Seems to me that asking for a minimum level of identification so there can be a reasonable assurance that you are indeed who you say you are is not asking too much. In this day and age it's increasingly difficult to do much of anything in society without some form of ID. I don't see any legitimate reasons not to require ID, other than simple politics, as in "it will cause more of my voters not to be able to vote".
-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Fraud voter registration in Louisiana?
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
I linked to the voter registration requirements, it allows for non-operator IDs. From what I could find, there is no requirement for Birth Certificate for that ID so she should be able to get one provided she can provide the other documents required. Also, if she's been voting for so long, why didn't she just go have it changed. Did she move? If she didn't, she wouldn't have had to do more than "renew" her voter registration.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Is Louisiana trying to take over for the Chicago area since there will likely be a spotlight on Chicago this time around? 😛
Still apologetically lame. "From what you could find"? Huh? You couldn't find your ass with both hands if you didn't want to, CSG, and you certainly don't want to acknowledge the simple fact that current requirements can and *do* disenfranchise people.
Take Ms Preiss, for example. She moved from Texas to Arizona, so she has to re-register. The basic requirements for any form of state issued ID are the same, whether that's any form of driver's license or an ID. Here are the requirements for Arizona-
http://mvd.azdot.gov/mvd/forms...10&lngFormInfoKey=1410
Notice how she must produce at least one (1) (uno) "primary" document, and that her previous Texas ID is specifically disallowed? After that, she's screwed, because she can't produce any of the other "primary" documents. Nothing else matters. end of story. So sorry, have a nice day, loser.
Such requirements are pretty much universal in the US for obtaining state ID of any kind, and you can't register to vote w/o it in most states.
And, of course, there are various efforts afoot to slip in last minute backdoor and back orifice requirements-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...action-n_b_101830.html
What's happening is just more of the usual rightwing fearmongering in pursuit of a hidden agenda- vote suppression. The "need" is pure fabrication, otherwise the proponents of these changes would obviously be able to cite numerous and extensive examples of voter fraud rather than leaning on the hypothetical and hypocritical song and dance about "pertekshun".
So, uhh, "show me the money, honey" wrt actual voter fraud, or STFU, OK?
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
There have been many examples of it, but most are not prosecuted for whatever reason.(which means you will whine that there is no "proof" it happened) :roll:
The OP shows just how fraud is set up. Do you really think they got every single fraudulent registration sorted out?
What's hilarious is your incessant whining about potential disenfranchisement but ignore the potential fraud due to poor enforcement. I am very aware of disenfranchisement, that's why I support allowing people to get a non-operator ID for free from the state. The ONE lady you people found very well could have found an avenue to register to vote but it looks like she didn't find one. Obviously there needs to be an avenue for situations like that one old lady who doesn't have a birth certificate... and doesn't have... and doesn't have... etc. However, there do need to be things in place to prevent people from registering that should not be registering - lest we have FRAUD.
Still lame, CSG, and defiantly apologetic of attempts to keep people from voting. "Many examples", but none you can cite, of course- basic boogeyman attack. "Potential poor enforcement" and potential this and what if that, ad nauseum. But we "need" to "perteckt" ourselves from all of it, of course, because, well, because in this post 9/11 world, we can't just do it the way we've done it for the last 200 years or so, and because that gives us license to be chickenshit about the whole thing, right?
And there are mechanisms in place to prevent people from registering who shouldn't be registering- like the efforts of Mr Robertson in Caddo Parrish- you know, one of those government employees you routinely denigrate...
All this reminds me of the "need" to invade Iraq, because of their WMD's and the "urgent" nature of the threat they posed... and, surprise, surprise- it's coming from the same people, too...
For them, and apparently for you, too, all that really matters is winning, regardless of the means employed- the fraud currently being perpetrated is yours, and that of those you support.
And there are mechanisms in place to prevent people from registering who shouldn't be registering- like the efforts of Mr Robertson in Caddo Parrish- you know, one of those government employees you routinely denigrate...
All this reminds me of the "need" to invade Iraq, because of their WMD's and the "urgent" nature of the threat they posed... and, surprise, surprise- it's coming from the same people, too...
For them, and apparently for you, too, all that really matters is winning, regardless of the means employed- the fraud currently being perpetrated is yours, and that of those you support.
There is a need to balance two things: allowing everyone who should be able to vote to cast a ballot, and preventing fraud in the voting process. There has not been any indication thus far that there has been massive voter fraud, nor has there been any indication of massive vote supression. That means there really isn't a need for any drastic measures, but something as simple a basic ID is not putting a huge burden on anyone, so I don't think it's out of line with balancing the two needs. If someone were to try to place a large burden on the voter in the name of preventing fraud, I'd be opposed, but presenting some form of ID is not a large burden.
More lameness and obfuscation. The requirement in Arizona and many other locales is State ID, which requires very specific forms of additional ID to obtain.
Read the linked .pdf, above. If you don't have at least one of the primary documents, nothing else matters. Even picture ID from other states is unacceptable in many cases. An applicant could have every one of the 19 forms of secondary ID listed and yet fail to qualify for State ID and therefore the ability to vote.
You acknowledge that there's really no actual fraud problem, at all, yet contend that new unreasonable measures to prevent such fraud are entirely reasonable, pooh-pooh the problems involved for many citizens, which is absurd.
Take a reality check. mmkay?
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
"You acknowledge that there's really no actual fraud problem"
No he didn't. Here is what he stated - "There has not been any indication thus far that there has been massive voter fraud, nor has there been any indication of massive vote supression."
I think we can all see who here has been posting "lameness and obfuscation" and it isn't myself or PokerGuy.
Amazing how your tune changes.
Wasn't I telling you that about Michigan and Florida and you were preaching to me about how its unavoidable and it has to be done and they should be happy to be counted as half a vote.
But now, every vote needs to count no matter what right?
Wasn't Hillary vs. Obama the tighest primary in our history? I'm pretty sure it was. One disenfranchised voter in Michigan and Florida would be too many in your words right?
Yet somehow you were ok with them disenfranchising TWO OF THE BIGGEST STATES in the entire country right?
Can you please explain this to me because I'm all ears.
you seemed to have conveniently ignored why the TX DL is not acceptable.
Arizona is stating that you must prove that you are eligible to vote. How is that disenfranchising?
Get the proper documents that prove you can; they exists, or is it too inconvenient to prove such. Otherwise one can use false documents, which apparently does happen with the states that AZ listed.
From your viewpoint - or to extrapolate from it.
One can go to Tx with false paperwork and get a DL. Then register to vote, because TX has not verified that the person is legal (an may even be prevented by law for verifying it - per certain judges/communities).
Or they can go from TX to New Mexico and register to vote using the TX DL (which may be valid) even though the paperwork to obtain it was invalid.
Now if there was a Federal Id that ensured paperwork was valid, then your backdoor would be closed.
Only one weak link can crack the system, if others are not vigilant or isolating that link.
If one went from TX to another state that accepts TX papers and other states accept the second states verification process (trusting TX) then the whole system is susceptible to fraud.
There needs to be one consistent set of rules that are enforced to prevent fraud from spreading.
Heh. the whole bit about Primaries is extremely disingenuous- political parties have the right to make their own rules, none of which prevent anybody from voting in a *General Election*.
And, at least in the case of Florida, it was the repub legislature and governor who knowingly changed their primary schedule so as to prevent the votes of their dem counterparts from counting in the primary race... but, of course, none of that matters when the real objective is to muddy the waters.
CC tosses in more what-if's from the boogeyman file, ignoring the fundamental stupidity behind his argument. If Texas and others are so lax in issuing ID, which is the basis for people voting in those states, why, maybe we should just disallow their votes from counting, at all... that'll teach 'em, right?
I'm not arguing against reasonable requirements, at all, but I am arguing against the current state of affairs, which is *not* reasonable in a variety of situations, I'm sure...
When a person can show up with 19 pieces of ID and not qualify, that's unreasonable. If we can't agree on that, then I'm apparently trying to reason with a line of fenceposts holding up the barbwire between some citizens and the voting booth.
And, at least in the case of Florida, it was the repub legislature and governor who knowingly changed their primary schedule so as to prevent the votes of their dem counterparts from counting in the primary race... but, of course, none of that matters when the real objective is to muddy the waters.
CC tosses in more what-if's from the boogeyman file, ignoring the fundamental stupidity behind his argument. If Texas and others are so lax in issuing ID, which is the basis for people voting in those states, why, maybe we should just disallow their votes from counting, at all... that'll teach 'em, right?
I'm not arguing against reasonable requirements, at all, but I am arguing against the current state of affairs, which is *not* reasonable in a variety of situations, I'm sure...
When a person can show up with 19 pieces of ID and not qualify, that's unreasonable. If we can't agree on that, then I'm apparently trying to reason with a line of fenceposts holding up the barbwire between some citizens and the voting booth.
You were the one the pointed out the issue in AZ.
I brought in the explanation on why the TX is is not considered to be valid.
It is known that people use bogus paperwork to get a TX DL. Otherwise why would it not be honored.
What stops those people from voting in Tx. Nothing.
Without consistent guidelines, there can and will be fraud.
And if it is politically expediant to ignore the fraud, it will be ignored.
Vic
Elite Member
Louisiana has a long history of political corruption and fraud on both sides of the aisle. The place is like a 3rd world country as far as most of the rest of America is concerned.
And Oregon doesn't require lawful presence to vote because we all vote from home. ID and proof of permanent residence are required in order to register to vote.
And Oregon doesn't require lawful presence to vote because we all vote from home. ID and proof of permanent residence are required in order to register to vote.
Of course there is also the option of allowing those with the required ID to vote, and keeping the votes of those without ID on file. In the event where the election is close enough where those votes actually could matter (florida 2000 ayone?), you could check those votes, verify that they are indeed valid and count them.
I don't see the problem.
I don't see the problem.
This gets lamer by the moment. So, uhh, we should only allow what you think might be fraudulent votes to count if it's a really close election? How would you verify their validity other than using the same methods used to make them invalid?
Maybe you need to think about that, and this whole kneejerk support for authoritarian principles while you're at it...
Uhhhhh, you must be a product of a failed public school system, reading comprehension is not your strong suit. No, nobody said anything about allowing fraudulent votes to count. In the event of "unconfirmed" votes (votes cast by people without the required ID present) possibly impacting the outcome of the vote, there are plenty of ways to verify the validity of a vote. Poll workers have no time or resources to verify the validity of a vote, other than to inspect certain basic forms of ID. There are plenty of ways to validate votes if needed, it's just not practical to do at the polls for everyone.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
