Voter fraud is the biggest lie of 2012

[Oldgamer]

Why? Why should anyone be forced to spend any time or effort whatsoever jumping through hoops for a corrupt law that has no material impact on reducing vote fraud? The real purpose of these laws is disenfranchising the elderly, minorities, and students. They fail to materially serve any legitimate purpose. The proper response to such laws is to strike them down, not to appease.

....and this too, because it really is a sham and a lie about voter fraud to begin with. We all know it.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

PA had 8 months to get the documents. The state also had that same time to prepare.
Documents required to prove legal residence - the Federal government has such a list - how hard is it to find it?

both sides ignored the situation until the last moment.

Granted there will always be exceptions; instead of fighting the issue; the advocates should have spent the time/effort helping those that needed help.

8 months sounds like a lot of time. But it's not always. There are many examples again in PA of people who did not have birth certificates and who couldn't obtain one. People who were born by midwives whose births were never registered. As a result they couldn't get an ID to vote.

These were typically blacks born in the rural south over 60-70 years ago. Nothing they do can get them a birth certificate as the states simply don't have a birth record. People who voted for the last god knows how many years now can't.

Some examples at the link below.

http://www.lawyerscommittee.org/page?id=0046

 

[EagleKeeper]

8 months sounds like a lot of time. But it's not always. There are many examples again in PA of people who did not have birth certificates and who couldn't obtain one. People who were born by midwives whose births were never registered. As a result they couldn't get an ID to vote.

These were typically blacks born in the rural south over 60-70 years ago. Nothing they do can get them a birth certificate as the states simply don't have a birth record. People who voted for the last god knows how many years now can't.

Some examples at the link below.

http://www.lawyerscommittee.org/page?id=0046

These must be the same people that do not have a license to drive, do not have a job or receive any government benefits. Or they committed fraud when they signed legal documents

All three the areas above require some proof of of who you are.
They voted based on someone never choosing to verify/validate info.

Skated for 50+ years and now feel they should be grandfathered in.

 

[JEDIYoda]

8 months sounds like a lot of time. But it's not always. There are many examples again in PA of people who did not have birth certificates and who couldn't obtain one. People who were born by midwives whose births were never registered. As a result they couldn't get an ID to vote.

These were typically blacks born in the rural south over 60-70 years ago. Nothing they do can get them a birth certificate as the states simply don't have a birth record. People who voted for the last god knows how many years now can't.

Some examples at the link below.

http://www.lawyerscommittee.org/page?id=0046

....hmmmmm

 

[Bowfinger]

These must be the same people that do not have a license to drive, do not have a job or receive any government benefits. Or they committed fraud when they signed legal documents

All three the areas above require some proof of of who you are.
They voted based on someone never choosing to verify/validate info.

Skated for 50+ years and now feel they should be grandfathered in.

This has been refuted again and again. You do not always have to have a state-issued ID to receive government benefits; much of this is now handled over the phone or even online. Further, there are many cases (like my mother) who once had a valid state-issued ID, but it expired because she retired and no longer drives. Stop trying to fit other Americans into your simplistic mold of life based on your own narrow range of experiences. America is a diverse place.

I would appreciate a response to my earlier challenge. Why should people jump through any extra hoops for a law that fails to materially address any legitimate purpose?

 

[glenn1]

I agree with you on that. People who don't have State ID like a standard drivers license could be given "free of charge" if they show that they are in need of it especially for voting purposes a state issued ID. The problem is in most states like where I live, you have to come up with your birth certificate, in most cases a lot of elderly may not even have that, so they have to pay to get a certified copy from the office of vital records which in most cases costs up to 26 dollars. In addition to that there is transportation involved to go to the local DL or office designated to give that birth certificate, then another nominal fee to get their ID, and then time in the process. In other words if we simplified this process, and made this a free process for those who need the ID but cannot afford to do this, we should in fact provide it. We should also make it easy, and fast for these folks.

But since that is not what most republicans want, they will not want these things to happen, because what they really want is to create undo hardship and a "poll tax" in the form of requiring ID of those who never had to use a state issued ID before, and used their SS cards. In a nutshell discouraging valid voters.. and disenfranchising them.

You do see, however, that people not having a photo ID is a problem in itself, beyond simple concerns with voting, that's worthy of a political solution? Regardless of the GOP intentions, Democrats should see this as a gift in disguise that presents them a natural opening to fix the underlying problem rather than a symptom. It seems to me that would not only be the most moral approach, but pay political dividends with voters as well to see you offering a true and comprehensive solution rather than just a band-aid defense against the political opportunism of the other side.

 

[Bowfinger]

You do see, however, that people not having a photo ID is a problem in itself, beyond simple concerns with voting, that's worthy of a political solution? Regardless of the GOP intentions, Democrats should see this as a gift in disguise that presents them a natural opening to fix the underlying problem rather than a symptom. It seems to me that would not only be the most moral approach, but pay political dividends with voters as well to see you offering a true and comprehensive solution rather than just a band-aid defense against the political opportunism of the other side.

Why is not having a state-issued ID a problem? Millions of American adults thrive just fine without them.

 

[ivwshane]

did you conveniently overlook the following words within his post

No. I was responding to his statements he made latter in his post, did you conveniently overlook that?

 

[cybrsage]

8 months sounds like a lot of time. But it's not always. There are many examples again in PA of people who did not have birth certificates and who couldn't obtain one.

If you do not have a birth certificate, you simply have them issue a form saying it cannot be found. That then counts as a birth certificate for legal issues.

EDIT: I would not use that site you linked to as a good source of info - they are purposefully not giving you all the info.

 

[ivwshane]

The law in Texas, which would have given FREE voter IDs, was struck down because DOJ decided it disproportionately affected Hispanics. I have suggested sending a "mobile ID station" around to give people IDs for free at their homes. What objection do you have to that?

Do you know why the DOJ was involved? Because Texas is one of those states that have a history of voter descrimination and is now subject to the provisions of the voter rights act.

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/...d-law-republican-controlled-texas-legislature

A mobile ID station? As in one of them? Who will be operating them? Who will pay for these stations?

And lastly how would the law have prevented the most common type of voter fraud, absentee ballot fraud?

So it appears you are ok with government waste and laws that don't fix a problem that hardly even exists in the first place.

How much work are you willing to do to fix a problem that hasn't been an issue for the last 200+ years?

 

[cybrsage]

Hopefully that idiotic "fed gov controls some states" law will be tossed out soon. The SCOTUS appears to find it stupid.

 

[trenchfoot]

All one needs to mention is that only Repub controlled state legislatures are pushing for "voter ID laws".

Gee, I wonder why? <----And yes, it's a rhetorical question.

 

[EagleKeeper]

This has been refuted again and again. You do not always have to have a state-issued ID to receive government benefits; much of this is now handled over the phone or even online. Further, there are many cases (like my mother) who once had a valid state-issued ID, but it expired because she retired and no longer drives. Stop trying to fit other Americans into your simplistic mold of life based on your own narrow range of experiences. America is a diverse place.

I would appreciate a response to my earlier challenge. Why should people jump through any extra hoops for a law that fails to materially address any legitimate purpose?

1) So you are saying that one can sign up for government aid without any proof as to who you are and get help/payments. Or one can start the process, but eventually have to provide some proof.
Federal: I could find out anyone that is over 62 and sign up for SS under their name, even while they are working and get their checks mailed or direct deposit to a bank account and/or debit card?
State: I can file for Medicaid over the phone; pretend I have a child and meet all the qualifications. Generate a false ID # and again start getting support without anyone verifying that I am who is claimed on the application.

Try either one and see the results. It will fail at some point in the system.


2) If she had the ID, then she had to have had access to the documents needed to verify who she was.


3) People do not need to jump through the hoops; they can choose to to ensure the validity of the system. As long as fraud can be perpetuated and is being done that way and there exiss a simplistic way to prevent it; then do so.

 

[Brainonska511]

3) People do not need to jump through the hoops; they can choose to to ensure the validity of the system. As long as fraud can be perpetuated and is being done that way and there exiss a simplistic way to prevent it; then do so.

Watch out, Dr. Evil is going to steal the election with an overly elaborate, easily foiled plan involving in-person voter fraud.

 

[Bowfinger]

1) So you are saying that one can sign up for government aid without any proof as to who you are and get help/payments. Or one can start the process, but eventually have to provide some proof.
Federal: I could find out anyone that is over 62 and sign up for SS under their name, even while they are working and get their checks mailed or direct deposit to a bank account and/or debit card?
State: I can file for Medicaid over the phone; pretend I have a child and meet all the qualifications. Generate a false ID # and again start getting support without anyone verifying that I am who is claimed on the application.

Try either one and see the results. It will fail at some point in the system.

You assumptions about how it must work are irrelevant. There are many different ways for one to identify oneself besides a state-issued ID.

2) If she had the ID, then she had to have had access to the documents needed to verify who she was.

Key word: HAD (past tense). Millions of elderly are in the same boat.

3) People do not need to jump through the hoops; they can choose to to ensure the validity of the system. As long as fraud can be perpetuated and is being done that way and there exiss a simplistic way to prevent it; then do so.

As I pointed out (and has been pointed out endlessly before) photo voter IDs prevent virtually nothing. It's a straw man argument. Scratch that, it's not even an argument, it's a diversion. Pretending photo IDs are materially effective is disingenuous.

 

[cybrsage]

All one needs to mention is that only Repub controlled state legislatures are pushing for "voter ID laws".

Gee, I wonder why? <----And yes, it's a rhetorical question.

Because the dem controlled ones are happy to keep the dead and illegals voting?

 

[cybrsage]

As I pointed out (and has been pointed out endlessly before) photo voter IDs prevent virtually nothing. It's a straw man argument. Scratch that, it's not even an argument, it's a diversion. Pretending photo IDs are materially effective is disingenuous.

What is your solution to ensuring the legal voting age of the state is not being violated? We require state issued IDs in order to prove we are old enough to buy liquor, why are you against requiring them to prove we are old enough to vote?

 

[Paratus]

Because the dem controlled ones are happy to keep the dead and illegals voting?

Please prove this or stop lying.

 

[trenchfoot]

Because the dem controlled ones are happy to keep the dead and illegals voting?

lol OK, I admit it was a baited rhetorical question aching for an answer that was difficult to buttress with facts because they would inherently conflict with your "feelings". But, seeing as if you bit.......

You can do better. I've seen you do better. I know you can do better than that kneejerk ideologically biased fart of a retort you came up with.

Meh, don't mind me, I'm feeling a bit fiesty because I just found out I have to pay thousands of $$$ in extra room and board because my daughter has to stay in college an extra four months to finish up her master's dissertation.D:

 

[cybrsage]

Please prove this or stop lying.

In many states, it is illegal to ask people to prove who they are. It is therefor nearly impossible to prove they are not who say they are.

 

[cybrsage]

lol OK, I admit it was a baited rhetorical question aching for an answer that was difficult to buttress with facts because they would inherently conflict with your "feelings". But, seeing as if you bit.......

You can do better. I've seen you do better. I know you can do better than that kneejerk ideologically biased fart of a retort you came up with.

Meh, don't mind me, I'm feeling a bit fiesty because I just found out I have to pay thousands of $$$ in extra room and board because my daughter has to stay in college an extra four months to finish up her master's dissertation.D:

It was just a bit of fun. Basically, I replied as I did to simply continue your bait. Paratus bit. Now I wonder if he will continue it onward too.

Just got back from getting my concealed carry permit, am a happy camper. Sorry about all the extra costs, that really blows.

 

[Paratus]

In many states, it is illegal to ask people to prove who they are. It is therefor nearly impossible to prove they are not who say they are.

Please provide the states that it is illegal to ask someone prove who they are.

 

[thraashman]

Please prove this or stop lying.

You realize who you're talking to right? I'm fairly sure that he's lied in 12,767 posts since he joined these forums.

 

[Bowfinger]

You realize who you're talking to right? I'm fairly sure that he's lied in 12,767 posts since he joined these forums.

That's a quite conservative estimate, presuming only one lie per post. Seems unlikely.

 

[Paratus]

You realize who you're talking to right? I'm fairly sure that he's lied in 12,767 posts since he joined these forums.

I know. Just testing the depths of his trolling. He's got nothing.