Surprise! Voter ID laws reduce turnout

[mrkelley23]

One can almost picture TRPTB rubbing their hands together with glee after Indiana's passed and saying, "All right! Let's see how much further we can push it!"

I'll assume the R is for Republican. So you are joining in on all the thoughtless, broad brush, memeing, silly Sorosing of Republicans, Tea Party supporters, and conservatives in general? I thought you were above that. I guess I was wrong.

For your information, there are a small number of idiots who truly don't want certain eligible voters to vote. But the majority don't care who votes as long as they are legitimately able to.

I will assume that your verbing of George Soros's name means that you think I"m accusing Republicans of something they are not guilty of. Can you point to any voter ID law in any state which was not backed, pushed, written, and confirmed by the Republican party? Until I see proof, I'm going to assume this is a Republican party priority, since they wrote it into their platform. And as far as the small number of idiots you refer to, let's just say that in my world, that is interchangeable with TRPTB.

And I'm not above anything, when it comes to America's political parties. I think both of them have been bought and paid for. I think both major party candidates for at least the last 22 years have been bought and paid for, so that it doesn't really matter which one wins, except for the side issues that the ones doing the paying don't care about, like abortion and gay marriage. That's one of the many reasons I voted for Crazy Ross, even when it became clear that he was crazy Ross.

[flockofseagulls104]

One can almost picture TRPTB rubbing their hands together with glee after Indiana's passed and saying, "All right! Let's see how much further we can push it!"

I'll assume the R is for Republican. So you are joining in on all the thoughtless, broad brush, memeing, silly Sorosing of Republicans, Tea Party supporters, and conservatives in general? I thought you were above that. I guess I was wrong.

For your information, there are a small number of idiots who truly don't want certain eligible voters to vote. But the majority don't care who votes as long as they are legitimately able to.

I will assume that your verbing of George Soros's name means that you think I"m accusing Republicans of something they are not guilty of. Can you point to any voter ID law in any state which was not backed, pushed, written, and confirmed by the Republican party? Until I see proof, I'm going to assume this is a Republican party priority, since they wrote it into their platform. And as far as the small number of idiots you refer to, let's just say that in my world, that is interchangeable with TRPTB.

And I'm not above anything, when it comes to America's political parties. I think both of them have been bought and paid for. I think both major party candidates for at least the last 22 years have been bought and paid for, so that it doesn't really matter which one wins, except for the side issues that the ones doing the paying don't care about, like abortion and gay marriage. That's one of the many reasons I voted for Crazy Ross, even when it became clear that he was crazy Ross.

Can you point to any voter ID law in any state which was not backed, pushed, written, and confirmed by the Republican party?

Can you point to any proposed law to ensure that the process of voting is made more verifiable that is not opposed by Democrats?

[Bob Juch]

I find it "interesting" that those who are very vocal advocates of small government are proponents of increasing laws for voting. How about just tatooing a bar code on everyone? That's not much different from the current state IDs.

Why should it be harder to vote than to buy a gun?

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

Why should it be harder to vote than to buy a gun?

What does this mean, can you buy a gun without a photo ID?

[mrkelley23]

I'll assume the R is for Republican. So you are joining in on all the thoughtless, broad brush, memeing, silly Sorosing of Republicans, Tea Party supporters, and conservatives in general? I thought you were above that. I guess I was wrong.

For your information, there are a small number of idiots who truly don't want certain eligible voters to vote. But the majority don't care who votes as long as they are legitimately able to.

I will assume that your verbing of George Soros's name means that you think I"m accusing Republicans of something they are not guilty of. Can you point to any voter ID law in any state which was not backed, pushed, written, and confirmed by the Republican party? Until I see proof, I'm going to assume this is a Republican party priority, since they wrote it into their platform. And as far as the small number of idiots you refer to, let's just say that in my world, that is interchangeable with TRPTB.

And I'm not above anything, when it comes to America's political parties. I think both of them have been bought and paid for. I think both major party candidates for at least the last 22 years have been bought and paid for, so that it doesn't really matter which one wins, except for the side issues that the ones doing the paying don't care about, like abortion and gay marriage. That's one of the many reasons I voted for Crazy Ross, even when it became clear that he was crazy Ross.

Can you point to any voter ID law in any state which was not backed, pushed, written, and confirmed by the Republican party?

Can you point to any proposed law to ensure that the process of voting is made more verifiable that is not opposed by Democrats?

Nope. Sure can't. Thanks for making my point for me.

[Bob Juch]

Why should it be harder to vote than to buy a gun?

What does this mean, can you buy a gun without a photo ID?

Yes, of course.

[BackInTex]

Why should it be harder to vote than to buy a gun?

A vote is a more powerful weapon.

[flockofseagulls104]

I will assume that your verbing of George Soros's name means that you think I"m accusing Republicans of something they are not guilty of. Can you point to any voter ID law in any state which was not backed, pushed, written, and confirmed by the Republican party? Until I see proof, I'm going to assume this is a Republican party priority, since they wrote it into their platform. And as far as the small number of idiots you refer to, let's just say that in my world, that is interchangeable with TRPTB.

And I'm not above anything, when it comes to America's political parties. I think both of them have been bought and paid for. I think both major party candidates for at least the last 22 years have been bought and paid for, so that it doesn't really matter which one wins, except for the side issues that the ones doing the paying don't care about, like abortion and gay marriage. That's one of the many reasons I voted for Crazy Ross, even when it became clear that he was crazy Ross.

Can you point to any voter ID law in any state which was not backed, pushed, written, and confirmed by the Republican party?

Can you point to any proposed law to ensure that the process of voting is made more verifiable that is not opposed by Democrats?

Nope. Sure can't. Thanks for making my point for me.

Good, so you admit democrats want to make sure they can continue to use voting fraud when they need to.

[mrkelley23]

Can you point to any proposed law to ensure that the process of voting is made more verifiable that is not opposed by Democrats?

Nope. Sure can't. Thanks for making my point for me.

Good, so you admit democrats want to make sure they can continue to use voting fraud when they need to.

Flock, I would respond to that if it weren't so insultingly laughable.

[flockofseagulls104]

Nope. Sure can't. Thanks for making my point for me.

Good, so you admit democrats want to make sure they can continue to use voting fraud when they need to.

Flock, I would respond to that if it weren't so insultingly laughable.

Glad you find it funny.

[jaybee]

Oh, I know I shouldn't write this - I stay out of the political discussions for a reason but WTF!

How in the world does the topic of having a photo ID to vote cause such passion and such discussion. People - It's a friggin' photo ID. Yeah, that's right - just like you need for just about any transaction that has any importance to it (and many that don't).

I went to Lowe's this week (many times). I have a Lowe's account there with my very own black and gold Lowe's LAR card. I've shopped at Lowe's for over 25 years usually spend about $1,000 to $2,000 a week. I know most of the people who work at the five Lowe's stores that are in my area. And guess what - unless the cashier is a fairly senior person who is familiar with me (and feels comfortable bending the company rule) - I have to show a picture ID. Lowe's policy. Why? Really simple - They are making sure that somebody hasn't stolen my Lowe's card and is charging things on my account. I'd much rather show my ID than have that happen.

I went to the UPS depot this week to pick up a package. It was 12' long and weighed 960 pounds. Not your average package and certainly not something that most people could even haul away, much less decide to steal. I show up with the right name with a trailer that can haul that size package. Pretty obvious that I must be the right guy. Still - their policy - show a photo ID. Again, I'd much rather reach into my wallet and flash my drivers license than even think about the very remote chance that someone would impersonate me at the UPS store.

I could go on and on. We all can. It's a fact of life folks - Just smart and safe business practices and certainly a liability limiter for businesses. Key words here: "It just makes sense". More important key word: "Everyone". How in the world can you cry discrimination for a policy that equally effects everyone?

So why should a photo ID be required?

A. It's a subversive plot by the Republicans/Democrats/Homeland Security/whoever to control voters and limit voting by (pick one) ethnic groups.
B. It would finally answer the burning question: Is it Elvis Aaron Presley or Elvis Aron? And is he still alive (and casting a vote)?
C. It's a very simple and effective way to make sure that the pretty important process of someone casting a vote is done by that person and nobody else.

Sadly, it appears that choices A or B are the most popular.

I know, I know, there is not too much evidence of vote tampering. Does it happen? Betcha it does. I don't think UPS looses half-ton packages to theft either, but I still think being careful makes sense.

Tennessee is one of those states that requires a photo ID to vote, so I checked what is required. For almost everyone, a valid drivers license will do. There are several other ID's that will also work (like a military ID for example). For anyone left who does not have a photo ID, they can get one for FREE. They need to have citizenship proof, (like a birth certificate) and two documents to show an address (Like a utility bill or other addressed to you). Furthermore, you only need to show a photo ID at the polling stations. Absentee ballots do not require a photo ID.

So I'm running through the list of exactly who is discriminated against, who is kept from voting, who is even inconvenienced by the voter ID laws......and I'm coming up with ..........nobody. Well, OK - maybe somebody who is not eligible to vote may be a little PO'd.

I'm very glad that I have the right to vote - just like everyone else does. Anything that helps the system work well and accurately just makes sense.

[Bob78164]

Oh, I know I shouldn't write this - I stay out of the political discussions for a reason but WTF!

How in the world does the topic of having a photo ID to vote cause such passion and such discussion. People - It's a friggin' photo ID. Yeah, that's right - just like you need for just about any transaction that has any importance to it (and many that don't).

I went to Lowe's this week (many times). I have a Lowe's account there with my very own black and gold Lowe's LAR card. I've shopped at Lowe's for over 25 years usually spend about $1,000 to $2,000 a week. I know most of the people who work at the five Lowe's stores that are in my area. And guess what - unless the cashier is a fairly senior person who is familiar with me (and feels comfortable bending the company rule) - I have to show a picture ID. Lowe's policy. Why? Really simple - They are making sure that somebody hasn't stolen my Lowe's card and is charging things on my account. I'd much rather show my ID than have that happen.

I went to the UPS depot this week to pick up a package. It was 12' long and weighed 960 pounds. Not your average package and certainly not something that most people could even haul away, much less decide to steal. I show up with the right name with a trailer that can haul that size package. Pretty obvious that I must be the right guy. Still - their policy - show a photo ID. Again, I'd much rather reach into my wallet and flash my drivers license than even think about the very remote chance that someone would impersonate me at the UPS store.

I could go on and on. We all can. It's a fact of life folks - Just smart and safe business practices and certainly a liability limiter for businesses. Key words here: "It just makes sense". More important key word: "Everyone". How in the world can you cry discrimination for a policy that equally effects everyone?

So why should a photo ID be required?

A. It's a subversive plot by the Republicans/Democrats/Homeland Security/whoever to control voters and limit voting by (pick one) ethnic groups.
B. It would finally answer the burning question: Is it Elvis Aaron Presley or Elvis Aron? And is he still alive (and casting a vote)?
C. It's a very simple and effective way to make sure that the pretty important process of someone casting a vote is done by that person and nobody else.

Sadly, it appears that choices A or B are the most popular.

I know, I know, there is not too much evidence of vote tampering. Does it happen? Betcha it does. I don't think UPS looses half-ton packages to theft either, but I still think being careful makes sense.

Tennessee is one of those states that requires a photo ID to vote, so I checked what is required. For almost everyone, a valid drivers license will do. There are several other ID's that will also work (like a military ID for example). For anyone left who does not have a photo ID, they can get one for FREE. They need to have citizenship proof, (like a birth certificate) and two documents to show an address (Like a utility bill or other addressed to you). Furthermore, you only need to show a photo ID at the polling stations. Absentee ballots do not require a photo ID.

So I'm running through the list of exactly who is discriminated against, who is kept from voting, who is even inconvenienced by the voter ID laws......and I'm coming up with ..........nobody. Well, OK - maybe somebody who is not eligible to vote may be a little PO'd.

I'm very glad that I have the right to vote - just like everyone else does. Anything that helps the system work well and accurately just makes sense.

We get up in arms about it because the eligible voters most likely not to have photo IDs are disproportionately Democratic. It's disproportionately poor and working-class people who will have difficulty taking the time to chase down proof-of-citizenship documents (which usually aren't free). And because (as you note) there is no effort at all to protect against absentee ballot voter fraud, many of us are convinced that the motives of those imposing these requirements is purely partisan.

By the way, I'm pretty sure my great aunt couldn't get a photo ID that's acceptable for voting. She's never learned to drive (she lives in Brooklyn, so she never needed to), so she doesn't have a driver's license. And at the age of 104, she never had a birth certificate. This lack prevents her from traveling to Canada because she also can't get a passport.

As for "everyone," well, the law in its majesty forbids rich and poor alike from sleeping under freeway overpasses. It may not be discriminatory on its face. But it's certainly discriminatory in effect. --Bob

[silverscreenselect]

I know, I know, there is not too much evidence of vote tampering. Does it happen? Betcha it does. I don't think UPS looses half-ton packages to theft either, but I still think being careful makes sense.

The crime rate in this country could be reduced substantially if police and prosecutors were allowed to operate without the restrictions that the Constitution imposes. There's plenty of neighborhoods where they know there's illegal activity going on and just a general search of all the dwellings and vehicles would yield evidence to put lots of bad guys away. They are also very good at interrogation. Let them go at every witness for as long as they need without benefit of a lawyer and you'll see more bad guys in jail too.

There's a reason for the saying that it's better for 100 guilty people to go free than one innocent man to be convicted and that's because of the value we place on our fundamental rights. However, these voter registration laws turn that around by saying in effect that it's better than one case of possible voter fraud be caught than 100 people be denied their right to vote.

[Bob Juch]

Oh, I know I shouldn't write this - I stay out of the political discussions for a reason but WTF!

How in the world does the topic of having a photo ID to vote cause such passion and such discussion. People - It's a friggin' photo ID. Yeah, that's right - just like you need for just about any transaction that has any importance to it (and many that don't).

I went to Lowe's this week (many times). I have a Lowe's account there with my very own black and gold Lowe's LAR card. I've shopped at Lowe's for over 25 years usually spend about $1,000 to $2,000 a week. I know most of the people who work at the five Lowe's stores that are in my area. And guess what - unless the cashier is a fairly senior person who is familiar with me (and feels comfortable bending the company rule) - I have to show a picture ID. Lowe's policy. Why? Really simple - They are making sure that somebody hasn't stolen my Lowe's card and is charging things on my account. I'd much rather show my ID than have that happen.

I went to the UPS depot this week to pick up a package. It was 12' long and weighed 960 pounds. Not your average package and certainly not something that most people could even haul away, much less decide to steal. I show up with the right name with a trailer that can haul that size package. Pretty obvious that I must be the right guy. Still - their policy - show a photo ID. Again, I'd much rather reach into my wallet and flash my drivers license than even think about the very remote chance that someone would impersonate me at the UPS store.

I could go on and on. We all can. It's a fact of life folks - Just smart and safe business practices and certainly a liability limiter for businesses. Key words here: "It just makes sense". More important key word: "Everyone". How in the world can you cry discrimination for a policy that equally effects everyone?

So why should a photo ID be required?

A. It's a subversive plot by the Republicans/Democrats/Homeland Security/whoever to control voters and limit voting by (pick one) ethnic groups.
B. It would finally answer the burning question: Is it Elvis Aaron Presley or Elvis Aron? And is he still alive (and casting a vote)?
C. It's a very simple and effective way to make sure that the pretty important process of someone casting a vote is done by that person and nobody else.

Sadly, it appears that choices A or B are the most popular.

I know, I know, there is not too much evidence of vote tampering. Does it happen? Betcha it does. I don't think UPS looses half-ton packages to theft either, but I still think being careful makes sense.

Tennessee is one of those states that requires a photo ID to vote, so I checked what is required. For almost everyone, a valid drivers license will do. There are several other ID's that will also work (like a military ID for example). For anyone left who does not have a photo ID, they can get one for FREE. They need to have citizenship proof, (like a birth certificate) and two documents to show an address (Like a utility bill or other addressed to you). Furthermore, you only need to show a photo ID at the polling stations. Absentee ballots do not require a photo ID.

So I'm running through the list of exactly who is discriminated against, who is kept from voting, who is even inconvenienced by the voter ID laws......and I'm coming up with ..........nobody. Well, OK - maybe somebody who is not eligible to vote may be a little PO'd.

I'm very glad that I have the right to vote - just like everyone else does. Anything that helps the system work well and accurately just makes sense.

One issue is that college students by law may vote in the district where they live for school even if they're from out of state or live far from their home in-state. Their driver's licenses show their home address so can't be used for voting.

One recent court decision said that requiring voters to get an ID is the equivalent of a poll tax. If you're just scraping by the additional cost of getting an ID is burdensome.

[flockofseagulls104]

Bob says:

many of us are convinced that the motives of those imposing these requirements is purely partisan.

Well, many of us are also convinced that the motives of those who are against any attempt to ensure that the people who are casting the vote are who they say they are is purely partisan. There you go... And once again, our arguments are to be discounted and/or ignored because your side has deemed them racist.

[Bob78164]

Bob says:

many of us are convinced that the motives of those imposing these requirements is purely partisan.

Well, many of us are also convinced that the motives of those who are against any attempt to ensure that the people who are casting the vote are who they say they are is purely partisan. There you go... And once again, our arguments are to be discounted and/or ignored because your side has deemed them racist.

Where is the evidence that in-person voter fraud is an actual problem? Because there's plenty of evidence out there, much of it memorialized in court findings, that voter ID requirements prevent eligible voters from voting.

We're not ignoring your arguments because we think they're racist. We're ignoring your arguments because you don't seem to be able to back them up with evidence. --Bob

[Bob Juch]

Georgia State Senator Complains That Voting Is Too Convenient For Black People

One of Georgia’s largest counties announced last week that it will allow early voting on a Sunday in late October and will open an early voting location in a shopping mall popular among local African-Americans. Concerned that this will lead to higher African-American voter turnout and hurt his party’s dominance, one state lawmaker is speaking out and vowing to stop this easy voting for minority voters.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported on Tuesday that Georgia state Senator Fran Millar (R) penned an angry response to DeKalb County’s announcement that early voting will be available on Sunday, October 26, and that an early-voting location will be opened at The Gallery at South DeKalb Mall. Millar represents part of the county and is Senior Deputy Whip for the Georgia Senate Republicans.

Millar wrote:

Now we are to have Sunday voting at South DeKalb Mall just prior to the election. Per Jim Galloway of the AJC, this location is dominated by African American shoppers and it is near several large African American mega churches such as New Birth Missionary Baptist. Galloway also points out the Democratic Party thinks this is a wonderful idea – what a surprise. I’m sure Michelle Nunn and Jason Carter are delighted with this blatantly partisan move in DeKalb.

Is it possible church buses will be used to transport people directly to the mall since the poll will open when the mall opens? If this happens, so much for the accepted principle of separation of church and state.

Many predominantly Black churches around the country organize “Souls to the Polls” events that encourage churchgoers to vote after attending Sunday church services. This often relies on carpooling and is perfectly legal, according to the Freedom From Religion Foundation (which advocates for a strict separation of church and state). While Republicans in places like North Carolina and Ohio have pushed to eliminate Sunday voting hours, it is unusual for a legislator to so candidly admit that this strategy is about reducing African American turnout.

Millar notes that he is “investigating if there is any way to stop this action” and that he and State Representative Mike Jacobs (R) “we will try to eliminate this election law loophole in January,” as it might boost Democratic voter turnout.

(HT: ElectionLawBlog)

[littlebeast13]

Since the day some caveman beat his friends over the head with a club and declared himself supreme ruler, the people in power have acted with the sole intent of keeping themselves in power. It amazes me that anyone would think for some reason that's changed over the centuries just because our ways of governing have become more modernized. Especially with this issue, where it's literally all about getting the "right people" to the ballot box....

But as usual, this thread sure is full of gullible optimists who have full faith in their respective party's "good intentions"....

Don't stop believin'!

lb13

[flockofseagulls104]

Bob says:

many of us are convinced that the motives of those imposing these requirements is purely partisan.

Well, many of us are also convinced that the motives of those who are against any attempt to ensure that the people who are casting the vote are who they say they are is purely partisan. There you go... And once again, our arguments are to be discounted and/or ignored because your side has deemed them racist.

Where is the evidence that in-person voter fraud is an actual problem? Because there's plenty of evidence out there, much of it memorialized in court findings, that voter ID requirements prevent eligible voters from voting.

We're not ignoring your arguments because we think they're racist. We're ignoring your arguments because you don't seem to be able to back them up with evidence. --Bob

No, your side does ignore facts that are opposed to their agenda and narrative all the time.

Just a couple years ago, to show how easy it is to commit fraud, James O'Keefe of Project Veritas could have very easily casted Eric Holder's vote for him.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government ... der-Ballot

Is that evidence?

How about this:

But New York City’s watchdog Department of Investigations has just provided the latest evidence of how easy it is to commit voter fraud that is almost undetectable. DOI undercover agents showed up at 63 polling places last fall and pretended to be voters who should have been turned away by election officials; the agents assumed the names of individuals who had died or moved out of town, or who were sitting in jail. In 61 instances, or 97 percent of the time, the testers were allowed to vote. Those who did vote cast only a write-in vote for a “John Test” so as to not affect the outcome of any contest. DOI published its findings two weeks ago in a searing 70-page report accusing the city’s Board of Elections of incompetence, waste, nepotism, and lax procedures.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/3 ... -john-fund

Is that evidence, or is it just part of the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy"?

Why does your side refuse to acknowledge that there are problems with our election system and that we can't possibly change ANYTHING about it because it's not in the Constitution, but is very quick to point out problems in other systems that they want to 'fix' for us, and damn the Constitution, it's a living document? (Health Care, for example).

[flockofseagulls104]

Bob says:


Well, many of us are also convinced that the motives of those who are against any attempt to ensure that the people who are casting the vote are who they say they are is purely partisan. There you go... And once again, our arguments are to be discounted and/or ignored because your side has deemed them racist.

Where is the evidence that in-person voter fraud is an actual problem? Because there's plenty of evidence out there, much of it memorialized in court findings, that voter ID requirements prevent eligible voters from voting.

We're not ignoring your arguments because we think they're racist. We're ignoring your arguments because you don't seem to be able to back them up with evidence. --Bob

No, your side does ignore facts that are opposed to their agenda and narrative all the time.

Just a couple years ago, to show how easy it is to commit fraud, James O'Keefe of Project Veritas could have very easily casted Eric Holder's vote for him.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government ... der-Ballot

Is that evidence?

How about this:

But New York City’s watchdog Department of Investigations has just provided the latest evidence of how easy it is to commit voter fraud that is almost undetectable. DOI undercover agents showed up at 63 polling places last fall and pretended to be voters who should have been turned away by election officials; the agents assumed the names of individuals who had died or moved out of town, or who were sitting in jail. In 61 instances, or 97 percent of the time, the testers were allowed to vote. Those who did vote cast only a write-in vote for a “John Test” so as to not affect the outcome of any contest. DOI published its findings two weeks ago in a searing 70-page report accusing the city’s Board of Elections of incompetence, waste, nepotism, and lax procedures.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/3 ... -john-fund

Is that evidence, or is it just part of the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy"?

Why does your side refuse to acknowledge that there are problems with our election system and that we can't possibly change ANYTHING about it because it's not in the Constitution, but is very quick to point out problems in other systems that they want to 'fix' for us, and damn the Constitution, it's a living document? (Health Care, for example).

Back to my earlier premise: These are documented incidents. They have been reported by some segments of the media. You tell me there is no evidence to cite, yet here they are. Have you not heard about these incidents? If they were reported and highlighted by NBC, ABC The NY Times or NPR, would that make them valid for you to accept as evidence? Or can we only believe things that are reported by these media outlets? And if that is so, why is that?

[earendel]

Back to my earlier premise: These are documented incidents. They have been reported by some segments of the media. You tell me there is no evidence to cite, yet here they are. Have you not heard about these incidents? If they were reported and highlighted by NBC, ABC The NY Times or NPR, would that make them valid for you to accept as evidence? Or can we only believe things that are reported by these media outlets? And if that is so, why is that?

I normally avoid political arguments but I would like to make 2 points.

1. Yes, there are documented incidents of voter fraud. Here in the commonwealth of Kentucky hardly an election cycle goes by without some rural counties' elections being tainted (usually by accusations of vote-buying). The question is whether these incidents are sufficient in number to warrant a wholesale change in voting laws.

2. The simplest solution to the whole problem would be the issuance of a national ID card. That, however, is likely to raise the hackles of fringe elements in both parties and so would likely not be considered.

[Bob Juch]

Back to my earlier premise: These are documented incidents. They have been reported by some segments of the media. You tell me there is no evidence to cite, yet here they are. Have you not heard about these incidents? If they were reported and highlighted by NBC, ABC The NY Times or NPR, would that make them valid for you to accept as evidence? Or can we only believe things that are reported by these media outlets? And if that is so, why is that?

I normally avoid political arguments but I would like to make 2 points.

1. Yes, there are documented incidents of voter fraud. Here in the commonwealth of Kentucky hardly an election cycle goes by without some rural counties' elections being tainted (usually by accusations of vote-buying). The question is whether these incidents are sufficient in number to warrant a wholesale change in voting laws.

2. The simplest solution to the whole problem would be the issuance of a national ID card. That, however, is likely to raise the hackles of fringe elements in both parties and so would likely not be considered.

How would an ID card prevent vote-buying?

[earendel]

Back to my earlier premise: These are documented incidents. They have been reported by some segments of the media. You tell me there is no evidence to cite, yet here they are. Have you not heard about these incidents? If they were reported and highlighted by NBC, ABC The NY Times or NPR, would that make them valid for you to accept as evidence? Or can we only believe things that are reported by these media outlets? And if that is so, why is that?

I normally avoid political arguments but I would like to make 2 points.

1. Yes, there are documented incidents of voter fraud. Here in the commonwealth of Kentucky hardly an election cycle goes by without some rural counties' elections being tainted (usually by accusations of vote-buying). The question is whether these incidents are sufficient in number to warrant a wholesale change in voting laws.

2. The simplest solution to the whole problem would be the issuance of a national ID card. That, however, is likely to raise the hackles of fringe elements in both parties and so would likely not be considered.

How would an ID card prevent vote-buying?

It wouldn't, but it would provide identification for every person, it would be standardized and uniform and acceptable in all 50 states. Of course it would have to be provided at no cost.

[Bob78164]

Where is the evidence that in-person voter fraud is an actual problem? Because there's plenty of evidence out there, much of it memorialized in court findings, that voter ID requirements prevent eligible voters from voting.

We're not ignoring your arguments because we think they're racist. We're ignoring your arguments because you don't seem to be able to back them up with evidence. --Bob

No, your side does ignore facts that are opposed to their agenda and narrative all the time.

Just a couple years ago, to show how easy it is to commit fraud, James O'Keefe of Project Veritas could have very easily casted Eric Holder's vote for him.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government ... der-Ballot

Is that evidence?

How about this:

But New York City’s watchdog Department of Investigations has just provided the latest evidence of how easy it is to commit voter fraud that is almost undetectable. DOI undercover agents showed up at 63 polling places last fall and pretended to be voters who should have been turned away by election officials; the agents assumed the names of individuals who had died or moved out of town, or who were sitting in jail. In 61 instances, or 97 percent of the time, the testers were allowed to vote. Those who did vote cast only a write-in vote for a “John Test” so as to not affect the outcome of any contest. DOI published its findings two weeks ago in a searing 70-page report accusing the city’s Board of Elections of incompetence, waste, nepotism, and lax procedures.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/3 ... -john-fund

Is that evidence, or is it just part of the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy"?

Why does your side refuse to acknowledge that there are problems with our election system and that we can't possibly change ANYTHING about it because it's not in the Constitution, but is very quick to point out problems in other systems that they want to 'fix' for us, and damn the Constitution, it's a living document? (Health Care, for example).

Back to my earlier premise: These are documented incidents. They have been reported by some segments of the media. You tell me there is no evidence to cite, yet here they are. Have you not heard about these incidents? If they were reported and highlighted by NBC, ABC The NY Times or NPR, would that make them valid for you to accept as evidence? Or can we only believe things that are reported by these media outlets? And if that is so, why is that?

The evidence shows that voter ID requirements reduce turnout by 2-3%. Across the country, that works out to roughly 3 million eligible voters. Where is the evidence that the problem of in-person voter fraud is so rampant as to justify reducing turnout by 3 million people? And why aren't Republican legislators working just as assiduously to reduce absentee ballot fraud? --Bob

[silverscreenselect]

Back to my earlier premise: These are documented incidents. They have been reported by some segments of the media.

There are plenty of documented incidents of murder, rape, assault, and robbery. Does that mean that we should suspend the Bill of Rights to let police deal with those crimes more effectively?