Voter ID laws are...

[nehalem256]

You would need way, way more than that. What if it's not working? What if some voter is having trouble understanding how to use it?

So stand on the X and look at the box on the wall is hard to understand? You want people that stupid voting why?

You think voting lines are bad now...

As I recall the problem only seems to happen in Democrat areas. Ah. Perhaps that answers the question to why you want those idiots mentioned above voting.

 

[glenn1]

But why bother with that? That's an enormous expense to stop something that nobody is doing anyway.

A leftist complaining about spending money isn't a convincing counter. Would you just prefer to save time and just have a pre-filled straight-line Democratic ballots submitted for anyone who shows up without ID to the polls? Why even bother acting like you care about fraud?

 

[ivwshane]

This is a typical argument with a liberal....

in Post #68, I replied to ivwshane's post about elderly people not having ID's to vote:



This was your reply in Post #69:



In case you cannot put 2 and 2 together here, how do the elderly who have to prove they are eligible to receive Medicare, cannot prove who they are to vote?

If they don't need Medicare, then the excuse of not being able to afford an ID goes out the window...

So what you are saying is that you can't fathom someone who has retired and who already applied many years ago would no longer have the necessary docs, or is your mind so small that you can't imagine there are people who don't collect ss or Medicare?

Again, in the retarded mind of a righty, if they don't have first hand experience then it either doesn't exist or it never happens.

Do you get it now or do I need to reply in pictures.

 

[fskimospy]

A leftist complaining about spending money isn't a convincing counter.

Of course it is. Leftists aren't for spending money just to spend money, we are for spending on things that are constructive. What a ridiculous argument.

Would you just prefer to save time and just have a pre-filled straight-line Democratic ballots submitted for anyone who shows up without ID to the polls? Why even bother acting like you care about fraud?

Things like this make me really question your grip on reality. Lots of people have looked into in-person voter fraud. Basically no evidence of it exists. When people attempt to take this information and decide not to waste public money to stop something that doesn't exist, you freak out.

I don't want to hear you complain about wasteful spending in the future, as clearly you are perfectly fine with wasting money so long as it conforms to your partisan goals.

 

[irishScott]

How much does a retina scan change from say 18 to when they're 55? It's the same or would a voter have to keep getting it updated?

What about absentee voters, how do you handle that problem?

The idea is the scanners would be present at voting locations and would record your current iris that would be then be checked upon entry, ensuring that you couldn't physically vote twice. No ID required.

As for absentees, I think simply making obtaining an absentee ballot harder would do the job. Right now it's about 5x more involved to sign up for a bank account than it is to get an absentee ballot, at least in my state. I'd simply elevate the process to the same difficulty (scans of a social security card, driver's license, other forms of ID etc). Establish a service that will complete the process for those that have legitimate medical conditions preventing their mobility.

 

[ivwshane]

A leftist complaining about spending money isn't a convincing counter. Would you just prefer to save time and just have a pre-filled straight-line Democratic ballots submitted for anyone who shows up without ID to the polls? Why even bother acting like you care about fraud?

And in the mind of a righty only would they complain about one person one vote and ensuring it's validity would disenfranchising millions be ok in order to pass laws that don't address the issue.

 

[irishScott]

I have found your biography.

And I found yours.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_illiteracy

 

[nehalem256]

So what you are saying is that you can't fathom someone who has retired and who already applied many years ago would no longer have the necessary docs, or is your mind so small that you can't imagine there are people who don't collect ss or Medicare?

Again, in the retarded mind of a righty, if they don't have first hand experience then it either doesn't exist or it never happens.

Do you get it now or do I need to reply in pictures.

Retired people are disproportionately white.

Yet liberals are always claiming that voter id discriminates against minority voters.

Please reconcile these 2 claims

 

[irishScott]

And in the mind of a righty only would they complain about one person one vote and ensuring it's validity would disenfranchising millions be ok in order to pass laws that don't address the issue.

Unfortunately laws that would actually address the issue are shouted down as too strict by the left before they can even come to a vote.

So at the end of the day we're discussing pure hypotheticals in this thread.

 

[glenn1]

And in the mind of a righty only would they complain about one person one vote and ensuring it's validity would disenfranchising millions be ok in order to pass laws that don't address the issue.

Again, I don't care about the votes. What I want is anyone who shows up to vote claiming no ID, let them vote but then have any and all government cash and equivalent benefits terminated until they can verify their identity - no welfare, no SS, no nothing. That would make the "voter ID" question entirely moot while fixing a lot of benefits fraud while we're at it.

 

[Zaap]

In case you cannot put 2 and 2 together here, how do the elderly who have to prove they are eligible to receive Medicare, cannot prove who they are to vote?

If they don't need Medicare, then the excuse of not being able to afford an ID goes out the window...

Welcome to the insanity of liberalism. I call it "burning it at both ends" and the left specializes in it. Virtually every liberal "argument" will loop back around until they're burning the other end of it.

 

[spacejamz]

And again, all this trouble and expense for a problem that for all intents and purposes simply does not exist.

Maybe we should do away with security for nuclear power plants since there hasn't been a problem with people trying to sneak into them either...

 

[chucky2]

The idea is the scanners would be present at voting locations and would record your current iris that would be then be checked upon entry, ensuring that you couldn't physically vote twice. No ID required.

That isn't going to completely solve the problem though. For example, what happens to someone who scans in at the entry while waiting in a crowded line, and needs to leave and come back later? You are going to put this system in place and track people who scan in more than one time right? How would that be handled? Would you instead put the scan right at the voting machine so when they sit down at it, they have to scan in? Also does the retina change enough over time to cause re-registering of the retina in the database?

As for absentees, I think simply making obtaining an absentee ballot harder would do the job. Right now it's about 5x more involved to sign up for a bank account than it is to get an absentee ballot, at least in my state. I'd simply elevate the process to the same difficulty (scans of a social security card, driver's license, other forms of ID etc). Establish a service that will complete the process for those that have legitimate medical conditions preventing their mobility.

Never had to vote absentee so not really sure how secure it is. It would seem to me the problem with absentee ballot is there is no security on who filled out that ballot and if it legitly was requested. Sure would be nice if we could have a secure online voting system setup somehow...

 

[Atreus21]

No, at least none that I'm aware of. (there might be some states with stronger voter ID laws that require this now) Generally you're required to supply proof of residency and social security number as to the best of my knowledge.

Quite simply, how do you know the person voting is who they say the are?

 

[ivwshane]

Retired people are disproportionately white.

Yet liberals are always claiming that voter id discriminates against minority voters.

Please reconcile these 2 claims

You pulled both out of your ass, like most things you post here.

 

[ivwshane]

Unfortunately laws that would actually address the issue are shouted down as too strict by the left before they can even come to a vote.

So at the end of the day we're discussing pure hypotheticals in this thread.

Lol! No you are talking about hypotheticals, I'm talking about reality, you know the bills they have already attempted to pass.

 

[glenn1]

Quite simply, how do you know the person voting is who they say the are?

That's not really a question they care about.

 

[Moonbeam]

Specifics? Because we have shuttle bus services that drive people to the polls. Why not shuttle bus services that drive people to get IDs?

I hold others to a tiny fraction of my standards in this regard. I know a guy who works as a delivery driver, making just a little over minimum wage, is an obese diabetic, has back problems that requires hardcore painkillers and is immobile without them. He volunteered to help my GF and I move in one of our mutual friends two days ago, and did so quite successfully. Granted he avoided the heaviest lifting, but his opportunities and resources are a small fraction of mine (which are middle class at best) and I'm positive he had $20 to spare (because we went out for drinks/arcade games afterward) and was mobile enough to get an ID if he needed to.

But hell, since you're so scared let's make it generational. Starting this year, everyone turning 18 has to get an ID. Everyone over 18 is grandfathered in. Sound good?

What you call scared, I call compassion for others given modest assumptions as to my capacity to really know all the problems folk who have voted before might have to deal with as Republicans under the pretense that voter fraud is occurring, without any evidence that it is, scurry about trying to implement new restrictive measures. They never have any problems with more government regulations, something they claim to detest, when it serves to limit democracy. But you go ahead and blind yourself with the thought that what you're really about is preventing cheating and that liberals want to encourage it. I think anybody with an ounce of intellect can see from the boberfett blooper how likely widespread fraud would be, as likely as screaming to get healthcare. I don't know how you folk can be so transparent and also be and think yourselves opaque.

 

[GaiaHunter]

Last time I checked most of democratic Europe require some kind of ID card as proof of ID when voting (not the UK, which don't have a national ID card) and the world hasn't ended in here.

Compared to the US major parties, even the EU right-wing parties are probably more leftist than the US democratic party in many subjects.

 

[fskimospy]

Quite simply, how do you know the person voting is who they say the are?

Math, as covered in other threads.

Someday people are going to have to accept this simple reality.

 

[MetalMat]

I have no issue with voter ID laws. It's like 5 dollars for a state ID card that does not expire for a long time. You mean to tell me that even the brokest of broke can't afford that? It's not like we are some 3rd world country where the average person lives off a dollar a month.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

I have no issue with voter ID laws. It's like 5 dollars for a state ID card that does not expire for a long time. You mean to tell me that even the brokest of broke can't afford that? It's not like we are some 3rd world country where the average person lives off a dollar a month.

My state has one of the voter ID laws deemed constitutional, where IDs are given out for free to those who can't afford them.

 

[fskimospy]

I have no issue with voter ID laws. It's like 5 dollars for a state ID card that does not expire for a long time. You mean to tell me that even the brokest of broke can't afford that? It's not like we are some 3rd world country where the average person lives off a dollar a month.

So even though every bit of research into the issue shows no evidence for in-person voting fraud happening, which renders the requirement for voter id completely and utterly pointless, you're okay with it because you think that complying with the pointless requirement is cheap?

While complying with the requirement isn't actually always easy or cheap, that argument to me doesn't even matter. Once you realize that it is pointless, ANY cost is too much, because you're literally just wasting everyone's time and money.

 

[glenn1]

So even though every bit of research into the issue shows no evidence for in-person voting fraud happening, which renders the requirement for voter id completely and utterly pointless, you're okay with it because you think that complying with the pointless requirement is cheap?

While complying with the requirement isn't actually always easy or cheap, that argument to me doesn't even matter. Once you realize that it is pointless, ANY cost is too much, because you're literally just wasting everyone's time and money.

So your argument is basically "I think it's pointless so let's not do it" even though it has overwhelming support from voters, not to mention your side has proved time and again that you full support pointless and costly laws. Although if you're willing to commit to laws only being passed (or not repealed) on a strict cost/benefit basis I'm all for it since it will elminate the bulk of your platform.

 

[fskimospy]

So your argument is basically "I think it's pointless so let's not do it" even though it has overwhelming support from voters, not to mention your side has proved time and again that you full support pointless and costly laws. Although if you're willing to commit to laws only being passed (or not repealed) on a strict cost/benefit basis I'm all for it since it will elminate the bulk of your platform.

No, I'm saying we shouldn't do it because not only is there no evidence for in-person voter fraud being a problem, the evidence actively points to it not being a problem. Arguments for voter ID are basically "we should have it because my gut says we should have it". That's irrational.

As for passing or not passing laws based on a cost/benefit basis I would LOVE it if conservatives committed to that. I don't think you realize how much of your platform is based on heavily discredited ideas about how economics works. If you're actually willing to make policy solely on empirical evidence we would end up with vastly increased federal spending right now, universal health care with a federalized single payer, higher taxes on wealthy people, etc, etc. Let's do this!! I'm so excited.