Alabama illustrates the problem with voter ID laws

[Jhhnn]

To the contrary, voting illegally carries a real benefit in potential free loot and virtually no chance of getting caught. Even those who are caught voting illegally very seldom get any serious penalties.

That's completely insane. A person committing the very rare act of in person voter fraud cannot realistically hope to affect the election outcome or obtain alleged free shit down the road.

Maybe in Glenbeckistan.

 

[HomerJS]

Because we have documented proof that photo ID is needed for other things.

You realize that no photo ID is needed to get a photo ID??? Mind blowing isn't it??? How do those people prove who they are??? We need to make a new law that prevents this!!

Genius. Mind if I steal?

 

[Paratus]

That's completely insane. A person committing the very rare act of in person voter fraud cannot realistically hope to affect the election outcome or obtain alleged free shit down the road.

Maybe in Glenbeckistan.

There's really only 3 options here:

• They're uninformed
• They're delusional
• They support subversion of the Amercian democratic process.

:hmm:

 

[MomentsofSanity]

That's completely insane. A person committing the very rare act of in person voter fraud cannot realistically hope to affect the election outcome or obtain alleged free shit down the road.

Maybe in Glenbeckistan.

Ahhh but you are forgetting that they HAVE to speak of voter fraud as if it's happening in the thousands of votes per district in order for the rest of the argument to have any merit.

You're looking at it from a position of reality.

Stupid librul.

 

[fskimospy]

There's really only 3 options here:

• They're uninformed
• They're delusional
• They support subversion of the Amercian democratic process.

:hmm:

Maybe we just have a lot of very committed lottery players here, hahaha.

I would imagine the odds of someone successfully installing their preferred candidate through in person voter fraud is an event that's somewhere in the ballpark as improbable as winning the Powerball. (and before someone says "people win Powerball all the time!", remember that millions of people play that every day as opposed to elections that come once every four years and have an few if any actual in-person fraudsters) Maybe werepossum's just one of those guys that buys ten lottery tickets and thinks to himself "I've got ten chances, I can't lose!"

Or yeah, they conveniently ignore logic and evidence when it means they can support policies that suppress the votes of people they don't like. Gee, I wonder.

 

[soundforbjt]

Genius. Mind if I steal?

Go right ahead ! :biggrin:

 

[trenchfoot]

Interesting you should say that considering that got control Al Franken elected. Two precincts admitting making "more legible" copies of some ballots and then "accidentally" mixing both old and new in with those not duplicated. The new revised counts gave Franken the lead, and a judge upheld their decision to go with the revised count - which they absolutely knew was wrong.

Point taken. Didn't know about that so thanks for the info.:thumbsup:

 

[fskimospy]

Interesting you should say that considering that got control Al Franken elected. Two precincts admitting making "more legible" copies of some ballots and then "accidentally" mixing both old and new in with those not duplicated. The new revised counts gave Franken the lead, and a judge upheld their decision to go with the revised count - which they absolutely knew was wrong.

Even if that's an accurate description of events, which considering who it's coming from I seriously doubt, that would be an example of fraud by election officials.

Fraud by election officials is extremely effective at changing the results of elections because they have access to large numbers of votes. Ironically, this sort of example shows just how pointless in person voter fraud would be even if it existed on any meaningful scale.

 

[glenn1]

Even if that's an accurate description of events, which considering who it's coming from I seriously doubt, that would be an example of fraud by election officials.

Fraud by election officials is extremely effective at changing the results of elections because they have access to large numbers of votes. Ironically, this sort of example shows just how pointless in person voter fraud would be even if it existed on any meaningful scale.

Surely then you'd be OK with anonymous campaign contributions (in cash of course). We'll just take their word for it since getting an ID is so much trouble, which obviously makes getting a checking account much harder also. We wouldn't want to discriminate against all those poor people who lack access to a car and without means to get ID after all, we'll just take the contributor's word for it.

 

[MrPickins]

Surely then you'd be OK with anonymous campaign contributions (in cash of course). We'll just take their word for it since getting an ID is so much trouble, which obviously makes getting a checking account much harder also. We wouldn't want to discriminate against all those poor people who lack access to a car and without means to get ID after all, we'll just take the contributor's word for it.

Is an ID currently required for campaign contributions?

 

[Screech]

To the contrary, voting illegally carries a real benefit in potential free loot and virtually no chance of getting caught. Even those who are caught voting illegally very seldom get any serious penalties.

Yeah, because a lone nutcase voting twice is totally going to change the outcome of an election from "no free loot" to "lots of free loot" lol. To be honest I really can't tell if you are just saying this to troll or are actually stupid enough to believe this, haha.

 

[Jhhnn]

Surely then you'd be OK with anonymous campaign contributions (in cash of course). We'll just take their word for it since getting an ID is so much trouble, which obviously makes getting a checking account much harder also. We wouldn't want to discriminate against all those poor people who lack access to a car and without means to get ID after all, we'll just take the contributor's word for it.

And... Duh-vert into non sequiters of pure bullshit.

 

[CitizenKain]

I don't know what "significant" means (presumably one more voter than any such proof provides), but it's a preventative measure. Maybe you should suggest that banks stop requiring photo IDs for the withdrawal of money until a "significant" amount of money has been stolen.



No, the government isn't required to wipe your ass for you, you'll just have to (somehow, after planning for months and getting your affairs in order) suffer through the shitty DMV process with the rest of us.

Its so adorable when another little moron thinks they have something to share.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Yeah, because a lone nutcase voting twice is totally going to change the outcome of an election from "no free loot" to "lots of free loot" lol. To be honest I really can't tell if you are just saying this to troll or are actually stupid enough to believe this, haha.

It is a distinctly crazy thing to believe, especially in regards to Alabama. In the 2012 election, the popular vote for President in Alabama favored Mitt Romney by over 460,000 votes. How much in-person voter fraud can you possibly believe is happening that is going to sway those results? And it's not like that is an isolated case; the Republican governor of Alabama juuuuuust squeaked by with a 320,000 vote margin of victory. You have to be completely delusional to assume that in-person voter fraud is going to have a shred of impact on elections in Alabama. And the strangest thing is werepossum has already said repeatedly in this thread that Alabama is in the wrong here for refusing to sufficiently fund their voter ID law, so he clearly sees the disconnect in what the state is doing. I just don't understand how anyone could possibly think that in-person voter fraud happens in sufficient numbers to impact anything. It's the same level of paranoid delusion that convinces people that there are millions of people using abortions as birth control or quitting their jobs to collect welfare. It's the right-wing bogeyman, and it's based on bullshit.

 

[trenchfoot]

It is a distinctly crazy thing to believe, especially in regards to Alabama. In the 2012 election, the popular vote for President in Alabama favored Mitt Romney by over 460,000 votes. How much in-person voter fraud can you possibly believe is happening that is going to sway those results? And it's not like that is an isolated case; the Republican governor of Alabama juuuuuust squeaked by with a 320,000 vote margin of victory. You have to be completely delusional to assume that in-person voter fraud is going to have a shred of impact on elections in Alabama. And the strangest thing is werepossum has already said repeatedly in this thread that Alabama is in the wrong here for refusing to sufficiently fund their voter ID law, so he clearly sees the disconnect in what the state is doing. I just don't understand how anyone could possibly think that in-person voter fraud happens in sufficient numbers to impact anything. It's the same level of paranoid delusion that convinces people that there are millions of people using abortions as birth control or quitting their jobs to collect welfare. It's the right-wing bogeyman, and it's based on bullshit.

Let's look at that from the Repub's point of view (as I see it from the outside looking in):

They have a shrinking demographic vs the opposition's that's growing. They have an ideology that sustains the trend of the rich getting richer at the expense of everyone else. They have the disasterous legacy that Bush/Cheney left for them to live/deal with. They have a minority of nutjob zealots dictating terms while these same wacko's are very busy re-building the Conservative ideological infrastructure in their own image. They have a freakish step-child that came in from the wild full of the outlandish and disingenuous propaganda their own Rovian spin machine felt it needed to indoctrinate these folks with to keep the party from imploding which in turn only fed and nutured the disease they wanted to cure themselves of.

To top it all off they now have a presidential nominating process going on where the cast of characters looks like a who's-who list of business-busting anti-immigration anti-women's rights and you-name-it-it-ain't popular knuckleheads the likes of which the nation has never had the astonishment of watching before.

The depths to which these sorry-ass posers have to go to toward pandering to an out of control base is a side-show Barnum and Bailey would have made a killing off of just by itself.

Given that scenario, I despise what the Repubs are doing to "win at any cost" but it seems to me they have no other alternative that will provide the unrealistic results they are looking for.

 

[OutHouse]

Dude, we're talking about people who don't have driver's licenses; that generally means they also don't have cars.

then how do they get to work, the store, mcdonalds.

We're talking about those people (a significant percentage of the working poor) having to travel to a whole 'nother county to a DMZ now serving multiple counties.

boo fucking hoo. I live in the largest county in Colorado and the closest DMV office in my county is 45 miles away. the second closest is 47 miles away in another county.

That is not a trivial exercise, and given the new work load will likely take the day. I would be pissed if I had to do it.

try getting your license in California. its easy half day event. gee i wonder what the poor there do?

 

[glenn1]

Given that scenario, I despise what the Repubs are doing to "win at any cost" but it seems to me they have no other alternative that will provide the unrealistic results they are looking for.

I'm unsure why you think this is simply a "win at any costs" strategy. You could have results conclusively proving that Voter ID prevents exclusively Republican votes and I would still support it. Since voting is an indivisible right that can only be exercised by a single person then validating your identity is not only a legitimate state interest for reasons of ensuring election integrity, but of also ensuring that your right isn't usurped by another person. If you were getting a government check issued, would you be OK if it was given to anyone who could fulfill such laughably inadequate identification standards we use for voting? "Oh I'm sorry your $25k was given to another person, he said he was you and had a piece of mail with your name on it."

 

[Atomic Playboy]

boo fucking hoo. I live in the largest county in Colorado and the closest DMV office in my county is 45 miles away. the second closest is 47 miles away in another county.

try getting your license in California. its easy half day event. gee i wonder what the poor there do?

California and Colorado both have significantly looser requirements on what constitutes valid ID to cast a vote in elections. Again, the problem is not specifically voter ID requirements, the problem is voter ID requirements in conjunction with budget cuts that fail to adequately provide resources for people to obtain the IDs required to vote. If you're going to require it, fund it. If you can't fund it, don't require it. Alabama wants to have things both highly regulated and cheap, and that combination doesn't work.

 

[fskimospy]

try getting your license in California. its easy half day event. gee i wonder what the poor there do?

That's odd, I went to the DMV on numerous occasions in California and it was nowhere even remotely close to a half day event. What were you doing wrong?

 

[Aikouka]

FYI, if you're just renewing your license in Alabama, you don't even need to go to the DMV: http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2015/07/online_driver_license_renewal.html

 

[werepossum]

It is a distinctly crazy thing to believe, especially in regards to Alabama. In the 2012 election, the popular vote for President in Alabama favored Mitt Romney by over 460,000 votes. How much in-person voter fraud can you possibly believe is happening that is going to sway those results? And it's not like that is an isolated case; the Republican governor of Alabama juuuuuust squeaked by with a 320,000 vote margin of victory. You have to be completely delusional to assume that in-person voter fraud is going to have a shred of impact on elections in Alabama. And the strangest thing is werepossum has already said repeatedly in this thread that Alabama is in the wrong here for refusing to sufficiently fund their voter ID law, so he clearly sees the disconnect in what the state is doing. I just don't understand how anyone could possibly think that in-person voter fraud happens in sufficient numbers to impact anything. It's the same level of paranoid delusion that convinces people that there are millions of people using abortions as birth control or quitting their jobs to collect welfare. It's the right-wing bogeyman, and it's based on bullshit.

Either openly allow everyone who wanders by to vote, as many times as they wish, or have standards and laws and enforce them. This is true for everything. I don't CARE if it's statistically significant and/or costs "my side" anything, if we have a law on the books we should either enforce it or get it off the books. Period. Geez, is this really so hard to understand?

then how do they get to work, the store, mcdonalds.

boo fucking hoo. I live in the largest county in Colorado and the closest DMV office in my county is 45 miles away. the second closest is 47 miles away in another county.

try getting your license in California. its easy half day event. gee i wonder what the poor there do?

For the first, these working poor people generally live close-in where there is public transportation. For work, they often car pool with fellow workers. For the non-working poor that live outside public transportation hubs - and there are a surprising number of them - they either bum rides to where they need to go or they use charity services that provide limited free or heavily subsidized rides. (Usually this is limited to the elderly, the disabled, or the mentally ill, but in practice this is often overlooked.)

I recommend you get to know the people who clean your building or buildings where you commonly have business, or mentor high school kids at inner city schools. Find out how they get to work. The working poor build alliances, helping each other out in turn, because that's what it takes to get by. Doesn't always work out for everybody (I have a friend who gave his coworkers rides home because he's lucky and his grandmother is relatively well off (janitorial worker plus entrepreneur who owns her own janitorial company on the side) and bough him a car, he got pulled over one night and having nothing to hide, told the cop of course he could search the car. His coworker had stuck a joint down between the seat cushions to avoid being popped, and since his "friend" wouldn't own to it, my friend got busted and had to do a community service pre-trial diversion plus a year of probation to get it dropped.) but it's necessary to make the system work. It's possible for these people to get to a far-off DMV, but it's not easy and it represents a significant diversion of scarce resources. Also, a lot of the working poor are single parents/grandparents and work two menial jobs to get by. Not only do they not get benefits as a result, but it's doubly difficult to schedule time off as a result, and triply difficult to schedule rides since both jobs aren't generally shared by the car pool group.

I'm not saying we owe these people anything in particular; they have to pull their own weight like everyone else, with whatever skills they can bring to the table. I AM saying that if we are going to do something, even something I support - ESPECIALLY something I support - then we should not do it on their backs. I have to go to the DMV to get my license and tags; I'm fine with them doing the same for a federal or state photo ID card, but only if the DMV is within a reasonable bus ride within the city or at least county. I understand that you have a forty-five minute drive to the DMV anyway, but not being drivers this is something new for them and it should not be onerous if we're doing it for the reason we say we're doing it. A forty-five minute drive to the DMV is a HELL of a lot different from a bus ride over the same distance, with the bus stopping every block or three to pick up or let off.

 

[werepossum]

FYI, if you're just renewing your license in Alabama, you don't even need to go to the DMV: http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2015/07/online_driver_license_renewal.html

Yes, and it would be the same for a photo ID. But not to get the FIRST photo ID. After that - heck, they probably wouldn't ever have to renew it. But you still have to get there once. (And that's assuming the camera is working and the lady didn't call in sick.)

 

[Brainonska511]

Either openly allow everyone who wanders by to vote, as many times as they wish, or have standards and laws and enforce them. This is true for everything. I don't CARE if it's statistically significant and/or costs "my side" anything, if we have a law on the books we should either enforce it or get it off the books. Period. Geez, is this really so hard to understand?

There were already standards on the books that would keep people from voting as many times as they wished . They are simply tightening those standards so much as to make a de facto poll tax and inhibit the ability of "undesirables" to vote.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Yes, and it would be the same for a photo ID. But not to get the FIRST photo ID. After that - heck, they probably wouldn't ever have to renew it. But you still have to get there once. (And that's assuming the camera is working and the lady didn't call in sick.)

Let's not forget that there are other locations in Alabama to obtain a legal ID for voting, such as the mobile units that go around the state, registering voters and providing them with a free ID. But those places are only available for a couple hours in any given month. If your goal is to make sure all registered voters have the ID necessary to vote, cutting funding and making it more difficult for them to get that ID is diametrically opposed to your stated goal.

 

[trenchfoot]

I'm unsure why you think this is simply a "win at any costs" strategy. You could have results conclusively proving that Voter ID prevents exclusively Republican votes and I would still support it. Since voting is an indivisible right that can only be exercised by a single person then validating your identity is not only a legitimate state interest for reasons of ensuring election integrity, but of also ensuring that your right isn't usurped by another person. If you were getting a government check issued, would you be OK if it was given to anyone who could fulfill such laughably inadequate identification standards we use for voting? "Oh I'm sorry your $25k was given to another person, he said he was you and had a piece of mail with your name on it."

I have absolutely no issue with what you've posted there. However, as it's been stated ad infinitum by myself and others, my objection to the methods the Repubs have been utilizing in regards to Repub initiated voter ID laws is whether by coincidence or not, they all have in common this one unique feature that discriminates against those that have a preference for voting against them.

Why is that the case when, with their total control over the process of legislating voter ID laws, they have the power to write into their legislation language that makes it even easier for ANYONE to cast a vote rather than the opposite effect these laws have now?

The Repubs who wrote and passed these laws didn't seem to care at all about how much it cost to create and implement them, yet they are going way out of their way to avoid costs that ensure that these laws guarantee that not a single person will be negatively affected by them, and, amusingly so, with the very same passion and effort that they exert toward making people believe that these laws were passed toward ensuring that not a single person would be able to commit fraud.

In effect, these Repub controlled states have committed fraud to prevent a kind of fraud that they have demonized into existence for the express purpose of "fixing" the voting process in their favor.

edit - And forgive my long-winded replies. I'm home on sick leave bored with nothing much to do while I'm fighting an stubborn ear infection I got while spearfishing.