Can one of the loony libs who posted in this thread explain how to show in person voter fraud is happening when there is no reliable way to verify the person voting is who he says he is?
Why would it be under one name??? How do you prove that someone didn't register and vote as their neighbor or someone else?
"Jaywalking" is an offense in most areas of the country. Can anybody tell me how many cases of jaywalking there are every year? No? I guess nobody ever jaywalks.
"Jaywalking" is an offense in most areas of the country. Can anybody tell me how many cases of jaywalking there are every year? No? I guess nobody ever jaywalks.
Desperate false equivalency.
The Bush Admin & Repub state govts went nuts trying to find examples of voter fraud to prosecute, and came up with zip, zero, nada, nothing. If the authorities pursued jaywalkers the same way, millions would have been ticketed.
I provided an example of voter fraud on the first page.
Unfortunately it is impossible to prove whether someone borrowed the identity of an immigrant and used it to vote illegally, or if the immigrant themselves voted illegally.
And therefore no prosecution can occur. But either way we know voter fraud occurred.
Negative. All we know is that the accusation of voter fraud occurred.
Show me convictions, and show me how a potential problem with .000009% of registered Florida voters is sufficient cause to deliberately disenfranchise hundreds of thousands more.
You provided an example of voter registration fraud, not in person voter fraud.I provided an example of voter fraud on the first page.
Unfortunately it is impossible to prove whether someone borrowed the identity of an immigrant and used it to vote illegally, or if the immigrant themselves voted illegally.
And therefore no prosecution can occur. But either way we know voter fraud occurred.
You provided an example of voter registration fraud, not in person voter fraud.
Naples resident Yvonne Wigglesworth is also a not a citizen, but is registered to vote. She claims she doesn't know how she got registered.
"I have no idea. I mean, how am I supposed to know."
Records show Wigglesworth voted six times in elections dating back eleven years.
Please explain how in person voter fraud did not occur?
Ever consider she might be lying to avoid prosecution herself?
So either
Someone voted using her identity, which would be in person voter fraud.
or
She voted while not a citizen, which would be in person voter fraud.
If photo id was required we would be able to prosecute the 2nd case, since we would have evidence it was actually her that voted.
Or the voting records used are unreliable. Or it's a different kind of election fraud entirely, like stuffing ballot boxes with dead people's votes.
And how exactly would you prosecute voter fraud if the the voting records are unreliable?
So people have to actually go do something...much like they would do to get a photo ID.
Why are you for voter suppression? Why do you want to disenfranchise the people who cannot easily get to a store, are not in college (not everyone is rich and can go) or in high school (why do you hate drop outs?).
The logic is the same. If getting a photo ID is disenfranchisement because you have to actually do something to get it, then voter registration is also disenfranchisement since you have to do something to get it.
You cannot support one and not the other without being a hypocrit.
I provided an example of voter fraud on the first page.
Unfortunately it is impossible to prove whether someone borrowed the identity of an immigrant and used it to vote illegally, or if the immigrant themselves voted illegally.
And therefore no prosecution can occur. But either way we know voter fraud occurred.
Among the many poorly researched articles that have written about voter-ID laws, one piece that appeared recently in Politico holds a special place.
Reporter Emily Schultheis opens with the claim that “at least 5 million voters, predominantly young and from minority groups sympathetic to President Barack Obama, could be affected by an unprecedented flurry of new legislation by Republican governors and GOP-led legislatures to change or restrict voting rights by Election Day 2012.”
Schultheis doesn’t say where she got the estimate of 5 million until well into the article — it’s from a Brennan Center report. And she fails to disclose the radical, left-wing nature of the Brennan Center or the fact that it is an advocacy organization that is litigating against voter ID.
As I have pointed out previously, that 5 million figure is completely speculative and not based on any substantive evidence. In fact, the experience of states such as Georgia and Indiana, whose voter-ID laws have been in place for years, as well as reputable surveys conducted by academic institutions such as American University, consistently show that the share of registered voters who don’t have a photo ID is less than 1 percent. This is a far cry from the high numbers the Brennan Center has been claiming since 2006.
Every state that has implemented a voter-ID law has also made free IDs available to voters who don’t have them. One might wonder how in the world 5 million people are going to be prevented from voting — and why so few people are receiving free IDs.
For instance, Kansas has a new voter-ID law. Through May of this year, only 32 out of 1.7 million registered voters have applied for a free photo ID because they didn’t already have one. In most of the six years that Georgia has had a voter-ID law in place, fewer than 0.05 percent of the state’s 6 million registered voters have received free IDs.
Schultheis also says, as if it is a proven fact, that these “laws tend to disproportionately affect young voters and minorities.” Really? Based on what evidence? Another Brennan Center study? The actual turnout of Democratic and minority voters went up, not down, in Georgia and Indiana after their voter-ID laws went into effect, and those increases were larger than in many states without voter-ID laws.
Furthermore, in lawsuits filed by liberal groups against both states, none of the plaintiffs, including organizations such as the NAACP and the ACLU, could come up with a single witness who was unable to vote because of the voter-ID laws. That is why their cases were eventually thrown out and the Supreme Court upheld the Indiana statute.
The idea that large numbers of “young people” lack photo ID is just ridiculous. Teenagers can’t wait to get their driver’s licenses, and college IDs are acceptable under the voter-ID laws of most states. One of the only exceptions to this is Texas, but that’s because Texas allows illegal aliens to attend its state universities: To accept college IDs would be to allow noncitizens to vote. The only “young person” that the Department of Justice could find for the recent trial over the Texas voter-ID law was an 18-year-old who claimed she didn’t have a car and her parents didn’t have time to take her to get an ID. How she would get to the voting booth even with a photo ID was left a mystery.
The idea put forward in the Politico article, that these laws were passed to hurt Barack Obama’s reelection prospects, is absurd and historically ignorant. States such as Georgia, Indiana, and Arizona passed their laws during the Bush administration. Obama won Indiana in 2008, when the ID law (which the Supreme Court called the strictest in the nation) was in effect for the first time in a presidential election.
Texas had been debating and trying to pass an ID law for years. The subject of a book, by a liberal historian, called “What’s the Matter with Kansas?” doesn’t need to pass a voter-ID law to ensure Republican victories — and a majority of Democrats in the Kansas legislature supported the voter-ID bill. Schultheis fails to mention that Rhode Island, which also passed a voter-ID law, is an overwhelmingly Democratic state. The chief sponsor of that bill was an African-American Democratic state senator who was concerned about the voter fraud he had seen in that state. He scoffed at the idea that black Rhode Islanders did not have IDs or could not obtain a free ID for voting.
Thus, there is no evidence to support the claim, as expressed in the title of the article, that “Voter ID Laws Could Swing States” — unless what is meant is that these laws could prevent the casting of fraudulent votes that could steal an election. Voter ID is a commonsense reform intended to protect the integrity of the election process for all candidates, whether they are Democrats, Republicans, or members of third parties.
Good article from NR today:
Among the many poorly researched articles that have written about voter-ID laws, one piece that appeared recently in Politico holds a special place.
Reporter Emily Schultheis opens with the claim that at least 5 million voters, predominantly young and from minority groups sympathetic to President Barack Obama, could be affected by an unprecedented flurry of new legislation by Republican governors and GOP-led legislatures to change or restrict voting rights by Election Day 2012.
Schultheis doesnt say where she got the estimate of 5 million until well into the article its from a Brennan Center report. And she fails to disclose the radical, left-wing nature of the Brennan Center or the fact that it is an advocacy organization that is litigating against voter ID.
As I have pointed out previously, that 5 million figure is completely speculative and not based on any substantive evidence. In fact, the experience of states such as Georgia and Indiana, whose voter-ID laws have been in place for years, as well as reputable surveys conducted by academic institutions such as American University, consistently show that the share of registered voters who dont have a photo ID is less than 1 percent. This is a far cry from the high numbers the Brennan Center has been claiming since 2006.
Every state that has implemented a voter-ID law has also made free IDs available to voters who dont have them. One might wonder how in the world 5 million people are going to be prevented from voting and why so few people are receiving free IDs.
For instance, Kansas has a new voter-ID law. Through May of this year, only 32 out of 1.7 million registered voters have applied for a free photo ID because they didnt already have one. In most of the six years that Georgia has had a voter-ID law in place, fewer than 0.05 percent of the states 6 million registered voters have received free IDs.
Schultheis also says, as if it is a proven fact, that these laws tend to disproportionately affect young voters and minorities. Really? Based on what evidence? Another Brennan Center study? The actual turnout of Democratic and minority voters went up, not down, in Georgia and Indiana after their voter-ID laws went into effect, and those increases were larger than in many states without voter-ID laws.
Furthermore, in lawsuits filed by liberal groups against both states, none of the plaintiffs, including organizations such as the NAACP and the ACLU, could come up with a single witness who was unable to vote because of the voter-ID laws. That is why their cases were eventually thrown out and the Supreme Court upheld the Indiana statute.
The idea that large numbers of young people lack photo ID is just ridiculous. Teenagers cant wait to get their drivers licenses, and college IDs are acceptable under the voter-ID laws of most states. One of the only exceptions to this is Texas, but thats because Texas allows illegal aliens to attend its state universities: To accept college IDs would be to allow noncitizens to vote. The only young person that the Department of Justice could find for the recent trial over the Texas voter-ID law was an 18-year-old who claimed she didnt have a car and her parents didnt have time to take her to get an ID. How she would get to the voting booth even with a photo ID was left a mystery.
The idea put forward in the Politico article, that these laws were passed to hurt Barack Obamas reelection prospects, is absurd and historically ignorant. States such as Georgia, Indiana, and Arizona passed their laws during the Bush administration. Obama won Indiana in 2008, when the ID law (which the Supreme Court called the strictest in the nation) was in effect for the first time in a presidential election.
Texas had been debating and trying to pass an ID law for years. The subject of a book, by a liberal historian, called Whats the Matter with Kansas? doesnt need to pass a voter-ID law to ensure Republican victories and a majority of Democrats in the Kansas legislature supported the voter-ID bill. Schultheis fails to mention that Rhode Island, which also passed a voter-ID law, is an overwhelmingly Democratic state. The chief sponsor of that bill was an African-American Democratic state senator who was concerned about the voter fraud he had seen in that state. He scoffed at the idea that black Rhode Islanders did not have IDs or could not obtain a free ID for voting.
Thus, there is no evidence to support the claim, as expressed in the title of the article, that Voter ID Laws Could Swing States unless what is meant is that these laws could prevent the casting of fraudulent votes that could steal an election. Voter ID is a commonsense reform intended to protect the integrity of the election process for all candidates, whether they are Democrats, Republicans, or members of third parties.
Desperate false equivalency.
The Bush Admin & Repub state govts went nuts trying to find examples of voter fraud to prosecute, and came up with zip, zero, nada, nothing. If the authorities pursued jaywalkers the same way, millions would have been ticketed.
Voter Fraud!
http://doonesbury.slate.com/
Of course, the source will be attacked, so I augmented with a number of corroborating links:
The Voter ID laws are a response to a problem that doesn't really exist. They are a partisan political attempt at voter suppression.
Good article from NR today:
No, it's not. Neither are recorded. People jaywalk *ALL THE TIME*, yet I'd net you could find record of very few instances. By your ignorant "logic", jaywalking never happens - after all, how do you find out about it after the fact?
How in the world would you pursue jaywalking *after it occurred*? It's like pursing kids using faked IDs *months after they bought beer*.
You just discredit yourself with your blatant attempts to try to convince everybody there is a definitive answer, when there obviously isn't.