S
SVP
Guest
Must be a Chicago precinct!
- Status
R
Riverton_Grammy
Guest
OK, let’s work with that word “interfering”.
When a state mandates that you need a photo ID to vote, but will give that photo ID to you for free, and will come to your home if necessary to provide you with said photo ID, then what, exactly, is the objection to having an ID to vote?
Some of us are tired of hearing stories about how more than 100% of the registered voters voted in an election. And stories of “dead” voters voting go back to the 1960’s. Every vote cast by a person not eligible to vote disenfranchises a genuine voter. When will we EVER hear about the rights of those persons?
As long as the right to vote for everyone is an issue, then no one’s vote should be diluted by the vote of some person not eligible to vote, regardless of the reason why.
If and when this issue is fully and properly addressed, I suspect you will see a decrease in support for “voter ID”.
T
Tony_the_mad
Guest
The key word in your quote is ‘stories’ which is quite distinct from ‘evidence’ and the ‘truth’. Stories are easy to fabricate and for some reason are often not true.
If you really cared about voting you would look at the whole process and how it can be thwarted both intentionally and unintentionally. If a person decides to vote twice or ten times what percentage of the vote will that affect. Now compare this to how many people a single person can affect with a faulty voting machine or a confusing ballot or intimidation of one sort or another or even a well meaning but faultily executed ID system.
When I was real young I remember stealing from my brothers piggy bank at least once. The reason I did so was because I told myself a story that he had stole the money from me. I had no idea how much he stole nor no real evidence for him having stole it. It just seemed the kind of thing that he would do. Such is the power of stories without evidence.
I have since learned from my mistake. So I ask you: about how many people have voted more than once? How many people will be disenfranchised by a particular voter ID law? (Certainly if we say that one intentional voter fraud is too many then we should also say that one disenfranchised person is also too many, and vice versa.) How does the amount of resources we are investing against this fraud compare to resources needed against other forms of fraud (such as ballot stuffing, voter intimidation) and accidental disenfranchisement.
The stories we fear are not near as scary as the reality we miss when we close our eyes because of those stories.
E
Ender
Guest
Very true, and this appears to be what has happened regarding the situation in Ohio - bogeyman stories with little evidence of their being true.
True again, but the fact that there may be several problems to address surely doesn’t make it questionable to address one of them. The entire registration process is meant to ensure that everyone who is eligible can vote, can vote once, and votes in the appropriate district. Suggesting that providing verification that a person is who he claims to be represents a hardship is simple nonsense. There may be things that are inappropriate but that isn’t one of them.
I’m sure the parties can walk and chew gum at the same time. There is no reason to believe that the actions taken in this area diminish the opportunities to address the other problems you mention. There is no story here, or perhaps there is only story here; there surely doesn’t appear to be a real problem … just politics.
Ender
S
seekerz
Guest
Strange - I don’t seem to have gotten a response to my question yet, but yours seems to be why requiring voter ID is wrong since it is not unconstitutional. That was never my argument, so I’m afraid I can’t help you.
If voter ID requirements are introduced in such a way and over such period of time as to allow anyone unfairly excluded to contest that exclusion at no undue cost to them, then I have absolutely no problem with those requirements. My only question is: why did it now, after how many elections in the history of this country (?), did it suddenly become a problem?
S
scipio337
Guest
Voter fraud has been an issue for over a century. The 2000 Presidential election had a large impact regarding the sanctity of the vote, and need for reform. The Help America Vote Act was a direct reponse to that election.
The 2008 SCOTUS decision Crawford v. Marion County Election Board was from a 2005 Indiana voter ID law.
It has been a “huge issue” since Presiden Obama was in the US Senate his first year.
Perhaps this was just an insidious plot to keep Obama from the Presidency?
Republican John Connor travelled back in time to steal the future!!!
R
Riverton_Grammy
Guest
My mistake. Please substitute the words “news reports” for “stories” as that is the sort of thing I was referring to.
When there are more votes in an area than there are registered voters, something is wrong. And that was just one of the examples I listed. Each example I listed has been reported.
The problem, as I see it, is not whether one calls it a “story” or a “news report”. The problem is the obvious corruption and disenfranchisement of legitimate votes.
S
seekerz
Guest
Some of what is happening makes as much sense to me as that last remark. For example, considering that this has been an issue according to you, for over a century, what’s the rush to implement if for 2012? Why not gradually introduce the requirement for newly registered voters, or why not include exemptions for older people who do not have the necessary documentation? But I digress…why mess with voting times at the same time as voter IDs are being introduced if the intent is to accommodate every qualified voter who wants to perform their civic duty?
- Status