Left vs. Right -- Voter ID and Background Checks

[fskimospy]

If you've got voter rolls full of people who shouldn't be on them, e.g., dead people, those who've moved away or otherwise having multiple registrations, you're not going find situations where multiple people have shown up to vote on the same account.

Without an ID, the easiest way to commit voter fraud and never get caught is simply to register bogus people. The bogus person is never going to actually show up.

Well then in all of these audits that have turned up bogus people we should have lots and lots of cases where this has been happening! Why has this been so infrequent as well?

What is strange is that you should be happy that so little fraud like this is happening, not trying to insist it has against all evidence.

It's a "loophole", but you exaggerate it.

Elsewhere in this subforum I posted info, with links, to remarks by some BATF expert on where criminals get guns. Gun shows aren't even on the radar. You're going after a problem that doesn't exist, as you claim those who favor voter IDs are doing.

Some states already background checks for gun show sales.

Every state I've checked into already has requirements for private party sales. An example would be that the (private) seller can only sell to residents of that state and must confirm such demanding to see the purchaser's drivers license.

Personally, I have no problem with checks at gun shows. We do it in NC and I don't see a problem.

However, I do have problems with some of the specific proposals I've seen on how to implement a background check. I find some to be pretty unrealistic and impractical.

Fern

So now you agree that conservatives aren't all actually for those checks?

 

[ivwshane]

Fern you are being extremely dishonest by talking about voter registration fraud as if it is the same thing as voter ID/laws. It is not the same. I would love for you to show me any voter ID law that has passed or is being brought up that also deals with voter registration fraud.

Voter ID laws do nothing to address the supposed problem we have with voter fraud. Nothing. Has any bill passed or being offered that deals with absentee ballots? That should tell you all you need to know about these laws.

 

[Fern]

Well then in all of these audits that have turned up bogus people we should have lots and lots of cases where this has been happening! Why has this been so infrequent as well?

What is strange is that you should be happy that so little fraud like this is happening, not trying to insist it has against all evidence.

What?

The audits have turned bogus or illegal people on the registers. I have seen no audit to determine if these bogus/illegal people voted (or I should say, if someone voted under those names).

So now you agree that conservatives aren't all actually for those checks?

I don't see how you got that from post. I didn't even address it.

I did say that most are for background checks (in general). My understanding is that polls show this.

As for background checks specifically for gun shows, I'm not sure and haven't seen any polling on it.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Fern you are being extremely dishonest by talking about voter registration fraud as if it is the same thing as voter ID/laws. It is not the same. I would love for you to show me any voter ID law that has passed or is being brought up that also deals with voter registration fraud.

Voter ID laws do nothing to address the supposed problem we have with voter fraud. Nothing. Has any bill passed or being offered that deals with absentee ballots? That should tell you all you need to know about these laws.

Well, you missed the point completely.

If we have illegal/bogus people on the registry the only way to catch them is with voter IDs. I can make up a fake voter and register them, but could not vote under their name if an ID was required.

Fern

 

[ivwshane]

Well, you missed the point completely.

If we have illegal/bogus people on the registry the only way to catch them is with voter IDs. I can make up a fake voter and register them, but could not vote under their name if an ID was required.

Fern

That's false. We already have a voter registration system that removes fraudulent registers and you can register in most places with an ID or other accrptable documents.

In either case it doesn't stop voter registration fraud from happening nor would it stop absentee voter fraud from happening. So again the laws are pointless.

 

[Fern]

That's false. We already have a voter registration system that removes fraudulent registers

No. It is handles ate the county level and most don't bother.

and you can register in most places with an ID or other accrptable documents.

Of course, and you can register w/o a photo ID.

In either case it doesn't stop voter registration fraud from happening nor would it stop absentee voter fraud from happening. So again the laws are pointless.

My point is, and as I said above, voter IDs would stop people from voting under bogus accounts (but not if an absentee ballot).

Yeah, depending your state and what documents they require it could certainly help against voter fraud registration if the ID document requirements were decent.

This is all it takes in my county to register:

Acceptable forms of ID include (1) a photo ID from any business, government or nonprofit, or (2) any one of the following documents, with your name and current residential address:

A utility bill from an electric, water, gas, phone or cable company.

A bank statement or bank-card statement.

A paycheck or pay stub.

Any license, registration, permit, invoice, check, letter or any other document from a local, state or federal government agency.

Now how hard are those to forge? (Excepting the photo IDs from the govt.)

Fern

 

[CycloWizard]

I have half a dozen guns, I have never paid for one. Birthdays, Christmas, passed down to me. The same can't be said for voting. I can't inherit a vote and I can't receive one as a present.

That's a nonsense argument. Someone paid for the gun even if you didn't. The bottom line is that guns do not magically manifest (to my knowledge) and therefore some financial burden exists to exercise the right to bear arms. In any case, that is not what this thread is about. This thread is about defining a logical mechanism by which constitutional rights might be restricted. It's ridiculous to claim that voting is some absolute right while gun ownership is not - both are firmly entrenched in the constitution and centuries of legal precedent. Some similarities in removing this right already exist. For example, convicted felons generally cannot vote and cannot own firearms. This group may be deprived of rights as they presumably infringed the rights of others in committing a felony.

 

[ivwshane]

No. It is handles ate the county level and most don't bother.



Of course, and you can register w/o a photo ID.



My point is, and as I said above, voter IDs would stop people from voting under bogus accounts (but not if an absentee ballot).

Yeah, depending your state and what documents they require it could certainly help against voter fraud registration if the ID document requirements were decent.

This is all it takes in my county to register:



Now how hard are those to forge? (Excepting the photo IDs from the govt.)

Fern

Fantastic! If they can forge those then why can't they forge ID's, in fact forged ID's already exist. So once again we have laws that don't address the issue and an issue that is dependent on "what if's" that rarely happen.

 

[CycloWizard]

What makes you think they aren't checking? If voter impersonation was an issue there'd be many examples each year of people showing up to vote only to find a ballot in their name was already cast.

Right now when those instances occur they are investigated and almost always found to have been a clerical error. With tens of millions of votes cast each year there are almost no occurrences left unexplained. It would be impossible for vote impersonators to be that successful year after year in not being detected.

Only a fraction of registered voters show up to vote during any given election (about 55-65% for the biggest elections). I'll speculate that the voters show up regularly while the registered non-voters fail to vote regularly. This means someone who does a little homework could exploit the system.

That said, the problem is now compounded because it is illegal to challenge potentially fraudulent voters in many states. If I show up to vote 20 times at my local precinct, the people there have no recourse but to allow me to vote 20 times. All I have to do is beat people to their mailboxes the day voter registration cards are delivered and I'm good to go. Thus, in an attempt to avoid voter suppression, the door has been opened to massive voter fraud. I don't believe that it is coincidental that this door was opened by a Democrat's DOJ just prior to said Democrat's reelection campaign in states where he stood to gain the most votes. I didn't vote for primarily Republicans or Democrats nor have I ever been a registered member of any party. I also don't own any guns or have plans to own guns.

That said, I do vote and I enjoy my right to own a gun (especially because anyone wishing to do me harm must first consider the possibility that I own a gun and can defend myself). I suggest that free, broadly distributed voter IDs are a simple way to protect MY right to vote which could otherwise be cancelled by some chucklehead who just walks up and votes under the name of some guy who appeared in last week's obituaries. I suggest that the right to own a gun is important because I attended a dissertation defense of someone who was able to kill two home invaders (both using illegally-purchased guns which are not legal to buy anywhere in the US) using his legal weapon only last week. I think the rights embodied in the constitution are absolutely essential to real liberty. I have no interest in stripping them from anyone.

 

[ivwshane]

Only a fraction of registered voters show up to vote during any given election (about 55-65% for the biggest elections). I'll speculate that the voters show up regularly while the registered non-voters fail to vote regularly. This means someone who does a little homework could exploit the system.

That said, the problem is now compounded because it is illegal to challenge potentially fraudulent voters in many states. If I show up to vote 20 times at my local precinct, the people there have no recourse but to allow me to vote 20 times. All I have to do is beat people to their mailboxes the day voter registration cards are delivered and I'm good to go. Thus, in an attempt to avoid voter suppression, the door has been opened to massive voter fraud. I don't believe that it is coincidental that this door was opened by a Democrat's DOJ just prior to said Democrat's reelection campaign in states where he stood to gain the most votes. I didn't vote for primarily Republicans or Democrats nor have I ever been a registered member of any party. I also don't own any guns or have plans to own guns.

That said, I do vote and I enjoy my right to own a gun (especially because anyone wishing to do me harm must first consider the possibility that I own a gun and can defend myself). I suggest that free, broadly distributed voter IDs are a simple way to protect MY right to vote which could otherwise be cancelled by some chucklehead who just walks up and votes under the name of some guy who appeared in last week's obituaries. I suggest that the right to own a gun is important because I attended a dissertation defense of someone who was able to kill two home invaders (both using illegally-purchased guns which are not legal to buy anywhere in the US) using his legal weapon only last week. I think the rights embodied in the constitution are absolutely essential to real liberty. I have no interest in stripping them from anyone.

Which states are those and do you have a link to such laws?

 

[fskimospy]

What?

The audits have turned bogus or illegal people on the registers. I have seen no audit to determine if these bogus/illegal people voted (or I should say, if someone voted under those names).

Wait a minute. So you actually think that people determined that there were bogus or illegal people on the registers, but no one actually checked to see if those fake people voted, despite that information being public knowledge? Seriously? Despite the Republican Party desperately looking for any way to justify voter suppression efforts like this? Despite the Bush Administration making it an explicit priority of the executive branch to investigate exactly that sort of thing?

Really? Come ON.

EDIT: What's also interesting is that in a different gun control thread you say that competent authority (the FBI) has been telling people that gun show sales aren't the problem so you see no reason to further regulate them. That's a very reasonable position to hold. What's odd is that the DoJ under both parties has investigated in-person voter fraud and come up with nothing, yet you still see a need to regulate that. Can you explain why you are willing to take the DoJ's word on gun sales but not on voting rights?

I don't see how you got that from post. I didn't even address it.

I did say that most are for background checks (in general). My understanding is that polls show this.

As for background checks specifically for gun shows, I'm not sure and haven't seen any polling on it.

Fern

There's a reason why Republicans in Congress are furiously fighting to keep the gun show loophole in place.

 

[Lithium381]

I think the clearest distinction between the two is that suppressing the right to vote is not a means of protecting anyone or fulfilling another government obligation. We allow gun regulations so that government can fulfill its duty in protecting the populace.

I would argue that a lot of the things proposed do NOTHING to protect the populace . . . in terms of gun control

 

[ivwshane]

I would argue that a lot of the things proposed do NOTHING to protect the populace . . . in terms of gun control

Such as?

 

[Fern]

Fantastic! If they can forge those then why can't they forge ID's, in fact forged ID's already exist. So once again we have laws that don't address the issue and an issue that is dependent on "what if's" that rarely happen.

A utility bill from an electric, water, gas, phone or cable company.

Where I live we have HOA for residential developments that are in the county. Because they are in the county they must supply their own water. Now in some everyone will just have to dig their own well. In others there is a small co-op type 'water company' and it bills the residents. The bills are printed out on standard paper with a standard printer using MS Word or Quick Books. Pretty much anybody can reproduce those statements.

And it's about the same for a paystub, or an ID from a business or nonprofit.

Having to produce a DL would stop that possibility.

And you have no idea if it only "rarely" happens because we have no means or procedures to determine that.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Wait a minute. So you actually think that people determined that there were bogus or illegal people on the registers, but no one actually checked to see if those fake people voted, despite that information being public knowledge? Seriously?

The federal law require them to audit the rolls and that's it. They (the county elections board) is a govt office and they don't wonder off on their own for things.

EDIT: What's also interesting is that in a different gun control thread you say that competent authority (the FBI) has been telling people that gun show sales aren't the problem so you see no reason to further regulate them. That's a very reasonable position to hold. What's odd is that the DoJ under both parties has investigated in-person voter fraud and come up with nothing, yet you still see a need to regulate that. Can you explain why you are willing to take the DoJ's word on gun sales but not on voting rights?

The DoJ has no reliable to way check much of anything.

Accounting is very familiar with the need to have certain systems in place before you even audit something. If the requisite systems weren't in place you can't even audit.

For an example check the OMB. I'm pretty sure they've refused to audit the nation's financials, which they are tasked with, because the requisite systems weren't in place to permit an audit.

There's a reason why Republicans in Congress are furiously fighting to keep the gun show loophole in place.

If true, I would imagine NRA and other lobbying money. It wouldn't be because of gun show owners, there are too few. And again, I haven't seen any polls saying there is any kind of serious opposition among voters. I assume you haven't either or you'd have posted it by now.

Fern

 

[ivwshane]

Where I live we have HOA for residential developments that are in the county. Because they are in the county they must supply their own water. Now in some everyone will just have to dig their own well. In others there is a small co-op type 'water company' and it bills the residents. The bills are printed out on standard paper with a standard printer using MS Word or Quick Books. Pretty much anybody can reproduce those statements.

And it's about the same for a paystub, or an ID from a business or nonprofit.

Having to produce a DL would stop that possibility.

And you have no idea if it only "rarely" happens because we have no means or procedures to determine that.

Fern

And you have proof otherwise? No you don't and yet you advocate for laws that won't fix the issues. Do you also support the banning of assault weapons because there isn't any proof of AWB effectiveness (according to some)?

And you completely ignored the use of fake ID's.

You want things changed based on no evidence of an issue. That makes zero sense.

 

[fskimospy]

Where I live we have HOA for residential developments that are in the county. Because they are in the county they must supply their own water. Now in some everyone will just have to dig their own well. In others there is a small co-op type 'water company' and it bills the residents. The bills are printed out on standard paper with a standard printer using MS Word or Quick Books. Pretty much anybody can reproduce those statements.

And it's about the same for a paystub, or an ID from a business or nonprofit.

Having to produce a DL would stop that possibility.

And you have no idea if it only "rarely" happens because we have no means or procedures to determine that.

Fern

You keep doggedly insisting that we have no means to check this despite being told over and over again that it's not true. Why is this such an article of faith for you?

BOE's are required by law in most (all?) states to verify registration records. This information is publicly available through subpoena or FOIA requests. To say that the DoJ has no way to look at this or that anyone else doesn't is preposterous.

This study conducted recently specifically examined registration fraud of the type of which you are alleging. Yet again.... almost nothing. And yet again, way more evidence of absentee ballot fraud, which of course Republicans won't touch with a ten foot pole.

http://votingrights.news21.com/article/election-fraud/

I am seriously at a loss as to what standard of evidence would be required for you to abandon your belief in in-person voter fraud. I'm not trying to be mean or talk shit, but you displayed a similar doggedness when it came to birther accusations against Obama, again for reasons I could not fathom at the time. In both cases the evidence against your opinion is simply overwhelming. As I mentioned previously, the US government (under a Republican administration no less) has admitted that it has almost no evidence of this type of fraud occurring. You appear willing to defer to their expert judgment when it comes to the gun show loophole and such, but unwilling to defer to their expert judgment in this case. Can you tell me what makes them different?

If nothing else, can you at least admit that we should be tackling absentee ballot fraud first and foremost before making any other voter fraud related laws? While there is basically zero evidence of any in person voting fraud we do in fact have evidence of absentee ballot fraud. Doesn't it make sense to go after that first?

 

[Fern]

You keep doggedly insisting that we have no means to check this despite being told over and over again that it's not true. Why is this such an article of faith for you?

I would ask the same of you.

I have never seen, nor has anyone been able to describe a process that actually audits this.

If you don't have adequate systems in place you can't due an audit, that's undeniable fact.


BOE's are required by law in most (all?) states to verify registration records. This information is publicly available through subpoena or FOIA requests. To say that the DoJ has no way to look at this or that anyone else doesn't is preposterous.
[/QUOTE]

The only thing those audits can do is verify that existing registration procedures were followed. E.g., "is there a copy of a water bill in the registration file?" "Yep, OK we're good."

I.e., they do not confirm that the person was real or in fact qualified to vote. Merely that (weak) procedures were followed.

If it was a copy of a valid drivers license, and the requirements for obtaining a DL were sufficient to establish a high degree of confidence, that would be a different matter. But it's not that, accordingly it's an example of the system's weakness preventing a bona fide audit.

Fern

 

[Atomic Playboy]

If it was a copy of a valid drivers license, and the requirements for obtaining a DL were sufficient to establish a high degree of confidence, that would be a different matter. But it's not that, accordingly it's an example of the system's weakness preventing a bona fide audit.

Fern

Even with all that, how prevalent do you honestly think voter fraud is? Is it one vote out of every thousand? One vote out of every million? Surely you wouldn't argue that 1% or greater of all the votes cast were fraudulent, would you? I mean, let's face it, one vote here or there is virtually meaningless, especially on the National stage. How big a problem do you think this really is? Is it worth enacting laws that may inhibit legal voters from voting or place a restrictive burden on local jurisdictions by requiring them to fund free voter IDs? Just because it may occasionally happen doesn't mean that we should go overboard in our response. School shootings occasionally happen, but you aren't in favor of banning guns (nor am I, for the record). Sometimes the means to fixing a problem end up being worse than the problem they purport to fix.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
I'm not trying to be mean or talk shit, but you displayed a similar doggedness when it came to birther accusations against Obama, again for reasons I could not fathom at the time. In both cases the evidence against your opinion is simply overwhelming.

That's a material misstatement of fact, outright lie or confession of stupidity on your behalf. You choose.

The simple fact that I explained in detail is not that complicated: The initial BC released by the Obama campaign did not specify or claim he was born in a hospital, merely citing the town of Honolulu.

Hawaii did, and still does, offer a birth certificate intended for native Hawaiians born on smaller outlying islands without clinics or hospitals etc. For a period of up to one year you can request a BC. The proof required is quite weak. E.g., two people can show up and attest in person to the birth and a BC can be granted. I cannot remember the technical name for it, so lets just call it a "Late Applied For BC" (or LABC)

So, based upon the BC that was initially released it cannot be established whether Obama had a regular BC or a LABC. (If it had the hospital on it we could have excluded the LABC.)

Now, I didn't say the fact of having a LABC proved he wasn't born in HI. Rather, I said it would cause a heck of a lot questions and suspicion. I find it highly unlikely a white woman of means living a big city in the 60's wouldn't have used a hospital (or even a midwife).

When the second copy was released reflecting the hospital I said I was satisfied it wasn't a LABC, but instead a normal one. That was the end of the issue for me.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

I would ask the same of you.

I have never seen, nor has anyone been able to describe a process that actually audits this.

If you don't have adequate systems in place you can't due an audit, that's undeniable fact.

The only thing those audits can do is verify that existing registration procedures were followed. E.g., "is there a copy of a water bill in the registration file?" "Yep, OK we're good."

I.e., they do not confirm that the person was real or in fact qualified to vote. Merely that (weak) procedures were followed.

If it was a copy of a valid drivers license, and the requirements for obtaining a DL were sufficient to establish a high degree of confidence, that would be a different matter. But it's not that, accordingly it's an example of the system's weakness preventing a bona fide audit.

Fern

I strongly suggest you go learn what BOEs actually do to verify their registration rolls, as what you wrote is factually false.

And I know exactly what you wrote about Obama's birth certificate and I am very comfortable with my description of it.

I notice that you ignored yet another piece of evidence thrown on the pile. At this point there isn't anything left to say. Evidence has no effect on your opinions on this. Even if I accepted your dismissal of all contrary evidence, your argument rests on the idea that nobody has disproven in person voter fraud, which is a horrible argument simply based on fundamental logic.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
And I know exactly what you wrote about Obama's birth certificate and I am very comfortable with my description of it.

And this is factually incorrect:

In both cases the evidence against your opinion is simply overwhelming.

LABCs are a fact. They were then, and still are today. (My state has them too.)

It's a fact that LABCs are for people not born in a hospital, a clinic or with a midwife in attendance. If a child is born in any of those a regular BC is automatically generated.

There's nothing I wrote on the matter that isn't verifiable fact, unless it's my opinion that him having a LABC would generate a lot of suspicion etc. And I don't see how that is even debatable.

Fern

 

[Fern]

I strongly suggest you go learn what BOEs actually do to verify their registration rolls, as what you wrote is factually false.
-snip-

Why don't you tell us what they do?

What are their auditing procedures for a person who registered with a water bill for example.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

Why don't you tell us what they do?

What are their auditing procedures for a person who registered with a water bill for example.

Fern

All (or nearly all) voting precincts send out mailings to a certain percentage of registrations each year requiring them to be returned or the registration is cancelled.

But now you're probably going to say "well a guy could just register like 100 people to his house and he's golden!". That would be ridiculous. The problem with that of course is that someone still has to come in and vote. Poll workers will notice when the same guy keeps coming in and voting over and over again, you will be arrested, and you will spend a long time in prison all for a few extra meaningless votes.

Then maybe you could say that someone could cook up a whole load of false registrations and get others to vote using them. Of course this presents two difficulties in that you're going to have to convince people to risk a felony conviction out of the pure goodness of their heart, or you're going to have to pay them. Not only is paying for individual votes in that way INCREDIBLY inefficient (you could likely get more votes just by spending that same money legally), but if you have those sorts of resources at your disposal and are already engaging in a wide ranging voter fraud conspiracy it's just as easy to get a bunch of fake ID's made, easily defeating the photo ID requirement.

There is no level at which the argument that in-person voter fraud exists in significant quantities is not terrible. You will notice that absentee ballot fraud would get around a lot of these issues, which is of course one of the reasons why it happens so much more. A curious (read: not curious) artifact of these arguments is always the same two facts that always somehow go unaddressed:

1.) Those arguing for voter ID laws admit they have no evidence. Instead of advocating for the ability to compile such evidence before restricting people's right to vote they just decide to skip the evidence part.

2.) Those arguing for voter ID laws ignore real and verified fraud that takes place through absentee ballots. This is bizarre in that from an objective standpoint it makes no sense to focus on the problem you have no evidence exists while ignoring the problem you do.

This is of course not at all curious once you realize that the intent of voter ID laws is not actually to cut down on voter fraud, but to suppress the votes of people who don't vote for Republicans. They aren't even trying to hide it anymore.

 

[fskimospy]

And this is factually incorrect:



LABCs are a fact. They were then, and still are today. (My state has them too.)

It's a fact that LABCs are for people not born in a hospital, a clinic or with a midwife in attendance. If a child is born in any of those a regular BC is automatically generated.

There's nothing I wrote on the matter that isn't verifiable fact, unless it's my opinion that him having a LABC would generate a lot of suspicion etc. And I don't see how that is even debatable.

Fern

I'm not getting into the birther nonsense with you. Needless to say, you had the governor of Hawaii personally vouching for him, you had newspaper clippings from the time, etc, etc.

Let's just say that in my opinion your standards of evidence are malleable based on topic. Like say... in-person voter fraud.