but that wasn't the point of my post (which you didn't read apparently).

My point was that before we can secure the voting system, we should find a way to not disenfranchise anyone. You don't seem to think it's required to secure the voting system. You appear to support ignoring voter fraud.

You should run for office. I hear that ignoring inconvenient laws is what the popular politicians are doing. You would fit right in.

--
Rob

[kallend 2,027]

cvfd1399

Negative, you are freaking out, and applying typical attack tactics on me.

If you think that was an attack, then you need to grow a thicker skin to participate here.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[cvfd1399 0]

I do not mean personal attack, but Saul Alinsky type debate attacks....

[kallend 2,027]

cvfd1399

I do not mean personal attack, but Saul Alinsky type debate attacks....

OH, like pointing inconvenient FACTS.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[cvfd1399 0]

Quote

So to combat this hypothetical and unproven possible risk based purely on supposition and fear-mongering you are willing to disenfranchise tens of thousands of elderly and poor citizens.

Where is the FACT in this statement that you were alledgedly pointing out? You stated that I was willing to "disenfranchise tens of thousands of elderly and poor citizens." Please point out where that was my position. When infact I stated this

Quote

If you live in America legally I WANT ALL of you to vote. I just want to secure the voting system is all.

Let me just point out to you that your using;
RULE 3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)

RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating.

[jcd11235 0]

cvfd1399

You stated that I was willing to "disenfranchise tens of thousands of elderly and poor citizens." Please point out where that was my position.

Are you now claiming you're against photo ID requirements for voting?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[cvfd1399 0]

Quote

Are you now claiming you're against photo ID requirements for voting?

What gave you that idea? Was it the statement where I said I want everyone to vote legally, but also secure the integrity of the voting process, or the part where I suggested governmental programs that would help people get an id if they could not on their own? Because none of that suggests what you claim..

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

jcd11235

***

Quote

That's the thing about requiring a picture ID. It wouldn't do anything to prevent people from voting in multiple precincts.

Completely incorrect. Where I live you have to register to vote you can only register in 1 district. This puts you in the books. When you show up to vote your name is on a list with an open spot next to it. You show your id, sign in the block next to your name no one can vote for you anywhere else period.

That's pretty much how it works most places. But if someone manages to register in two precincts, a picture ID requirement won't stop anyone from voting in the first precinct, then driving to the second precinct and voting there. A picture ID requirement won't prevent that at all.

There was an article about multiple registrations recently (it was linked here in a thread about this very subject).
IIRC, they looked over the voter registrations in North Carolina. They found a lot of people registered in more than one place. Even more than one state.

I have been registered in more than one location. I may still be. I found this out when I moved back to my old town (a couple miles down the road) after I split with my then-wife. I went to register and found that I had never been "unregistered" when I moved down the road. Even though I had registered at my new address.

And when I moved back to this town, I only had to do a "change of address" because I was still registered here.

Multiple registrations aren't all that difficult.

But fraudulent voting seems to not be a real problem. It just doesn't happen much (as in very, very, very little).

I don't want to see people disenfranchised because of what might happen in the future.
Deal with future problems when and if they occur.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[jcd11235 0]

cvfd1399

Quote

Are you now claiming you're against photo ID requirements for voting?

What gave you that idea? Was it the statement where I said I want everyone to vote legally, but also secure the integrity of the voting process, or the part where I suggested governmental programs that would help people get an id if they could not on their own? Because none of that suggests what you claim..

There is no reason to suggest the integrity of the voting process is compromised, and the potential scenarios you suggest would not be solved by requiring a picture ID to vote.

As has been admitted by some of the requirement's advocates, the goal of the requirement is to disenfranchise voters who are inclined to vote for Democrats, trying to sneakily implement "an unconstitutional poll tax." But then you've already shown us how you are disinclined to govern within the limits of what's allowed by the Constitution.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!