New G.O.P. Bid to Limit Voting in Swing States - Page 6 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

John Galt · #76 03-31-2014, 12:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

... most of us who think there is a problem with voter fraud would be just as outraged by the turning away of eligible voters.

If they can't provide proof of eligibility, then they're not eligible. What's so difficult to understand?

Jorn · #77 03-31-2014, 12:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Galt

If they can't provide proof of eligibility, then they're not eligible. What's so difficult to understand?

It all depends who decides who's eligible and who's not.

John Galt · #78 03-31-2014, 12:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jorn

It all depends who decides who's eligible and who's not.

There are no laws to govern that where you live?

In Canada it's quite simple. You must be a citizen and you must prove residency in the riding where you vote.

Air&Road · #79 03-31-2014, 02:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Honus

So, in your opinion, an election in which there might be fraudulent voters is somehow worse than an election in which eligible voters are turned away?

That's not a surprising statement coming from a lawyer, sort of a "when did you stop beating your wife?" kind of question.

There is no reason at all that you can't eliminate fraudulent voters AND not turn away eligible voters. In this day and age I find it difficult to believe that there are many folks with no ID of any kind. For those who don't, it's very simple to get one.

Not long ago I remember some big city that was honoring photo ID cards from the library. In Texas, non drivers can get a photo ID at the drivers license office for a very small fee.

Texas was criticized recently for requiring photo ID, but Texas takes other efforts to help people vote. Early voting starts several weeks before Election Day and is very convenient.

Responsible citizens should help the elderly, the handicapped and others to see that they have transportation or other help as necessary to ensure that people can get where they need to go for their ID, AND to the polls.

My Mom is in an assisted living facility. Not long ago, everyone was asked if they needed to go get a photo ID so they would be able to vote, but there were no takers due to everyone saying that they already have one. When election comes along they will take those who wish to vote to the polls.

This is how it should work for all shut ins and others. In today's world of requiring ID for so many different things from getting food stamps to cashing a check, if someone doesn't have an ID they probably are so irresponsible they don't even want to vote, but if they do, AND they are eligible to vote, the privilege of voting should be well worth whatever minor inconvenience might be necessary.

Of course with the attitude held by many people, they think it is the governments responsibility to do EVERYTHING for them. With this attitude, people must think that the government is supposed to send a free taxi to take them for their ID, and then send another one for them on Election Day. Voting is a privilege we have. It's only fair to ask folks to meet halfway and put just a little bit of effort into it.

Are the democrats afraid of an honest and legitimate election?

John Galt · #80 03-31-2014, 06:04 AM

Quote:

Are the democrats afraid of an honest and legitimate election?

It certainly appears that way. In the last election there were many cases of fraudulent voting in precincts where 110% of the registered voters all voted for the same person. The Democrats know they haven't got a chance of doing that again if ID is required to vote, so of course they're opposed to any election reform.

t walgamuth · #81 03-31-2014, 06:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Galt

It certainly appears that way. In the last election there were many cases of fraudulent voting in precincts where 110% of the registered voters all voted for the same person. The Democrats know they haven't got a chance of doing that again if ID is required to vote, so of course they're opposed to any election reform.

Please give an example of one....with proof.

Botnst · #82 03-31-2014, 07:43 AM

This administration can't find voter intimidation or election fraud. It can find reason to interject the central government into local elections.

There used to be a drive-thru package liquor store where I grew up. If you could drive they'd sell you beer or wine but not hard liquor. For hard liquor they'd check ID.

I never heard of them getting busted for selling beer or wine to under-aged drinkers, therefore it never happened.

cmbdiesel · #83 03-31-2014, 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

Does it have to be either-or?

No

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

I think your statement is an over-statement of what anyone here wants.

Hardly. It is the position which sees undeniable disenfranchisement as a worse situation than unproven voter fraud.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

I think most of us who think there is a problem with voter fraud would be just as outraged by the turning away of eligible voters.

If only that were the case. If what you say is true, then why do all the statistics show that the majority of Voter ID laws being put forth will prevent more legitimate voters from participating in the process than they will prevent fraudulent votes?
As far as I can tell, it mostly is a partisan divide. Many people on the right refuse to see how the laws they favor will negatively impact the poor and underprivileged who vote on the left, and many on the left refuse to accept that sensible measures should be taken to combat voter fraud, even if the only real outcome is to increase voter faith in the system.

Botnst · #84 03-31-2014, 08:10 AM

How do you know that those alleging disenfranchisement were qualified voters ... check their ID's?

cmbdiesel · #85 03-31-2014, 08:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatterasguy

In CT they check my license and look me up on there list and cross me off by name and address.

CT allows the use of utility bills, bank statements, gov't check, paycheck, or other gov't document which shows your name and address.
Of course, you can show an ID instead of any of those documents, and usually that is what they ask for first.

http://www.ct.gov/sots/LIB/sots/ElectionServices/HAVA/HavaPDF/IDRequirements.pdf

Voter Identification Requirements

cmbdiesel · #86 03-31-2014, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Air&Road

That's not a surprising statement coming from a lawyer, sort of a "when did you stop beating your wife?" kind of question.

There is no reason at all that you can't eliminate fraudulent voters AND not turn away eligible voters. In this day and age I find it difficult to believe that there are many folks with no ID of any kind. For those who don't, it's very simple to get one.

Not long ago I remember some big city that was honoring photo ID cards from the library. In Texas, non drivers can get a photo ID at the drivers license office for a very small fee.

Texas was criticized recently for requiring photo ID, but Texas takes other efforts to help people vote. Early voting starts several weeks before Election Day and is very convenient.

Responsible citizens should help the elderly, the handicapped and others to see that they have transportation or other help as necessary to ensure that people can get where they need to go for their ID, AND to the polls.

My Mom is in an assisted living facility. Not long ago, everyone was asked if they needed to go get a photo ID so they would be able to vote, but there were no takers due to everyone saying that they already have one. When election comes along they will take those who wish to vote to the polls.

This is how it should work for all shut ins and others. In today's world of requiring ID for so many different things from getting food stamps to cashing a check, if someone doesn't have an ID they probably are so irresponsible they don't even want to vote, but if they do, AND they are eligible to vote, the privilege of voting should be well worth whatever minor inconvenience might be necessary.

Of course with the attitude held by many people, they think it is the governments responsibility to do EVERYTHING for them. With this attitude, people must think that the government is supposed to send a free taxi to take them for their ID, and then send another one for them on Election Day. Voting is a privilege we have. It's only fair to ask folks to meet halfway and put just a little bit of effort into it.

Are the democrats afraid of an honest and legitimate election?

So, what about the laws enacted by R legislatures which limit early voting?
Do you think that has anything to do with the fact that a majority of early voters are D...??
Why are these laws being put forth with voter ID laws?

How about Texas redrawing districts to eliminate districts in heavily minority areas and replacing them with at-large seats?
Is that kind of gerrymandering part of voter ID and essential to eliminating fraudulent voters?

How about the voter ID laws which require a birth certificate or passport?
Is that a fair requirement?

Are the R's so afraid of the minority vote, the student vote and the poor vote that they feel the best course of action is to pass laws which place hurdles between those groups and their right to vote?

Election officials report benefits of early voting that GOP lawmakers aim to limit | World news | theguardian.com

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/30/us/new-gop-bid-to-limit-voting-in-swing-states.html?_r=0

Voter Suppression Backfires in North Carolina, Spreads in Texas | Blog, News & Notes | BillMoyers.com

cmbdiesel · #87 03-31-2014, 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Galt

It certainly appears that way. In the last election there were many cases of fraudulent voting in precincts where 110% of the registered voters all voted for the same person. The Democrats know they haven't got a chance of doing that again if ID is required to vote, so of course they're opposed to any election reform.

Proof?

MS Fowler · #88 03-31-2014, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmbdiesel

No

Hardly. It is the position which sees undeniable disenfranchisement as a worse situation than unproven voter fraud.

If only that were the case. If what you say is true, then why do all the statistics show that the majority of Voter ID laws being put forth will prevent more legitimate voters from participating in the process than they will prevent fraudulent votes?
As far as I can tell, it mostly is a partisan divide. Many people on the right refuse to see how the laws they favor will negatively impact the poor and underprivileged who vote on the left, and many on the left refuse to accept that sensible measures should be taken to combat voter fraud, even if the only real outcome is to increase voter faith in the system.

I fully agree with your last paragraph.
As for your use of "statistics"--who made those studies? Are they completely objective, or were they produced by a consultant to show a certain result?

cmbdiesel · #89 03-31-2014, 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

How do you know that those alleging disenfranchisement were qualified voters ... check their ID's?

To start with, I feel that disenfranchisement is not the correct word for much of the fallout from these laws. It sounds good, has a lot of syllables and probably is a word unknown to many who haven't cracked open a book since they tossed the tassel on the mortarboard...
But I feel it is as dishonest as calling voter suppression laws 'Voter ID' laws...

What many of these laws are doing is increasing the level of preparation needed for people to vote. Of course, it depends on the specific law.
Many are arguing that Voter ID laws are good and necessary, some of them are, some of them aren't.
Laws which deny using welfare ID or Student ID are a couple examples I feel are not fair.
Laws which require birth certificates from previously acceptable voters who do not have a birth certificate fall into the same category.

I have no problem with laws which require some sort of proof of identity, and neither do the vast majority of people in this country, from either party.

What gives these laws a bad name is that many include other provisions which are decidedly unfair, and cannot be viewed as anything other than a partisan power grab.

It is time to separate the issues, and stop debating different things under the same title. The R's have done a masterful job of entwining their voter suppression and gerrymandering efforts into the larger debate about voter ID.
- Cutting early voting times is not a voter ID issue.
- Redrawing districts to eliminate minority representation is not a voter ID issue
- Restricting voter registration drives is not a voter ID issue
- Requiring ID which cannot be gotten at no cost to the recipient is not a voter ID issue
- Eliminating same day registration is not a voter ID issue
- Limiting the number of polling places is not a voter ID issue

cmbdiesel · #90 03-31-2014, 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

I fully agree with your last paragraph.
As for your use of "statistics"--who made those studies? Are they completely objective, or were they produced by a consultant to show a certain result?

Many of the studies I have seen came out of the Brennan Center.
AFAIK, they are non-partisan, even if some folks don't agree with their results.

Here's their take on modernizing the voter registration system... seems to make a lot of sense.
https://www.supportthevoter.gov/files/2014/01/Case-Voter-Registration-Modernization.pdf
Our current system is rife with errors and potential for corruption.
My personal belief is that the voter fraud that does occur is not some folks that decided to vote twice, it is political groups with access who manipulate a bad system and create the fraud for their own benefit.
Demanding ID's from individuals will not stop this kind of fraud.
Modernizing the system, cleaning the rolls and creating a manageable database will.