quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

quote:

I'll still stick with the fact that it's feel good, knee jerk legislation

So, you're not "sticking with":

Have you ever voted?
You sign a log book.


?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

quote:

Have you ever voted?
You sign a log book.

I venture to suggest that is not universal; and I know for a fact that if it is universal it has not been so for long

Then, show it isn't. Every place I have lived, you sign in.

ETA. Basically, all you said in that post is "that might not be an issue in all 50 states"

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

quote:

I'll still stick with the fact that it's feel good, knee jerk legislation

So, you're not "sticking with":
Have you ever voted?
You sign a log book.?

Yes and you answered that question.
Now, I have stated for the third time that this legislation looks like something liberals would pass since it interferes with the Constitutional rights of law abiding Americans. It costs taxpayer money. It contributes to the bloated government bureaucracy and it is 'supposed to deal' with a problem that cannot even be shown empirically to exist.
Why do you support such liberal style policies?
None of the Conservatives have bothered to answer that question. It has simply been ignored time and time again.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

quote:

Have you ever voted?
You sign a log book.

I venture to suggest that is not universal; and I know for a fact that if it is universal it has not been so for long

Then, show it isn't. Every place I have lived, you sign in.

ETA. Basically, all you said in that post is "that might not be an issue in all 50 states"

When we vote they check your id and mark you off their list.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

quote:

Have you ever voted?
You sign a log book.

I venture to suggest that is not universal; and I know for a fact that if it is universal it has not been so for long

Then, show it isn't. Every place I have lived, you sign in.

ETA. Basically, all you said in that post is "that might not be an issue in all 50 states"

When we vote they check your id and mark you off their list.

And yet you dont need an ID in Michigan. You can sign an affidavit. There is a signature.


http://www.michigan.gov/sos/0,1607,7-127-1633_8716-178123--,00.html

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Pst.... read further....

Voting Without Photo ID

If you do not have photo ID, you can still cast a ballot simply by signing an affidavit. The affidavit can be used by:

Voters who do not have acceptable photo ID
Voters who have photo ID but didn't bring it to the polls
Once you sign the affidavit, you may cast your ballot. It will be counted with all other ballots on Election Day.

Its not often I post a link that I am wrong about. If you can sign an affidavit attesting that you either dont own one, or you left it at home, whats the sense in the ID law? Disproving the fact that someone has to have an ID to vote.

quote:

Im not sure what your issue was to be honest.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
The issue with voter fraud according to the factual information so far, is that its not taking place on even a tiny level to affect a general or mid-term election. Nor even approaching the scale Republicans keep pushing. This nation has a huge number of problems; voter fraud is really not one of them.

The first link you posted was not to the GAO study itself, only it's appendix. But I read the second one and, rather than take it at its word, checked up on Spakovsky. He's rather a flake, and I'm embarrassed to have cited him. But looking deeper, the problems associated with our system, some of which your links acknowledge, leave me with the impression that our low levels of abuse are more down to luck than planning. Since this seems to be an area in which you've acquired some background, and since I've never found it to fail that luck runs out sooner or later, are there any suggestions you favor for how we could make the system more responsive to the need for legitimate voters to be able to establish themselves without undue hardship while making the security of the process more confidence inspiring?

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
The issue with voter fraud according to the factual information so far, is that its not taking place on even a tiny level to affect a general or mid-term election. Nor even approaching the scale Republicans keep pushing. This nation has a huge number of problems; voter fraud is really not one of them.

The first link you posted was not to the GAO study itself, only it's appendix. But I read the second one and, rather than take it at its word, checked up on Spakovsky. He's rather a flake, and I'm embarrassed to have cited him. But looking deeper, the problems associated with our system, some of which your links acknowledge, leave me with the impression that our low levels of abuse are more down to luck than planning. Since this seems to be an area in which you've acquired some background, and since I've never found it to fail that luck runs out sooner or later, are there any suggestions you favor for how we could make the system more responsive to the need for legitimate voters to be able to establish themselves without undue hardship while making the security of the process more confidence inspiring?

K.

Yeah, the guy is a total flake. But I was amused that you didn't do your homework before posting [:D]. Normally, you do research some of this material before your posts.

But I have to disagree with you on the whole system running on 'luck' or some metaphorical juice like gasoline and that it has to run out sometime. The system for most of the states is pretty strict. The penalty is not one most people would risk being caught; not anywhere in the ballpark near the potential profit to the risk involved. The research by legitimate people that went on to be peered-reviewed shows that voter fraud before the GOP started pushing Voter ID Laws was nearly non-existent. So the GOP created a boogieman out of thin air. They knew many of their followers never learned critical thinking skills, accept the crap out of FOX News and the like, and take acts based on what others wish (i.e. not really an individual so much as an drone). It really is quite dangerous to give individuals that kind of power; particularly when it involves limiting one of the most fundamental aspects of our government: The Right to Vote.

The idea that there is even a small amount of voter fraud has been debunked. The amount that does take place according to many studies (two of which I've posted so far) is no where in range to affect the final vote count.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
The question is and always has been, if the goal is to stop a very small number of fraudulent votes being cast why is the disenfranchisement of, nationally, millions of voters necessary?
For instance in all of these states that are trying to suppress Democratic voters under guise of a voter ID law a college ID is no longer acceptable as proof of identity. No attempt was made to give the affected institutions a way to bring their ID up to some acceptable standard despite the fact that the public institutions, being controlled by the same legislators, would certainly have complied and unless the requirements were ridiculously onerous the private institutions would have as well.
Now Republicans in North Carolina have taken it a step further and are laying the groundwork to not recognize the residency of any college student who lives in a dorm.

quote:

http://pulse.ncpolicywatch.org/2013/08/14/county-board-to-student-candidate-you-can-vote-for-now-but-you-cant-run-for-city-council/
Now this is of course blatantly unconstitutional and will eventually cost the people of North Carolina a lot of money when the federal courts slap these fools down
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symm_v._United_States
Then we can move on to the complete lack of any attempt to accommodate people who are elderly, disabled or unable to reach a driver's license facility. Texas is the worst example of this. There is not a DL facility in every county and there are places where it is a 100 mile trip to get to one. If the goal is to increase the integrity of elections and not suppress the vote of Democratic leaning demographics why not allow county governments to issue acceptable ID's and why not include provisions for getting ID's to those people physically or financially unable to reach a DL facility?
In short, the evidence shows that these laws are not about election integrity but are about suppressing the vote of groups that do not support Republicans.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/06/26/fox-downplayed-voter-id-concerns-but-republican/186721
http://www.salon.com/2012/07/27/fla_republican_we_suppressed_black_votes/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/10/republican-voter-id-scott-tranter_n_2273927.html
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2012/08/19/fight-over-poll-hours-isnt-just-political.html

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
The question is and always has been, if the goal is to stop a very small number of fraudulent votes being cast why is the disenfranchisement of, nationally, millions of voters necessary?
For instance in all of these states that are trying to suppress Democratic voters under guise of a voter ID law a college ID is no longer acceptable as proof of identity. No attempt was made to give the affected institutions a way to bring their ID up to some acceptable standard despite the fact that the public institutions, being controlled by the same legislators, would certainly have complied and unless the requirements were ridiculously onerous the private institutions would have as well.
Now Republicans in North Carolina have taken it a step further and are laying the groundwork to not recognize the residency of any college student who lives in a dorm.

I think that's standard operating procedure, Ken. That is, it's not a new thing. Dormitory residence is still considered "temporary" residence. It's not like it's difficult to get an absentee ballot, is it? Didn't the NC law say something that it wouldn't be going into full effect until 2015? If you can't figure out how to obtain an absentee ballot in 2+ years...

quote:

quote:

http://pulse.ncpolicywatch.org/2013/08/14/county-board-to-student-candidate-you-can-vote-for-now-but-you-cant-run-for-city-council/
Now this is of course blatantly unconstitutional and will eventually cost the people of North Carolina a lot of money when the federal courts slap these fools down
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symm_v._United_States
Then we can move on to the complete lack of any attempt to accommodate people who are elderly, disabled or unable to reach a driver's license facility. Texas is the worst example of this. There is not a DL facility in every county and there are places where it is a 100 mile trip to get to one. If the goal is to increase the integrity of elections and not suppress the vote of Democratic leaning demographics why not allow county governments to issue acceptable ID's and why not include provisions for getting ID's to those people physically or financially unable to reach a DL facility?
In short, the evidence shows that these laws are not about election integrity but are about suppressing the vote of groups that do not support Republicans.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/06/26/fox-downplayed-voter-id-concerns-but-republican/186721
http://www.salon.com/2012/07/27/fla_republican_we_suppressed_black_votes/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/10/republican-voter-id-scott-tranter_n_2273927.html
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2012/08/19/fight-over-poll-hours-isnt-just-political.html

Every State has their own set of "difficulties" they have to deal with. Why should NC be limited by difficulties in TX? Why not let Texans decide how best to navigate through their own issues? Isn't that the point of State/County/local levels of government, and elections of those officials at the local level?

quote:

NC elected their officials. If you think the elections were fraudulent (meaning those who are now creating the legislation are their fraudulently), then make that claim and show your proof. Governance by consent of the governed certainly does mean that NC legislators elected by NC constituents, have their consent to govern NC. They were elected to legislate and govern to the best of NC and their constituents. As I said before, if this isn't desired by NC residents, they will elect new legislators to replace the current ones and repeal this legislation. The SCOTUS could rule that the law isn't Constitutional, also invalidating the law.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
The question is and always has been, if the goal is to stop a very small number of fraudulent votes being cast why is the disenfranchisement of, nationally, millions of voters necessary?
For instance in all of these states that are trying to suppress Democratic voters under guise of a voter ID law a college ID is no longer acceptable as proof of identity. No attempt was made to give the affected institutions a way to bring their ID up to some acceptable standard despite the fact that the public institutions, being controlled by the same legislators, would certainly have complied and unless the requirements were ridiculously onerous the private institutions would have as well.
Now Republicans in North Carolina have taken it a step further and are laying the groundwork to not recognize the residency of any college student who lives in a dorm.

I think that's standard operating procedure, Ken. That is, it's not a new thing. Dormitory residence is still considered "temporary" residence. It's not like it's difficult to get an absentee ballot, is it? Didn't the NC law say something that it wouldn't be going into full effect until 2015? If you can't figure out how to obtain an absentee ballot in 2+ years...

It's unconstitutional. Convenient how you ignored that fact.

quote:

quote:

quote:

http://pulse.ncpolicywatch.org/2013/08/14/county-board-to-student-candidate-you-can-vote-for-now-but-you-cant-run-for-city-council/
Now this is of course blatantly unconstitutional and will eventually cost the people of North Carolina a lot of money when the federal courts slap these fools down
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symm_v._United_States
Then we can move on to the complete lack of any attempt to accommodate people who are elderly, disabled or unable to reach a driver's license facility. Texas is the worst example of this. There is not a DL facility in every county and there are places where it is a 100 mile trip to get to one. If the goal is to increase the integrity of elections and not suppress the vote of Democratic leaning demographics why not allow county governments to issue acceptable ID's and why not include provisions for getting ID's to those people physically or financially unable to reach a DL facility?
In short, the evidence shows that these laws are not about election integrity but are about suppressing the vote of groups that do not support Republicans.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/06/26/fox-downplayed-voter-id-concerns-but-republican/186721
http://www.salon.com/2012/07/27/fla_republican_we_suppressed_black_votes/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/10/republican-voter-id-scott-tranter_n_2273927.html
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2012/08/19/fight-over-poll-hours-isnt-just-political.html

Every State has their own set of "difficulties" they have to deal with. Why should NC be limited by difficulties in TX? Why not let Texans decide how best to navigate through their own issues? Isn't that the point of State/County/local levels of government, and elections of those officials at the local level?

Did you not read what I wrote? Why respond with these non sequiturs?

quote:

quote:

NC elected their officials. If you think the elections were fraudulent (meaning those who are now creating the legislation are their fraudulently), then make that claim and show your proof. Governance by consent of the governed certainly does mean that NC legislators elected by NC constituents, have their consent to govern NC. They were elected to legislate and govern to the best of NC and their constituents. As I said before, if this isn't desired by NC residents, they will elect new legislators to replace the current ones and repeal this legislation. The SCOTUS could rule that the law isn't Constitutional, also invalidating the law.

I never claimed the elections were fraudulent that is the Republicans claim. Another at best non sequitur.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
How would one establish citizenship when they go vote? Perhaps, a valid Government ID?