"Virtually no voter impersonation occurs in Wisconsin.."

[fskimospy]

Include the photo on the voter registration card then, which is already provided free and required in basically every state to be provided at the polls. That eliminates every single other consideration of cost and everything else involved with having to obtain a state ID like a driver's license. Or are you now going to argue that getting a picture taken is a supreme burden on voters?

I've never lived in a state that has required a voter registration card to be provided at the polls. In fact, I've never even heard of such a thing.

http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/voter-id.aspx#Details

 

[manimal]

Just admit it fern you don't want poor people to vote and you don't think their vote matters as much compared to yours. That's the only conclusion a rational mind can make reading this thread. Even the trolls left...

 

[manimal]

You do have to prove you are eligible to get a job in the army.
And Obama wants to toll the interstate.

I spoke too soon...

 

[nehalem256]

The fact that in the past a person had a birth certificate or passport or other means of proving residency and identity, and registered to vote, doesn't mean they still have these proofs now.

So again you are arguing that we should let people who are completely incapable of proving their identity vote.:\

And on top of that apparently the reason they can't prove their identity is they can't be bothered to keep track of their important papers...

T
But the broader point is the the judge in this case looked at all of the evidence, and concluded that the ID law would indeed deter from voting "a significant portion" of the 300,000 Blacks and Latinos who currently lack acceptable photo IDs. You've provided nothing but your smugness to refute the evidence presented in the ruling.

So the white people who don't have photo IDs don't matter...

Racist.

EDIT: Also appears to be another liberal whose ruling only makes sense if you pretend Asian people don't exist

 

[fskimospy]

So again you are arguing that we should let people who are completely incapable of proving their identity vote.:\

And on top of that apparently the reason they can't prove their identity is they can't be bothered to keep track of their important papers...

So the white people who don't have photo IDs don't matter...

Racist.

EDIT: Also appears to be another liberal whose ruling only makes sense if you pretend Asian people don't exist

This has to be one of the stupidest arguments you've ever made, and that includes your love of toasters.

Things that negatively impact racial minorities don't need to negatively impact ALL racial minorities. /facepalm.

 

[nehalem256]

This has to be one of the stupidest arguments you've ever made, and that includes your love of toasters.

Things that negatively impact racial minorities don't need to negatively impact ALL racial minorities. /facepalm.

And there is no requirement that every law affect every racial minority equally.

Apparently some racial minorities have no issue with obtaining ID. So clearly obtaining an ID is not racially discriminatory.

Your argument is essentially no different than those who claim blacks must be stupider than white people because they have lower IQ tests scores(ignoring all other possible explanations for why the score might be lower).

Which of course makes sense. Since you apparently believe black people are somehow inherently less able than whites to obtain ID you must believe black people are less intelligent. Take your views back to stormfront

 

[cabri]

Things change. Stuff gets lost, stolen, destroyed. Seniors, in particular, can have difficulty coming up with all the documentation to "prove their identity" but they function just fine because they proved it long ago. That's particularly true for women, who may have been married, divorced & widowed in 5 different states, adopting their husband's surname each time. They don't just need a birth cert, they need to show a whole chain of documentation, depending.

It's an exercise in partisan authoritarian stupidity, anyway, given that the incidence of voter fraud is insignificant.

So grant an exception for a person that can demonstrate that they initially were legal and now a senior. Issue them an ID.

The amount of people outside that range that would not have the required proof is very negligible. And I am sure that concerned parties that want that person vote would move a mountain to assist in getting that vote properly tallied.

People spend more time fighting the issue because of fear than attempting to resolve the issue.

There is a potential for voter fraud; it has been shown to happen previously also; so why not try to reduce the possibility.

In 2000, Fla swung the election with 238 votes. Yes, it went for the Republicans, but it could have easily been the other way around.
And in Fla, there are dead people that have "voted"


With all the duplicates in NC, until they are weeded out and someone puts forth the effort to check if all were not multiple votes; the pall of suspicion hangs over the whole system.

 

[Pens1566]

And there is no requirement that every law affect every racial minority equally.

Apparently some racial minorities have no issue with obtaining ID. So clearly obtaining an ID is not racially discriminatory.

Your argument is essentially no different than those who claim blacks must be stupider than white people because they have lower IQ tests scores(ignoring all other possible explanations for why the score might be lower).

Which of course makes sense. Since you apparently believe black people are somehow inherently less able than whites to obtain ID you must believe black people are less intelligent. Take your views back to stormfront

You can't be that stupid, can you?

 

[fskimospy]

And there is no requirement that every law affect every racial minority equally.

Apparently some racial minorities have no issue with obtaining ID. So clearly obtaining an ID is not racially discriminatory.

This is logic so stupid that a five year old would laugh at it. "Racial minorities" are not a single group.

Your argument is essentially no different than those who claim blacks must be stupider than white people because they have lower IQ tests scores(ignoring all other possible explanations for why the score might be lower).

Which of course makes sense. Since you apparently believe black people are somehow inherently less able than whites to obtain ID you must believe black people are less intelligent. Take your views back to stormfront

You're a moron.

 

[Jhhnn]

So again you are arguing that we should let people who are completely incapable of proving their identity vote.:\

And on top of that apparently the reason they can't prove their identity is they can't be bothered to keep track of their important papers...



So the white people who don't have photo IDs don't matter...

Racist.

I'm getting a whiff of the usual false attribution. How many times does a person need to prove their identity w/ paperwork to vote?

Conditionally, it should be once. People who proved it long ago when they registered to vote at their current address should need do no more than match their signature when they do vote, have some other minor form of ID like a rent receipt, utility bill, whatever.

Voter ID advocates need to show compelling need to seriously inconvenience/ disenfranchise anybody, and they haven't met that obligation in the slightest.

Show us the fraud. That's the heart of the issue. W/O that, it's all bullshit.

 

[nehalem256]

This is logic so stupid that a five year old would laugh at it. "Racial minorities" are not a single group.

Supreme Court Justice Sotomayer would disagree with you

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...-assumptions-about-affirmative-action/361086/

You're a moron.

I am not the one arguing that blacks are so inferior to whites they cannot obtain photo ID.

Although actually I will take back my comment about you belonging at stormfront. You are actually dumber than the people at stormfront. They at least would have the sense to not want people they regard as inferior voting.

You repeatedly deride women and blacks as complete and total idiots, but then you want to let them have freedom and vote. Wow, talk about idiocy.

 

[nehalem256]

I'm getting a whiff of the usual false attribution. How many times does a person need to prove their identity w/ paperwork to vote?

Conditionally, it should be once. People who proved it long ago when they registered to vote at their current address should need do no more than match their signature when they do vote, have some other minor form of ID like a rent receipt, utility bill, whatever.

Maybe if there wasn't such gross incompetence in keeping the voter log this would be adequate. But when you have 10,000s of "clerical errors" it is not.

Voter ID advocates need to show compelling need to seriously inconvenience/ disenfranchise anybody, and they haven't met that obligation in the slightest.

Show us the fraud. That's the heart of the issue. W/O that, it's all bullshit.

Show where in the constitution you have the right to vote without in any way being inconvenienced.

And not throwing away documents proving your identity is a pretty small inconvenience I think.

 

[fskimospy]

Supreme Court Justice Sotomayer would disagree with you

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...-assumptions-about-affirmative-action/361086/

First, that's a silly analysis, second, I'm not Justice Sotomayor. (although I can spell her name correctly)

I'm happy to hear that you now ascribe to her jurisprudence however.

I am not the one arguing that blacks are so inferior to whites they cannot obtain photo ID.

Although actually I will take back my comment about you belonging at stormfront. You are actually dumber than the people at stormfront. They at least would have the sense to not want people they regard as inferior voting.

You repeatedly deride women and blacks as complete and total idiots, but then you want to let them have freedom and vote. Wow, talk about idiocy.

Hey look, the guy with a pathological hatred of women is trying to project his problems onto other people. Shocker.

I am enjoying this latest meltdown though, keep flailing.

 

[stormkroe]

I'd like to point out that the '2 at max' number of fraud cases would be more accurately described as '2 that actually got caught', and that by the group of people (volunteers) the left are blaming for the whole thing.
Also, humans are notoriously self serving. Can ANYone honestly say that out of millions of people doing anything, especially something as passionate as voting, that only 2 people were cheating?
That's a lot of faith in the honesty of people.

 

[glenn1]

I'm getting a whiff of the usual false attribution. How many times does a person need to prove their identity w/ paperwork to vote?

Conditionally, it should be once. People who proved it long ago when they registered to vote at their current address should need do no more than match their signature when they do vote, have some other minor form of ID like a rent receipt, utility bill, whatever.

Voter ID advocates need to show compelling need to seriously inconvenience/ disenfranchise anybody, and they haven't met that obligation in the slightest.

Show us the fraud. That's the heart of the issue. W/O that, it's all bullshit.

Again, I'm fine with voting with no ID. Again, I'd just make it a mandatory ongoing requirement to have current photo ID to receive any government benefits (unemployment, social security, etc) and cut them off if they don't.

 

[fskimospy]

I'd like to point out that the '2 at max' number of fraud cases would be more accurately described as '2 that actually got caught', and that by the group of people (volunteers) the left are blaming for the whole thing.
Also, humans are notoriously self serving. Can ANYone honestly say that out of millions of people doing anything, especially something as passionate as voting, that only 2 people were cheating?
That's a lot of faith in the honesty of people.

I would suggest you read the ruling.

I'm not sure what this has to do with the case at hand. "the left" is not blaming anyone, in fact the person who identified the errors as clerical errors by election officials is the person the state called as a witness to defend the law. ie: conservatives. Additionally, if you read the ruling you will see that large amounts of resources have been put into finding voter fraud.

Finally, conservatives frequently attempt to make the argument into "the left says no voter fraud exists". This is flatly false. What "the left" says is that there is no evidence that voter fraud exists that voter ID laws would prevent. If you're going to commit voter fraud you either find someone to stuff a ballot box or you use absentee ballots. Going to the polls to impersonate someone is about the dumbest and least efficient way of trying to steal an election ever.

With that in mind there's no wonder why in-person voter fraud is so rare. It's an irrational thing to do. If only the people pushing these laws would accept the evidence staring them in the face maybe we could move on to restricting the REAL avenues of voter fraud. Then again, conservatives have never shown any interest in restricting absentee ballots (they believe absentee ballots favor them).

 

[Jhhnn]

So grant an exception for a person that can demonstrate that they initially were legal and now a senior. Issue them an ID.

Pure circular reasoning. In order to prove that they once were legal, they have to prove that they're legal.

Yeh, sure, I know that Righties are on a Faith-based "Moral Crusade!" to have their views prevail, but at some point the rules of egalitarian democracy, common sense & common decency should prevail if they're to claim any morality at all.

 

[Jhhnn]

I'd like to point out that the '2 at max' number of fraud cases would be more accurately described as '2 that actually got caught', and that by the group of people (volunteers) the left are blaming for the whole thing.
Also, humans are notoriously self serving. Can ANYone honestly say that out of millions of people doing anything, especially something as passionate as voting, that only 2 people were cheating?
That's a lot of faith in the honesty of people.

Show us the fraud.

 

[glenn1]

I would suggest you read the ruling.

I'm not sure what this has to do with the case at hand. "the left" is not blaming anyone, in fact the person who identified the errors as clerical errors by election officials is the person the state called as a witness to defend the law. ie: conservatives. Additionally, if you read the ruling you will see that large amounts of resources have been put into finding voter fraud.

Finally, conservatives frequently attempt to make the argument into "the left says no voter fraud exists". This is flatly false. What "the left" says is that there is no evidence that voter fraud exists that voter ID laws would prevent. If you're going to commit voter fraud you either find someone to stuff a ballot box or you use absentee ballots. Going to the polls to impersonate someone is about the dumbest and least efficient way of trying to steal an election ever.

With that in mind there's no wonder why in-person voter fraud is so rare. It's an irrational thing to do. If only the people pushing these laws would accept the evidence staring them in the face maybe we could move on to restricting the REAL avenues of voter fraud. Then again, conservatives have never shown any interest in restricting absentee ballots (they believe absentee ballots favor them).

Let me ask you an honest question then - is there any voting rule whatsoever you would strictly enforce if it meant someone might be disenfranchised?

 

[Jhhnn]

Maybe if there wasn't such gross incompetence in keeping the voter log this would be adequate. But when you have 10,000s of "clerical errors" it is not.

How would matching my signature to the one on my registration card invoke any clerical errors?

Show where in the constitution you have the right to vote without in any way being inconvenienced.

And not throwing away documents proving your identity is a pretty small inconvenience I think.

Yep. Blame the victims of theft, fire, inadvertent loss & fading memory for not being able to comply with new imperiously imposed requirements. Have you no shame?

I shouldn't ask that question- you've already answered it many times.

Show us the fraud. If you can't, it's all just another fear mongering reference to another right wing boogeyman.

 

[fskimospy]

Let me ask you an honest question then - is there any voting rule whatsoever you would strictly enforce if it meant someone might be disenfranchised?

Sure! Considering that the vast majority of voter fraud takes place through absentee ballots it sounds like that would be a good place to start looking at additional restrictions. Wouldn't that make sense?

 

[glenn1]

Sure! Considering that the vast majority of voter fraud takes place through absentee ballots it sounds like that would be a good place to start looking at additional restrictions. Wouldn't that make sense?

Fine, I'm game - name the restrictions you want put in place for absentee voting.

 

[fskimospy]

Fine, I'm game - name the restrictions you want put in place for absentee voting.

I have no idea exactly what restrictions I would put into place, I'd have to research the issue more.

Importantly though, the restrictions I put in place would be based on evidence, something that is sorely lacking in most legislation about voting rights today.

 

[Fern]

Originally Posted by Fern View Post
Those are not facts and nothing was documented.

In the instances of people complaining about duplicative voting all we see is easy dismissal by claiming clerical error. They have done exactly zip in proving clerical error.

What are you talking about? The determination of clerical error leading to a recording of duplicate voting was evidence entered into trial by the assistand district attorney charged with investigating the matter.
-snip-

-snip-

I have looked at the information you suggested (particularly the pages eski mentioned) and still do not see any proof that clerical error was proven.

In case I missed it, and you have seen it, this what I'm looking for (a simple two part exercise):

1st: A description of the voting system and the clerical records kept. We need to know that or we cannot possibly hope to prove or disprove "clerical error".

As an example this is the system we have in NC, at least in my county:

You show up at the polling place and get in line. There are two 'station' you go through to vote.

The first station is long table with poll workers. Each poll worker has a book of registered voters in front of them. However, each worker only has a portion of the register. E.g., the first worker has names from "A" to "G", the next worker has names from "H" to "K" and so on. You go to the appropriate worker and tell them your name. They find it in the register. We do not present our voter registration card or any ID. When the worker finds your name they place a check mark next to it and hand you a ticket. There is no signature, not even initials required.

When you reach the second station you hand the ticket to the worker. They walk you over to the booth and initialize it so you can vote (electric voting machine). When you have completed the ballot the worker comes over and records it. You receive nothing confirming your votes were recorded properly, or that you voted at all. You then leave out the exit.

2nd: Review the above system and clerical records kept to determine what procedures are available to confirm or disprove clerical errors.

My determination is that the system and records are wholly insufficient to prove or disprove whether any clerical errors occurred. There's no way, it's not possible. Hence my refusal to accept such assertions, in particular when they concern my state (as was recently the case). IDK what they do in WI. No description was provided. Accordingly I find no proof, just mere assertions.

Systems are designed with explicit objectives in mind. Or, they should be. Example of objectives include: accuracy, accountability and/or safeguarding of assets. I have no idea who designed our system, I assume a govt worker/politician, but it's clear that they didn't know what they were doing. The above system cannot be reasonably relied upon to achieve any objective that one would associate with voting.

I guess it depends upon how important one thinks elections and voting are. If they're not, then the system is sufficient in your opinion. If they are important then it's clear the system is wholly inadequate.

Fern

 

[shira]

Apparently some racial minorities have no issue with obtaining ID. So clearly obtaining an ID is not racially discriminatory.

Let me paraphrase your astonishingly moronic "reasoning:"

Some minorities weren't targeted by Jim Crow laws in the South. So clearly the Jim Crow laws weren't racially discriminatory.