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.
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.”
We all agree that they're cases of fraud in every election cycle but the important point is the solution your proposing worse then the problem your trying to fix?
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?
Again it is how you look at the problem and we obviously view it from different perspectives. Let me ask you this question. Would you consider it worth while to stop a 1000 legal voter from voting so that you can stop that one case of voter fraud? What if it was 5 or 10 thousand people who lost the right to vote in the name of stopping that fraudulent vote? That what we are talking about here is how many legal voters are going to be stopped by the "solution".
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.”
.5% is a much bigger number the .000025%. In Ohio for example that would work out to roughly 26,500 legal voters would lose their right to vote to stop 135 illegal votes that took place. Does that sound like a reasonable solution?
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.
Who get's to decide who is qualified?
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?
