# Voter ID Law Opposed... Why Again?



## JBS (Aug 13, 2013)

North Carolina has passed a law that requires voters to do the same thing when they vote that they have to do when buying a Bud Light: Show their ID.

Yet somehow people (including the NAACP) have a problem with this.   So here' s a serious question.   Why would any proud citizen of any Democratically run nation seriously oppose this law?   Real question.   What is the legit argument saying that people should vote without an I.D.?   The only answer I've found after talking with an activist perhaps 6 months ago was not a real answer, but rather a reframing of the question.  She said, "the real issue is why do Republicans want to make a law when there is no evidence of fraud?"      I would say that didn't answer the question, and she'd reply, robotically, "you didn't answer MY question".    I didn't continue on with it.  Just left bewildered.

The article says it will discourage people from voting, including minorities and the elderly.   Why would a law requiring ID discourage the minority groups and the elderly?   Minorities use alcohol at the same or possibly greater rate than whites, which requires identification to do usually, and the elderly by God you can't even get them off the fucking roads, which mean they have drivers' licenses.    So who are all these people with no ID's?




> North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory on Monday signed into law changes in how residents can vote that includes requiring them to show a photo ID at polling stations, a move that triggered threats of legal action from the NAACP and other groups.
> 
> The American Civil Liberties Union joined two other groups in announcing that they were filing suit against key parts of the package. This came hours after McCrory said in a statement that he had signed the measure, without a ceremony.
> 
> ...


----------



## TLDR20 (Aug 13, 2013)

Laws like these keep the less well off and minorities from voting. Or at least that is what those opposing this day. I agree with you @JBS. Why they can't show an ID is absurd to me.


----------



## TLDR20 (Aug 13, 2013)

The other parts of the bill that I have problems with include limiting early voting, closing many on campus polls and other measures that will help keep NC a "red" state. While good politics I don't think those initiatives are best for the state.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Aug 13, 2013)

Personally I think that there's absolutely no need for "early" voting.  Can't make it on poll day?  There's this thing called absentee ballots you can do.  I'm about as broke as they come and I've got....4? forms of photo identification that is governmentally issued? VA id, DOD id, DMV id, Borough responder ID... and that's just off the top of my head. 

Takes a fake or real ID to go get fucked up, but you can get the country fucked up without one... lol


----------



## DA SWO (Aug 13, 2013)

cback0220 said:


> The other parts of the bill that I have problems with include limiting early voting, closing many on campus polls and other measures that will help keep NC a "red" state. While good politics I don't think those initiatives are best for the state.


Early voting has become a fraud mechanism.  I was a proponent of EV, but now think it needs to be scaled back to limit fraud.  The only people who don't have ID's are those who don't want the cops to know who they are, and they generally don't vote.


----------



## TLDR20 (Aug 13, 2013)

Ranger Psych said:


> Personally I think that there's absolutely no need for "early" voting.  Can't make it on poll day?  There's this thing called absentee ballots you can do.  I'm about as broke as they come and I've got....4? forms of photo identification that is governmentally issued? VA id, DOD id, DMV id, Borough responder ID... and that's just off the top of my head.
> 
> Takes a fake or real ID to go get fucked up, but you can get the country fucked up without one... lol



Absolutely no need? 

I think it is imperative that the most people possible vote. That is the truest way for people to express themselves politically, which I believe is an important thing to do as Americans.  I think early voting is a great way to get more people to vote. I did it this past election in fact.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Aug 13, 2013)

It's redundant and requires dedication of polling places and people that otherwise could be doing something else.

Everyone in this nation who can, can vote, and if you can't make time in your evening to fill out and toss an absentee ballot in an envelope and drop it off on your way to work or in your mailbox (since they do still pick up mail from mailboxes most places)....


----------



## TLDR20 (Aug 13, 2013)

Ranger Psych said:


> It's redundant and requires dedication of polling places and people that otherwise could be doing something else.
> 
> Everyone in this nation who can, can vote, and if you can't make time in your evening to fill out and toss an absentee ballot in an envelope and drop it off on your way to work or in your mailbox (since they do still pick up mail from mailboxes most places)....



So because you don't like it, no one should get it?


As to the voter fraud, how widespread is it? Are there that many people ghost voting?

Nevermind link...http://www.truethevote.org/news/how-widespread-is-voter-fraud-2012-facts-figures

I see problems with our system but closing polls on college campuses and early voting are not the solutions. Having an ID at my early vote would be fine with me.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Aug 13, 2013)

I would really like to see a secure online/phone/text voting system. In todays age, having to go somewhere special or mail in your vote seems stupid to me. I understand the fraud and security concerns regarding "online voting" but I think its a shame in todays tech-age with super smart everything, we can't figure out away to blend the modern tech to the voting.

I mean shit, part of your phone contract can be a "voting agreement" requiring the ID/register of the voter. Then a special pass to submit your vote, make your vote and done. Too easy IMHO.


----------



## LimaOscarSierraTango (Aug 13, 2013)

There is no way to secure a voting system like that.  It is too easy to spoof information.  None of the nodes will be 100% secure.  It's a bad idea all around, IMO.  They can't even secure electronic voting machines.  You can not have bug/exploit free code.  People are just too lazy to to run checks on everything, and exploiters/bug hunters/etc. are just too fucking smart.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Aug 13, 2013)

LimaOscarSierraTango said:


> There is no way to secure a voting system like that.  It is too easy to spoof information.  None of the nodes will be 100% secure.  It's a bad idea all around, IMO.  They can't even secure electronic voting machines.  You can not have bug/exploit free code.  People are just too lazy to to run checks on everything, and exploiters/bug hunters/etc. are just too fucking smart.



I would be willing to be it will happen within the next 10 years. But agree it's not possible now, but disagree that its is impossible all together.


----------



## Scotth (Aug 13, 2013)

Two times in my life I would have lost the right to vote if laws like in NC were in placed were I live.  The first time was when I was like 20.  I lost my wallet with my drivers license, military ID etc.  All I had was a paper license application.  My room mate was able to vouch for me to vote.  The second time was in my thirties.  Bought a house and changed my address for my license.  During that application process they clipped my drivers license.  I took that clipped license plus my paper license to the polls and they said because the license was clipped it was no longer a valid form of idea and I couldn't vote.  Had to get another person to come vouch for me so I could vote.

Those are real examples.  From a larger perspective there isn't a single case of statically significant voter fraud anywhere.  After 2012 the Republican SoS for Ohio did a state wide investigation for voter fraud and came up with 135 cases out of over 5.3 million votes cast.  That a fraud rate of .000025%.
http://www.sos.state.oh.us/SOS/mediaCenter/2013/2013-05-23.aspx

If there is ever fraud that will take place it will be fraud at the voting device.  That is the only way to significantly impact a race.  People running around voting 2, 3 or even 10 times isn't going to impact the election.  The voter ids laws  is not just about the id either.  They are also limiting early voting time and purging voter registrations and other things to take away accessibility to voting.  My Mom likes to vote by absentee so she can go home and Google all the people on the ballot.  She has the chance to look up the judges and county officials she has never heard about so she can be better informed in her vote.

There have also been other ways that states are trying to control the vote.  In Ohio there was different early voting times were Republican districts stayed open until 7pm and Democratic districts were shutdown at 5pm.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/15/opinion/overt-discrimination-in-ohio.html?_r=0

Texas, after the recent SCOTUS ruling on the Voting Rights Act, just re-installed their redistricting plan from 2011 that was ruled discriminatory from the federal court back when it was first proposed.  This is why the DoJ is going to Federal Court to try an get Texas back on pre-clearance under a different section of the Voting Rights Act.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-need-to-know/2011/12/13/gIQAdowHsO_blog.html

Back to the voter ID requirements.  The problem with Voter ID laws is it will disenfranchise more Americans then it will prevent from fraudulently voting by very very large margins.  Why would we want a "solution" that was worse then the problem?

We should, as a nation, be looking for solutions that make it easier for people to vote.  Why we have 1 day voting is staggering to me.  I think my Mom is ahead of the curve in her idea to take her ballot home and spend the time on the internet to become better informed on the people especially the candidates down on the ballot.

Republican's have admitted that Voter Id helped lowered the turnout.  It came up in the Texas redistricting case in email discovery and in Pennsylvania the GOP Chairman Rob Gleason


> Said Gleason: "Yeah, I think a little bit. We probably had a better election. Think about this, we cut Obama by five percent, which was big. A lot of people lost sight of that. He won, he beat McCain by 10 percent, he only beat Romney by five percent. I think that probably voter ID helped a bit in that."


http://politicalwire.com/archives/2013/07/19/gop_official_admits_voter_id_law_hurt_obama.html

That is the real intent of voter ID and other rules like purging voter registration database etc.


----------



## Mac_NZ (Aug 13, 2013)

It might interest some of you but here you have to legally register to vote, you don't have to vote if you don't want to but you must enrol. 



> *Introduction*
> 
> The right to vote is an inherent right of New Zealanders. The law establishing this right and stating the eligibility requirements for voting are contained in the ELECTORAL ACT 1993.
> 
> ...



I don't have a problem with registering to vote.  I know the government already knows where I live from my taxes etc and I'm not trying to stay off the grid.

I think it is however, pretty weird that the people who have no problem showing their US Passport when they return from abroad to their communist pleasure land have such a drama about having to show ID to vote to prove they have the right.

Edit:

Not referring to you Scotth, you demonstrated valid reasons but in regards to the voter fraud investigation was it just to check people making 2-3 votes or to check for non eligible voters?


----------



## Scotth (Aug 13, 2013)

Mac_NZ said:


> I think it is however, pretty weird that the people who have no problem showing their US Passport when they return from abroad to their communist pleasure land have such a drama about having to show ID to vote to prove they have the right.
> 
> Edit:
> 
> Not referring to you Scotth, you demonstrated valid reasons but in regards to the voter fraud investigation was it just to check people making 2-3 votes or to check for non eligible voters?



I didn't have a passport until I was nearly 40 and that was only because after 9/11 a passport was required to travel to Canada.  Some people have proposed as part of there voter id laws that the state must provide free forms of government issued id's which is a positive step but doesn't solve all the problems for the elderly, poor and handicapped.  Additionally if you don't provide the alternate methods, especially when you have a 1 day voting window, that is where the problems comes if you don't allow things like provisional balloting  or in my case another resident who swear out an oath to allow the person to vote etc.

In the US the voting records are data-based to such a level the NSA could learn a thing or two.:-/

They have historical voting records and polling data down the the precinct level (the lowest voting level) up to the state as a whole.  When you combine the data-based voting records combine with registration record and every other status the government tracks like immigration, legal, death certificates etc etc. It's not hard to track who voted legally or not.  The political parties, the press and even campaigns have access to all that data and it is the reason why they can call a state wide election minutes after the polls close by looking at just a small sample of turnout in select locations.  If their was unexpected results it would raise alarms.

We had three election cycles in Minnesota from 2006-2010 that had recounts in state wide office holder elections.  One Governor race and two Senate races and all ended up in recounts.  The biggest case of fraud is they found 77 felons who had voted before they had completely finished their sentence.  

The data is available and easily searched to determine if their is voter fraud.  Remember also that the ID is just a small part of the equation of what is going on.  It is an easily sold idea but at the end of the day the ID issue is a fix for a problem that doesn't exist and will end up doing more damage then it fixes.  You don't see the people advocating Voter ID talking about removing voting from college campus or restricting early voting because then the people stop favoring the bill.


----------



## TLDR20 (Aug 13, 2013)

Scotth said:


> You don't see the people advocating Voter ID talking about removing voting from college campus or restricting early voting because then the people stop favoring the bill.



Except in NC.


----------



## Marauder06 (Aug 13, 2013)

Scotth said:


> ...  From a larger perspective there isn't a single case of statically significant voter fraud anywhere.  After 2012 the Republican SoS for Ohio did a state wide investigation for voter fraud and came up with 135 cases out of over 5.3 million votes cast.  That a fraud rate of .000025%.
> http://www.sos.state.oh.us/SOS/mediaCenter/2013/2013-05-23.aspx



I think all that link you posted shows is that Ohio caught the dumbest of the dumb; for example people who registered in Ohio and another state but voted in both.  How thorough was the investigation?  What about people who registered fraudulently, but were smart enough to only vote once?  And who on this site buys that in a bureaucracy that involved 5.3 MILLION people that there were only 135 voting discrepancies?  This IS government we're talking about, right?  I've got to imagine that they make more mistakes than that on a daily basis.

As far as the myth that voter fraud doesn't exist: (numerous sources, but here's *one from the Heritage Foundation*)
(Supreme Court Justice) Stevens wrote in a 6-3 majority opinion upholding an Indiana voter ID law: “That flagrant examples of [voter] fraud…have been documented throughout this Nation’s history by respected historians and journalists…demonstrate t*hat not only is the risk of voter fraud real but that it could affect the outcome of a close election*.”



Scotth said:


> If there is ever fraud that will take place it will be fraud at the voting device.  That is the only way to significantly impact a race.  *People running around voting 2, 3 or even 10 times isn't going to impact the election.*


Did that really come out the way you meant it to?  That multiple people voting fraudulently numerous times won't impact an election?  That doesn't seem to pass the common sense test.  Can you explain that logic to me?



Scotth said:


> ...Back to the voter ID requirements.  The problem with Voter ID laws is it will disenfranchise more Americans then it will prevent from fraudulently voting by very very large margins.  Why would we want a "solution" that was worse then the problem?



Same source as above:  [T]he number of people who don’t already have a photo ID is incredibly small. An American University survey in Maryland, Indiana, and Mississippi found that* less than one-half of 1 percent of registered voters lacked a government-issued ID*, and a 2006 survey of more than 36,000 voters found that only “23 people in the entire sample–less than one-tenth of one percent of reported voters” were unable to vote because of an ID requirement. What about those who don’t have photo IDs? Von Spakovsky notes that “every state that has passed a voter ID law has also ensured that t*he very small percentage of individuals who do not have a photo ID can easily obtain one for free* if they cannot afford one.”



Scotth said:


> We should, as a nation, be looking for solutions that make it easier for people to vote.



We, as a nation, should be looking for ways of ensuring that only qualified citizens vote, and they only vote once each, in elections that they are supposed to be voting in.



Scotth said:


> Republican's have admitted that Voter Id helped lowered the turnout.  It came up in the Texas redistricting case in email discovery and in Pennsylvania the GOP Chairman Rob Gleason
> http://politicalwire.com/archives/2013/07/19/gop_official_admits_voter_id_law_hurt_obama.html
> That is the real intent of voter ID and other rules like purging voter registration database etc.


I watched the video and I have a different take.  The person talking in the video said only that they lowered then-candidate Obama's margin of victory by five percent.  Another way of interpreting what he meant was that Voter ID kept 5% (of whatever number) from voting fraudulently for now-President Obama, it didn't seem to me like he was celebrating keeping people from lawful voting.  Is there more context to the story that is not included in the very brief clip you posted?


----------



## DA SWO (Aug 13, 2013)

Scotth said:


> Texas, after the recent SCOTUS ruling on the Voting Rights Act, just re-installed their redistricting plan from 2011 that was ruled discriminatory from the federal court back when it was first proposed.  This is why the DoJ is going to Federal Court to try an get Texas back on pre-clearance under a different section of the Voting Rights Act.
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-need-to-know/2011/12/13/gIQAdowHsO_blog.html



Partially correct, they installed the boundaries created by a Federal Judge that basically affirmed the handshake deal between Republican and Democrat Pols in DC.

DoJ is run by a racist, and that's why they are trying to screw with TX.


----------



## Totentanz (Aug 13, 2013)

LimaOscarSierraTango said:


> There is no way to secure a voting system like that.  It is too easy to spoof information.  None of the nodes will be 100% secure.  It's a bad idea all around, IMO.  They can't even secure electronic voting machines.  You can not have bug/exploit free code.  People are just too lazy to to run checks on everything, and exploiters/bug hunters/etc. are just too fucking smart.



What was the logic behind the massive push to electronic machines anyway?  I never did see an answer to why the lever-based machines were substandard, and have viewed the electronic push as a solution searching for a problem...


----------



## LimaOscarSierraTango (Aug 13, 2013)

Totentanz said:


> What was the logic behind the massive push to electronic machines anyway?  I never did see an answer to why the lever-based machines were substandard, and have viewed the electronic push as a solution searching for a problem...



I think the biggest issues is that technology companies are out to make money.  So they convince non-technological people that technology will solve all of their problems.  Advances in technology are advances in the human race.  I am pretty sure I just reiterated what you stated, Sir... My bad.  Maybe I can sound as smart as you?  Maybe not...

Really people, it's ok to have some analog technology in a digital world (that was for you Mara :troll:).


----------



## JBS (Aug 13, 2013)

Scotth said:


> Two times in my life I would have lost the right to vote if laws like in NC were in placed were I live.  The first time was when I was like 20.  I lost my wallet with my drivers license, military ID etc.  All I had was a paper license application.  My room mate was able to vouch for me to vote.  The second time was in my thirties.  Bought a house and changed my address for my license.  During that application process they clipped my drivers license.  I took that clipped license plus my paper license to the polls and they said because the license was clipped it was no longer a valid form of idea and I couldn't vote.  Had to get another person to come vouch for me so I could vote.
> 
> Those are real examples.  From a larger perspective there isn't a single case of statically significant voter fraud anywhere.  After 2012 the Republican SoS for Ohio did a state wide investigation for voter fraud and came up with 135 cases out of over 5.3 million votes cast.  That a fraud rate of .000025%.
> http://www.sos.state.oh.us/SOS/mediaCenter/2013/2013-05-23.aspx
> ...


For one thing, @Scotth, you are more of a man than me if when you lose your wallet the only thign you have to worry about is "Oh shit I can't vote".   I'm too busy adding up how many hours I'm going to spend on the phone with India and the Philippines trying to get all my bank & credit cards cancelled.    And then I'm going to start scheduling an appointment 10 days later with the NC DMV to get a replacement license because, you know, it takes 2 people 8 hours to print 100 laminated cards per day and hand out place-holder numbers, and that requires weeks prior appointments.  GO BIG GOVERNMENT.

But seriously what do you do if you get to the plane with no license?  You miss the plane, right?  Do you write to your Congressmen and have them campaign to allow every Yahoo on a plane with no I.D.?  I doubt it!  And which is worse? Fifty Yahoos getting on a plane who don't belong there, or A single YAHOO getting into the White House who doesn't belong there?


----------



## Scotth (Aug 13, 2013)

Marauder06 said:


> I think all that link you posted shows is that Ohio caught the dumbest of the dumb; for example people who registered in Ohio and another state but voted in both.  How thorough was the investigation?  What about people who registered fraudulently, but were smart enough to only vote once?  And who on this site buys that in a bureaucracy that involved 5.3 MILLION people that there were only 135 voting discrepancies?  This IS government we're talking about, right?  I've got to imagine that they make more mistakes than that on a daily basis.
> 
> Republican's are the ones driving the Voter ID issue.  Ohio's Republican's SoS is the one who stands to gain the most by proving voter fraud.  That's my whole point is prove it and the Republican's haven't proved it.
> 
> ...



Do you have proof that that 5% of votes were fraudulent or could they have been the percentage of the population that didn't have ID?

There is incredible money and resources involved in elections.  Both parties know what they're doing and why there doing it and they know before they do it if it is going to help or hurt them.  Democrats didn't push through motor voter registration with out knowing it was going to help them turn people out for election.  Republican's aren't doing what they are doing because they think they're going to be hurt worse then the Democrats.

This issue isn't about election integrity it's about winning election as much as any other political activity like redistricting.  Changing election rules has a purpose and you can take the money to the bank that the party proposing the changes stands to benefit from it.  Just like the party that gets out fund raised in an election cycle belly aches about the need for campaign finance form.  Then the next election cycle when they out raise the other guy they suddenly don't want to talk about the issue anymore.

Somebody prove the problem is statically significant and the solution isn't far worse then the actual problem I would change my tune.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Aug 13, 2013)

You just negated yourself dude.

Motor voter registration means THEY ALL HAVE FUCKING ID

Yeah, there's something politically to be gained. It's called keeping people off the field that aren't supposed to be a part of the game.


----------



## JBS (Aug 13, 2013)

Yeah, I don't want my President ultimately decided and chosen by someone from another country.     We do a good enough job of screwing that up without foreign influence meddling in there.

There was a time when common sense prevailed and we didn't have to actually vocalize that.  Today, people look at you in that half-cross-eyed "too many pop tarts and iPod music" look, and have no idea what you are saying or why you'd say it.


----------



## Scotth (Aug 13, 2013)

JBS said:


> For one thing, @Scotth, you are more of a man than me if when you lose your wallet the only thign you have to worry about is "Oh shit I can't vote".   I'm too busy adding up how many hours I'm going to spend on the phone with India and the Philippines trying to get all my bank & credit cards cancelled.    And then I'm going to start scheduling an appointment 10 days later with the NC DMV to get a replacement license because, you know, it takes 2 people 8 hours to print 100 laminated cards per day and hand out place-holder numbers, and that requires weeks prior appointments.  GO BIG GOVERNMENT.
> 
> But seriously what do you do if you get to the plane with no license?  You miss the plane, right?  Do you write to your Congressmen and have them campaign to allow every Yahoo on a plane with no I.D.?  I doubt it!  And which is worse? Fifty Yahoos getting on a plane who don't belong there, or A single YAHOO getting into the White House who doesn't belong there?



Thanks for the concern but I was 20 at the time and didn't have a bunch of credit cards.  Hell even today I only regularly carry a money clip with a little cash with my drivers license and bank card and leave everything else at home.  It was '84 and it took the states 6-8 weeks to get a new driver license sent to you back then.  I voted for Reagan that year which will probably shock a most of people.

I'm a big advocate for expanding voting early voting to avoid that one day O'shit moment.  I like the idea my Mom uses of taking the ballot home to research the contestant in lower offices you never heard of as a means of having a better educated electorate.


----------



## JBS (Aug 13, 2013)

JAB said:


> I would really like to see a secure online/phone/text voting system. In todays age, having to go somewhere special or mail in your vote seems stupid to me. I understand the fraud and security concerns regarding "online voting" but I think its a shame in todays tech-age with super smart everything, we can't figure out away to blend the modern tech to the voting.
> 
> I mean shit, part of your phone contract can be a "voting agreement" requiring the ID/register of the voter. Then a special pass to submit your vote, make your vote and done. Too easy IMHO.


Brother I think it would be nice in theory.  But let's see if we can go for a year without a credit card number being stolen, and then another year without finding that some Schlepp with the DAV hasn't left his unencrypted/unseucred laptop at Starbucks with everyone's personal records, and then once the precedent is there that we can secure stuff, I'd be good with it.


----------



## Scotth (Aug 13, 2013)

Ranger Psych said:


> You just negated yourself dude.
> 
> Motor voter registration means THEY ALL HAVE FUCKING ID
> 
> Yeah, there's something politically to be gained. It's called keeping people off the field that aren't supposed to be a part of the game.



No I didn't negate myself.  Motor Voter Registration doesn't mean everyone has ID.  Go to a senior center and test that hypothesis.  MVR merely got more people registered which made it easier for democrats to turn out young voters and other people who wouldn't otherwise have made a separate trip to register to vote.  So yah the lazy fucks were easier to now get in the voter booth and they voted for democrats more often.


----------



## JBS (Aug 13, 2013)

Scotth said:


> Thanks for the concern but I was 20 at the time and didn't have a bunch of credit cards.  Hell even today I only regularly carry a money clip with a little cash with my drivers license and bank card and leave everything else at home.  It was '84 and it took the states 6-8 weeks to get a new driver license sent to you back then.  I voted for Reagan that year which will probably shock a most of people.
> 
> I'm a big advocate for expanding voting early voting to avoid that one day O'shit moment.  I like the idea my Mom uses of taking the ballot home to research the contestant in lower offices you never heard of as a means of having a better educated electorate.


My point, Scott- and you know I respect and like your posts- is that your one "Oh Shit" moment does not constitute a valid reason to continue to elect Presidents in an unsecure manner on my part.  I mean no offense earlier.  It was more a commentary on my slow complaining descent into crotchetyville as I notice inefficiencies in those appointed over me... by voters usually.


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 13, 2013)

I'm still not sure why they don't make voting day a Federal/non-work holiday to encourage more voter

I am in favor of showing ID in order to vote.  I know the opposition states that many people don't have picture ID but I believe those in favor of voter ID should work with state and local officials to make it easy to get IDs.  Bus people in, go to people's homes, do an online or mail-in application.  This shouldn't be this hard.


----------



## Scotth (Aug 13, 2013)

JBS said:


> My point, Scott- and you know I respect and like your posts- is that your one "Oh Shit" moment does not constitute a valid reason to continue to elect Presidents in an unsecure manner on my part.  I mean no offense earlier.  It was more a commentary on my slow complaining descent into crotchetyville as I notice inefficiencies in those appointed over me... by voters usually.



I have no doubt we both share an equal respect for the others opinions.  Any day we can have a good debate is a good day in my book.  You will never change that opinion even if the debate gets heated.  It's only debate.


----------



## 0699 (Aug 13, 2013)

I don't know about other states, but Virginia gave me a *FREE* voter registration card when I registered to vote.  And they send me updated voter registration cards every so often, also *FREE*.

And I still don't buy into this whole argument.  The people on one side say voter ID requirements keep elections honest, but don't provide what I consider proof of major voter fraud without it.  The people who say voter ID requirements disenfranchise poor voters never provide proof of major voter disenfranchisement.  IMO, an occasional case on either side doesn't equate proof that it's widespread.


----------



## LimaOscarSierraTango (Aug 13, 2013)

My argument for requiring IDs to vote is simple.  Look at the 15th Amendment:



> The right of *citizens of the United States* to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.



Emphasis is mine. 

Prove you are a citizen and you can vote.  That's really all I care about.  If you lose a valid photo ID, a SSN card, car insurance + registration, or utility bill with your name on it *AND* someone with a valid photo ID vouching for you and signing a canned sworn statement should suffice.  People will always try and game the system (birth certs/IDs of dead people, etc) and that can be discovered and remedied.  The biggest issue for me are non-citizens trying to vote.

Edited for speelign


----------



## Confederate Son (Aug 13, 2013)

This all hits a very personal note with me..

Florida has this one on the books as well. My grievance is if I'm required to show I.D. to vote then the State shouldnt charge me for an I.D.


----------



## Chopstick (Aug 14, 2013)

I think it is cute that the Obama Administration is so against voter ID here, but feels it is so necessary in Kenya that we kicked over 53 Million Dollars to make it happen there.
http://m.whitehouse.gov/the-press-o...gthening-democratic-institutions-rule-law-and



> In Kenya, the $53 million Yes Youth Can program empowers nearly one million Kenyan youth to use their voices for advocacy in national and local policy-making, while also creating economic opportunities.  In advance of Kenya’s March 2013 general elections, Yes Youth Can’s “My ID My Life” campaign helped 500,000 youth obtain National identification cards, a prerequisite to voter registration, and carried out a successful nationwide campaign with Kenyan civic organizations to elicit peace pledges from all presidential aspirants.


----------



## RustyShackleford (Aug 14, 2013)

Confederate Son said:


> My grievance is if I'm required to show I.D. to vote then the State shouldnt charge me for an I.D.


 
Under your logic, they shouldn't charge for a DL to drive your car either.


----------



## DA SWO (Aug 14, 2013)

Confederate Son said:


> This all hits a very personal note with me..
> 
> Florida has this one on the books as well. My grievance is if I'm required to show I.D. to vote then the State shouldnt charge me for an I.D.


I semi-agree; just impliment a National I.D. program, and require people to have an I.D.

I find it funny that the most sacred civic duty is the one people accept fraudulent activities in.

The people telling me their isn't enough vote fraud to make a difference are the same ones who went to (Iraq, El Salvador, etc) and proudly proclaim that one fraudulent vote is one too many.


----------



## Gypsy (Aug 14, 2013)

Local elections are generally every 2 years, presidential elections every 4 years.  Plenty of time to get a freaking ID.  You need one for everything else, and anyone who thinks this "disenfranchises" anyone except an illegal who has no right to vote anyway is just wrong.


----------



## 0699 (Aug 14, 2013)

RustyShackleford said:


> Under your logic, they shouldn't charge for a DL to drive your car either.


 
Voting is both a right and a responsibility, while driving is neither of those.


----------



## TLDR20 (Aug 14, 2013)

Gypsy said:


> Local elections are generally every 2 years, presidential elections every 4 years.  Plenty of time to get a freaking ID.  You need one for everything else, and anyone who thinks this "disenfranchises" anyone except an illegal who has no right to vote anyway is just wrong.



Easy to say when you aren't disenfranchised.


----------



## Confederate Son (Aug 14, 2013)

RustyShackleford said:


> Under your logic, they shouldn't charge for a DL to drive your car either.


 So what you're saying is had their been automobiles back in the day the right to drive would have been included?


----------



## Confederate Son (Aug 14, 2013)

Gypsy said:


> Local elections are generally every 2 years, presidential elections every 4 years.  Plenty of time to get a freaking ID.  You need one for everything else, and anyone who thinks this "disenfranchises" anyone except an illegal who has no right to vote anyway is just wrong.


You'd be surprised how easy it is to get "disenfranchised" these days.. It's not just for illegals and slackers in America 2013...


----------



## JBS (Aug 14, 2013)

Meh.

Show me who isn't "disenfranchised".    There's about 2% of this nation that has private chefs and timeshares on luxury jets.  The rest of us mofos are disenfranchised.

It's called "life".

Seriously, if we didn't have some kind of problems to bitch about how many of us would even have a legit reason to get up in the morning, LOL?   We get up because we have shit to solve!  Tell me I'm wrong!


----------



## Gypsy (Aug 15, 2013)

cback0220 said:


> Easy to say when you aren't disenfranchised.


 
In a 2-4 year time span a person can't ride a bus or get a lift to a DMV for a picture ID?    Bullshit.


----------



## JHD (Aug 15, 2013)

From what I read, the law still allows them to vote a provisional ballot.  Now, I don't know when or if that vote is counted or how the address is verified, but the person is allowed to vote.  

I also didn't see anywhere that alternative IDs might be allowed for those that didn't have a photo ID.  

In banking, attempting to verify an ID and address of a person might include multiple forms of "stuff" including utility bills, birth certificate, credit card, and signature verification.  We could also check info against public databases and quiz the person with questions that only they would know the answer to.  

There are ways to verify ID and it seems that lawmakers would have/should have taken this into account somehow.


----------



## Scotth (Aug 15, 2013)

JBS said:


> Tell me I'm wrong!



Your wrong!

Anything else I can do for you today?


----------



## surgicalcric (Aug 16, 2013)

Scotth said:


> There is incredible money and resources involved in elections.



No shit.  Why else do you think we spent, pushed by the left, more than one trillion on social welfare programs in 2011.


----------



## surgicalcric (Aug 16, 2013)

Confederate Son said:


> You'd be surprised how easy it is to get "disenfranchised" these days.. It's not just for illegals and slackers in America 2013...



And why should I [we] give two shits about people who are here illegally or those who barely have the will to live being marginalized.  They are marginalized by their own in/actions.


----------



## surgicalcric (Aug 16, 2013)

cback0220 said:


> Easy to say when you aren't disenfranchised.



She is an anglosaxon christian conservative American citizen living a crime stricken (only legally owned) gun free zone managed by a disciple of Obama; of course she is marginalized.


----------



## Confederate Son (Aug 16, 2013)

surgicalcric said:


> And why should I [we] give two shits about people who are here illegally or those who barely have the will to live being marginalized.  They are marginalized by their own in/actions.


I could'nt care less about illegals but not everyone down and out is a crackhead, a moron or a freeloader. Sometimes bad shit happens to good people. It's easy to not see it until you're knee deep in it and paddeling upstream. I'm gonna leave it and this thread at that.


----------



## DasBoot (Aug 16, 2013)

surgicalcric said:


> No shit.  Why else do you think we spent, pushed by the left, more than one trillion on social welfare programs in 2011.


How did you get the one trillion? Welfar spending in 2011 was at $649 billion, between state and federal governments. 

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year_spending_2011USbn_14bs2#usgs302


----------



## JBS (Aug 16, 2013)

DasBoot said:


> How did you get the one trillion? Welfar spending in 2011 was at $649 billion, between state and federal governments.
> 
> http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year_spending_2011USbn_14bs2#usgs302


Incorrect: Federal welfare spending in 2011 was 750 billion.  With the states it was 1.03 trillion... or as we common folk say, "way too fucking much".

Are you seriously about to make the case that current levels of welfare spending should be higher or even stay the same???
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...pending-jumps-32-percent-four-years/?page=all


----------



## DasBoot (Aug 16, 2013)

JBS said:


> Incorrect: Federal welfare spending in 2011 was 750 billion.  With the states it was 1.03 trillion... or as we common folk say, "way too fucking much".
> 
> Are you seriously about to make the case that current levels of welfare spending should be higher or even stay the same???
> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...pending-jumps-32-percent-four-years/?page=all



No. I am not. This is a thread about voter ID, not the budget. I won't derail this, I did want to see where Surgicalcric found his info.


----------



## Chopstick (Aug 16, 2013)

I was in my bank yesterday and posted several places through out the bank is this notice: "In order to protect our customers from fraud, valid photo ID is required on all cash back transactions".  That notice has been posted for several years now.   I have banked at that bank for over 25 years.  Yes, the teller asked me for my photo ID even though she knows me.  I really fail to see the issue of requesting a valid form of identification in order to vote.  If my bank is vigilant in protecting me from fraud, why isnt my government?


----------



## surgicalcric (Aug 16, 2013)

DasBoot said:


> How did you get the one trillion? Welfar spending in 2011 was at $649 billion, between state and federal governments.



http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/18/r...dget-item-in-fy-2011-at-approx-1-03-trillion/

http://www.heritage.org/issues/welfare/welfare-spending



			
				DasBoot said:
			
		

> This is a thread about voter ID, not the budget...



You are right it isnt about the budget.  I was simply noting that social welfare programs are a money and resource used to sway/secure votes in response to the below noted comment by @Scotth.  Anyone who believes the budgetary increases in those programs are menat for anything other than to enslave peoples to the democratic party are nearsighted IMNSHO.



			
				scotth said:
			
		

> There is incredible *money and resources* involved in elections.


----------



## surgicalcric (Aug 16, 2013)

Confederate Son said:


> ...not everyone down and out is a crackhead, a moron or a freeloader.



I agree, but I also believe those individuals on the government tit shouldnt be allowed to vote for those who continue to push a social welfare agenda and line the pockets of freeloaders.


----------



## pardus (Aug 16, 2013)

surgicalcric said:


> I agree, but I also believe those individuals on the government tit shouldnt be allowed to vote for those who continue to push a social welfare agenda and line the pockets of freeloaders.



I agree. If I had my way there would be much stricter rules pertaining to who can and cannot vote. Having a job/contributing meaningfully to society would be one of those rules.


----------



## Rapid (Aug 16, 2013)

pardus said:


> I agree. If I had my way there would be much stricter rules pertaining to who can and cannot vote. Having a job/contributing meaningfully to society would be one of those rules.



You'd have to put down a lot of people before something like that would go through. Where do I sign up?


----------



## 0699 (Aug 16, 2013)

pardus said:


> I agree. If I had my way there would be much stricter rules pertaining to who can and cannot vote. Having a job/*contributing meaningfully to society* would be one of those rules.


 
_Starship Troopers_...


----------



## elle (Aug 16, 2013)

This concept that proving your identity to execute a privilege given to you by law is completely baffling to me.  Up here it's law to provide identification and the laws provide a number of options and in how that is done.

Elections Canada has made this very easy for anyone of voting age to provide ID from a DL, Provincial ID card, Health Care Card, Utility Bill to having a registered voter vouch for you.  It's not without flaws however we don't have the ranting of special interest groups that a person's privacy is being invaded. 

Enjoy the privilege to vote, many people may never have the pleasure.

http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=vot&dir=ids&document=index&lang=e


----------



## Confederate Son (Aug 16, 2013)

surgicalcric said:


> individuals on the government tit shouldnt be allowed to vote for those who continue to push a social welfare agenda.


That's a pipe dream I've been pimping for a long time.. 

My point was it's easy these days for the good to get mixed in with the bad and the ugly thanks to the almighty $. 
I'd be on board with a Starship Troopers "Citizenship has it's privledges" scenerio. It would beat the Hell outta the bullshit  "what's Obama  gonna do for me next" we have now.


----------



## AWP (Aug 16, 2013)

I'm against adding new laws until we can uphold those already in place. If we don't enforce existing laws then what good are new laws?


----------



## JBS (Aug 16, 2013)

Freefalling said:


> I'm against adding new laws until we can uphold those already in place. If we don't enforce existing laws then what good are new laws?


I'm with you in principle, but the goal of effectively enforcing laws is a neverending type thing like "the war on terror"- a perpetual war- or "the war on drugs"- again, a neverending war.  

In principle, it would be great if we could stem the torrent of excessive overregulation.   But the ID thing- the more I think about it- we get carded to see the most inane events.  Selecting the President of the United States, any schmuck can just walk in and do it.    That needs to be changed asap.


----------



## AWP (Aug 16, 2013)

JBS said:


> I'm with you in principle, but the goal of effectively enforcing laws is a neverending type thing like "the war on terror"- a perpetual war- or "the war on drugs"- again, a neverending war.
> 
> In principle, it would be great if we could stem the torrent of excessive overregulation.   But the ID thing- the more I think about it- we get carded to see the most inane events.  Selecting the President of the United States, any schmuck can just walk in and do it.    That needs to be changed asap.


 
I firmly support a photo ID for voting, but would the ID topic be such an issue if we had a handle on existing immigration laws and enforcement?


----------



## Rapid (Aug 16, 2013)

With the way Western countries are going (and they're only going to keep going that way unless something major changes), the question is, can any of our countries get a 'handle' on immigration (and most importantly, efficient enforcement of repatriating illegals)? And all that without people branding the government 'racists', 'xenophobes', etc?

I don't see it happening with the mainstream parties. In the UK and France, UKIP/F.N. (what some people call 'extreme' parties, but really aren't, relatively), who are gaining 'surprising' ground, might have a chance of being elected if more people start getting fed up... but I thought the idea of a '3rd party' winning the elections in the U.S. was implausible? Would it ever be realistically possible for people other than Republicans/Democrats getting into power? And considering how much mainstream politicians have to lose (since politics is a gravy-train career nowadays, rather than a service to the people), wouldn't they do everything in their power to prevent something like that from happening?

Basically, mainstream politics = same shit, different person, until something big happens or people get fed up and finally vote in a 'fringe' party. Could that happen in America? I admit I'm not the best informed of how 3rd parties work in American politics, so please let me know if I'm totally wrong about this.


----------



## Totentanz (Aug 16, 2013)

Third parties typically do not win, but only serve to influence the major parties.  Even Nader openly stated that the purpose of his running in 2000 was not to win, but to force Gore's hand on certain points.

It would be nice to see the majors have to listen to their constituents in order to maintain seats.  That, however would require a populace with an above-room-temp IQ, which seems to be the point of failure; our politicians can do anything, up to and including criminal activity, and stay in office on name recognition alone.


----------



## JBS (Aug 16, 2013)

Freefalling said:


> I firmly support a photo ID for voting, but would the ID topic be such an issue if we had a handle on existing immigration laws and enforcement?


I get it now.   Great point.


----------



## Chopstick (Aug 16, 2013)

Why have laws when Obama keeps throwing out Executive Orders like its the first of the month?


----------



## Marauder06 (Aug 17, 2013)

Scotth said:


> Do you have proof that that 5% of votes were fraudulent or could they have been the percentage of the population that didn't have ID?
> 
> There is incredible money and resources involved in elections.  Both parties know what they're doing and why there doing it and they know before they do it if it is going to help or hurt them.  Democrats didn't push through motor voter registration with out knowing it was going to help them turn people out for election.  Republican's aren't doing what they are doing because they think they're going to be hurt worse then the Democrats.
> 
> ...



It's curious that you're asking me for evidence to support an alternate interpretation of the clip you posted, when you provided no evidence of your own.  Had you done that to begin with, it would have been unnecessary to point out the flaw in your logic, because there would have been no reasonable alternative interpretation.  If you want to call me on lack of evidence fine, but I think there's something about a "pot" and a "kettle" in there somewhere.

To me voter ID *is* about election integrity.  In many ways I don't care who wins, I don't vote in elections anyway.  As an officer, I do care that the decisions that affect our country and my life are made by those whose election reflects the true will of the people.

*The Supreme Court has already ruled* that voter ID laws do not impress an undue burden on the poor and the requirement to show ID is "minimal and justified."

Illegal votes and voters *DO sway elections*.  There  is evidence of *massive voter fraud in presidential elections in the 1960s*.

Want a more recent example?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/billfre...fraud-revelations-call-for-ways-to-reduce-it/


----------



## Chopstick (Aug 17, 2013)

Oooooooooooooooooh noooooooooooooo she didnt!


----------



## Salt USMC (Aug 27, 2013)

Here's a good piece by NPR on the topic http://www.npr.org/2013/08/16/212664895/in-rural-n-c-new-voter-id-law-awakens-some-old-fears

I'm still not sure where I stand on the issue.  Limiting early voting makes absolutely no sense, though.


----------

