This is going around the conservo-sphere, anyone want to take a crack at it?

[fromderinside]

Please don't assume I agree with you on matters of race or poverty, I'm pretty sure we don't.

i am equally sure we don't. However, like many in small countries, on this issue you reflected a level of pragmatism and common sense that Americans rarely have. When I read the english language press of (say NZ press) I am struck by lack of a pervasive strident stupidity in political commentary. In the US there is a level of routine and well accepted cliches that are always accepted as sacred and self-evident truths.

Remove sacred and self evident. Replace with politically useful.

 

[laughing dog]

Why? Do you have some reason to think he's imagined other plausible reasons for the opposition?

I have no idea what anyone's imagination is capable of. I do know that a Republican politician in PA stated that voter ID would permit Romney to win Pennsylvnnia (http://www.politicspa.com/turzai-voter-id-law-means-romney-can-win-pa/37153/ . I know that recent voter ID laws were enacted and signed into law in Republican dominated states, even though there was no evidence of a voter fraud problem with in person voting.

Like I stated in a previous post; if your country has poverty to such an extend that you have a significant number of people who can't afford the cost of one (especially if your country also can't afford to help the poorest out when it comes to acquiring one, if they really can't afford the cost), then you guys have much bigger problems to worry about than whether or not foreign people can vote in your elections.

That is non-responsive to the issue. Do you disagree that raising the cost of an activity tends to dissuade some people from that activity?

- - - Updated - - -

ld, I don't know if the word "cost" is the most appropriate. The word "burden" may be more accurate.

Literally, a cost is something one gives up to attain something. A cost need not be limited to money.

 

[maxparrish]

There are three questions of interest:

- Is Voter fraud easy or difficult?
- Does it occur?
- Does it affect elections?

Apparently, in many jurisdictions, it is easy. New York City’s Department of Investigations recently demonstrated how to commit fraud that is nearly undetectable. They sent undercover agents to 63 polling places last fall and they pretended to be voters; they used the names of individuals who had died or moved out of town, or who were sitting in jail. In 61 instances, or 97 percent of the time, they were allowed to vote (they voted for "John Test"). The DOI published its findings in a "searing" 70-page report that accused the city’s Board of Elections of incompetence, nepotism, and lax procedures.

It was stunningly easy. One female agent used the name of a dead 87 year old woman (she was 24) - no matter, they handed her a ballot. One worker took an agent aside and advised him to go to the polling station near where he lived and "just play dumb" to get a ballot. One agent was stopped, however, when he used the name of a felon - it turns out the poll worker knew it to be the son of another election official at the same polling place.

Staten Island Press reports "With a budget of $750 million a year, the BOE employs about 350 people, many of them relatives, friends or cronies of insiders with the right connections." (The board is appointed by the City Council).

And how did the board react? Shame? Apologies? Promises to do better? Nope, the Board of Elections (except for two members, one Democrat and one Republican) demanded that the DOI agents and their supervisors be prosecuted for election fraud. (They weren't).

In New Hampshire, Videographer James O’Keefe had three of his assistants visit precincts during New Hampshire’s January 2012 presidential primary. They asked for ballots for deceased individuals still listed on voter-registration rolls, and got ballots, never once asked for a photo ID. O’Keefe’s team immediately gave back the ballots, unmarked. "The only precinct in which O’Keefe or his crew did not obtain a ballot was one in which the local precinct officer had personally known the dead “voter.”

How did the Governor react? He demanded the State prosecute those who exposed the system as wide open to fraud, and veto'd the NH voter ID law (which later passed over his veto).

By the way, this stuff is not news. In 1984 Brooklyn’s Democratic district attorney, Elizabeth Holtzman, released a state grand-jury report on a successful 14-year conspiracy that cast thousands of fraudulent votes in local, state, and congressional elections. Apparently the conspirators cast votes at precincts in the names of dead, moved, and bogus voters. The grand jury recommended voter ID, a basic election-integrity measure that New York has, of course, refused to implement.

And then there was the son of Congressman Jim Moran, who had to resign as field director for his father’s campaign after he was caught advising an O’Keefe videographer on how to commit in-person voter fraud. Moran's son's scheme involved making up fake utility bills that would satisfy Virginia’s voter-ID law, and the help of Democratic lawyers stationed at the polls to make sure the fraudulent votes were counted.

It's not in question - voter fraud is easy in many jurisdictions without an ID, and history has shown that some exploit it to cast fraudulent votes.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/368234/voter-fraud-weve-got-proof-its-easy-john-fund/page/0/1

PS: Al Franken, even without counting the non-citizen vote, may have won just on felon voting. 1900 voters, felons, illegally voted in his election.

 

[laughing dog]

PS: Al Franken, even without counting the non-citizen vote, may have won just on felon voting. 1900 voters, felons, illegally voted in his election.

PPS - your own article stated 1099 felons. I also believe (but I could be wrong) that the felons were not pretending to be someone else, so voter ID would not have stopped them. And for those felons to have made the difference, they would have had to have voted 810 to 389 in favor of Franken. There is no disinterested evidence to support such a margin (yes, there is an alleged 10 person poll from Fox News, but neither the sample size nor Fox are sufficient to be credible.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In other words, a state-issued document with your name, address & photo.

The gun license bit is simply a consequence of this, not a deliberate objective of the law. I actually have a problem with accepting any school ID--for real brick & mortar schools, fine, but the fly-by-nights are another matter.

An "an in-state four-year college" is not a fly-by-night.

Nothing about "in state" and "four year" preclude it being fly by night.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So, I can use a Voter's registration card (list B, not a photo ID), and my SSN card (list C, not a photo ID), and obtain employment. My employer cannot insist that I use other documentation.

Wow! I didn't realize there was any path that didn't use a photo--and I thought HRs head exploded when I used my passport!

- - - Updated - - -

Did you not read his posts about it? IIRC he can't sign his name at this point--a big problem for getting a birth certificate.

How exactly is that a big problem? Any half-way competent government is able to alter the procedure to accommodate specific circumstances. If it's currently too much of a hassle to get it done, then it isn't an argument against requiring people to get a photo ID in order to be allowed to vote, it's an argument against incompetent government.

Yeah, he could go there. Out of state.

- - - Updated - - -

Since it takes knowlede, time and effort to get an ID, it is not costless. Unless a legally eligible voter can get an ID at the polls, your argument is specious.

How exactly is his argument specious because he doesn't define free the way you do? Do you take issue with his claim that a photo ID is a means to reduce voter fraud? Do you take issue with his claim that it's useful in many other areas of life? Or do you take issue with him stating that he can only imagine that the political opposition to them must be because some politicians believe it will eliminate their voter base?

I don't see how any of this is called into question by whether or not a mandatory ID is free or not.

We just don't see the kind of fraud that photo ID will prevent. Most voter fraud is misuse of absentee ballots, not anything done at the polls. We see an effort that will do a lot more to disenfranchise legitimate voters than prevent fraud--and we see that as a bad thing.

- - - Updated - - -

To get a gun license you have to show official state ID (at least in my state) When I got my college ID I just handed them a class schedule.

Both are photo IDs. Both can be used to make sure that the person showing up at the polls is the person who is registered to vote there.

It depends on what level of verification the college did in issuing the ID. When I was in college they did *NOTHING* to verify that I was who I said I was.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You need photo ID to become an employee--you're required to provide both evidence that you are you and that you are allowed to work.

Odd... I don't need a photo ID to get a credit card. Don't even need it to use a credit card. Don't need it to get life insurance. Or car insurance. Don't need an ID to shop online.

Disagree--my auto insurance carrier needed a copy of my driver's license. It's about verifying that I'm a licensed driver rather than ID but it is a required ID.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There are three questions of interest:

- Is Voter fraud easy or difficult?
- Does it occur?
- Does it affect elections?

Apparently, in many jurisdictions, it is easy. New York City’s Department of Investigations recently demonstrated how to commit fraud that is nearly undetectable. They sent undercover agents to 63 polling places last fall and they pretended to be voters; they used the names of individuals who had died or moved out of town, or who were sitting in jail. In 61 instances, or 97 percent of the time, they were allowed to vote (they voted for "John Test"). The DOI published its findings in a "searing" 70-page report that accused the city’s Board of Elections of incompetence, nepotism, and lax procedures.

It could be done. That doesn't mean it's happening. You would need a lot of data to pull this off and it's a high risk action--get caught once and the whole thing unravels.

If it's a big issue why not run a check on who is voting and yet dead? Or in jail? How about some evidence?

 

[maxparrish]

PS: Al Franken, even without counting the non-citizen vote, may have won just on felon voting. 1900 voters, felons, illegally voted in his election.

PPS - your own article stated 1099 felons. I also believe (but I could be wrong) that the felons were not pretending to be someone else, so voter ID would not have stopped them. And for those felons to have made the difference, they would have had to have voted 810 to 389 in favor of Franken. There is no disinterested evidence to support such a margin (yes, there is an alleged 10 person poll from Fox News, but neither the sample size nor Fox are sufficient to be credible.

Not with standing my misread felon total (and your followup math error) it still means that Franken may have won due to these illegal votes by felons. "Al Franken’s 312-vote victory in 2008 over Minnesota senator Norm Coleman...". So of the 1099 felon votes cast, had 707 (not 810) or more voted for Frankin and 392 ( or less) for Coleman then Frankin won through fraudulent votes.

Apparently you have read of no disinterested (assuming you mean non-partisan) evidence for any particular margin but that does not mean there is not evidence that suggests 'such a margin' is very plausible.

Here is an example, from an expert source that seems sympathetic to felons voting:

Felons traditionally vote Democratic, says Christopher Uggen, a University of Minnesota sociologist, who co-authored a 2006 book, "Locked Out: Felony Disenfranchisement and American Democracy."

That is because felons come disproportionately from groups that align with Democrats, such as minorities, the poor and urban residents. In this group, Uggen says, "you aren't going to find too many Mitt Romney supporters."

I imagine "you're aren't going to find too many" Norm Coleman supporters either.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/24/us-usa-campaign-felons-idUSBRE89N1C620121024

 

[laughing dog]

Not with standing my misread felon total (and your followup math error) it still means that Franken may have won due to these illegal votes by felons. "Al Franken’s 312-vote victory in 2008 over Minnesota senator Norm Coleman...". So of the 1099 felon votes cast, had 707 (not 810) or more voted for Frankin and 392 ( or less) for Coleman then Frankin won through fraudulent votes.

Apparently you have read of no disinterested (assuming you mean non-partisan) evidence for any particular margin but that does not mean there is not evidence that suggests 'such a margin' is very plausible.

Here is an example, from an expert source that seems sympathetic to felons voting:

Felons traditionally vote Democratic, says Christopher Uggen, a University of Minnesota sociologist, who co-authored a 2006 book, "Locked Out: Felony Disenfranchisement and American Democracy."

That is because felons come disproportionately from groups that align with Democrats, such as minorities, the poor and urban residents. In this group, Uggen says, "you aren't going to find too many Mitt Romney supporters."

I imagine "you're aren't going to find too many" Norm Coleman supporters either.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/24/us-usa-campaign-felons-idUSBRE89N1C620121024

Of course Franken MAY have won because of those votes. Of course, all of those votes MAY have gone to Coleman. Then again, all of those felons MAY not have voted in the Senate race. Nothing you have shown indicates that it is reasonable to suppose that Franken would have received at least a 707 to 392 (or better) margin.

 

[dystopian]

That is non-responsive to the issue. Do you disagree that raising the cost of an activity tends to dissuade some people from that activity?

Of course I do. I'm pretty sure that the rising cost of bread doesn't dissuade people from eating.

Similarly, I'm pretty sure that a minor increase in cost associated with voting doesn't dissuade anyone from voting; it already takes effort (and therefore "cost") to go out and vote. A lot of people don't bother. I seriously doubt that the people who are willing to make the effort to go vote would suddenly not be willing to do so if they had to pay a few bucks to acquire a mandatory photo ID that they have to have *anyway*.

 

[dystopian]

We just don't see the kind of fraud that photo ID will prevent. Most voter fraud is misuse of absentee ballots, not anything done at the polls. We see an effort that will do a lot more to disenfranchise legitimate voters than prevent fraud--and we see that as a bad thing.

If you "just don't see" the kind of fraud that photo ID would prevent, then we wouldn't be talking about this in the first place. Clearly, some people see it. Whether they see "enough" of it to meet what you consider to be the necessary amount to justify extra security steps is another matter. What you *don't* in fact see, is an effort that will disenfranchise voters; do not confuse the central idea itself for the twisted implementations proposed by your politicians.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

ld, I don't know if the word "cost" is the most appropriate. The word "burden" may be more accurate.

Literally, a cost is something one gives up to attain something. A cost need not be limited to money.

I understand. I just think that "burden" covers what you are describing better.

 

[PyramidHead]

Pardon my naivety, but why shouldn't people who live here, work here, and contribute to society be allowed to vote? Felons, undocumented immigrants, etc. still have a stake in how they should be governed, don't they? If somebody gets elected because more people voted for them, isn't that enough to declare they should represent the people, even if not all of them have the paperwork to prove citizenship or have committed crimes in the past? (Not trolling, but substantially playing devil's advocate to provoke discussion.)

 

[Togo]

Pardon my naivety, but why shouldn't people who live here, work here, and contribute to society be allowed to vote? Felons, undocumented immigrants, etc. still have a stake in how they should be governed, don't they? If somebody gets elected because more people voted for them, isn't that enough to declare they should represent the people, even if not all of them have the paperwork to prove citizenship or have committed crimes in the past? (Not trolling, but substantially playing devil's advocate to provoke discussion.)

I'm not sure why felons shouldn't be allowed to vote. They're citizens, they have just as much interest in the future of the country as anyone else, and most of them are only in there for a short period.

I'm also not sure how a voter photo ID is supposed to help. It costs a fair bit, duplicates checks that should be done while drawing up the polling cards in the first place, doesn't stop many common types of frauds, and provides an extra hurdle that lowers voter turnout.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I assume felons aren't allowed to vote because some politician was able to manipulate votes by promising cut jailed time. Only partially joking.

 

[KeepTalking]

Whether felons are allowed to vote, and when, varies by state.

For example, in Vermont and Maine, even incarcerated felons can vote absentee from within prison. Thirteen states allow felons to vote after serving their prison time, and while on probation or parole. Another 24 states allow felons to vote after being released from either probation or parole (or both). There are only 11 states that do not allow felons to vote at all after conviction for the most part, but even with these there seem to be allowances depending on the crime, where the crime was committed, and how long it has been since the felon was released from prison. The full list can be found here:

http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000286

 

[Loren Pechtel]

We just don't see the kind of fraud that photo ID will prevent. Most voter fraud is misuse of absentee ballots, not anything done at the polls. We see an effort that will do a lot more to disenfranchise legitimate voters than prevent fraud--and we see that as a bad thing.

If you "just don't see" the kind of fraud that photo ID would prevent, then we wouldn't be talking about this in the first place. Clearly, some people see it. Whether they see "enough" of it to meet what you consider to be the necessary amount to justify extra security steps is another matter. What you *don't* in fact see, is an effort that will disenfranchise voters; do not confuse the central idea itself for the twisted implementations proposed by your politicians.

Except they claim to see it but can't point it out to anyone else.

 

[SimpleDon]

The problem isn't the cost of the ID per se. Rather, it's the cost/problems of obtaining the ID. Remember the thread some months ago about who had ID? SimpleDon doesn't--and explained why it would be quite a hassle for him to obtain it. He's an educated and apparently middle class person.

Any such hassle can't be more than minor at best. If you're not even willing to go through a minimum of effort to obtain a photo ID, then why should you be allowed to influence national policy?

I am upper middle class with two masters degrees, in electrical engineering and a MBA, a real two year one, not an EZ executive MBA.

I am 63 years old and totally disabled. I had to surrender my driver's license because Georgia has some crazy notion that people who are quadriplegic shouldn't drive. They have no sense of humor.

My passport had expired and Georgia won't accept an expired passport as acceptable ID*. Out of fear that my citizenship had expired with the passport I suppose.

I tried to renew my passport but the State Department wouldn't renew it because they said that the passport had been modified by the addition of extra pages. This is true, but it is the state department who had added the pages. I had traveled so much that all of the pages of the passport were filled. I was out my $100 bucks or so for the passport renewal. And I would have apply for a new passport, in person. Refer back to the part about being a quadriplegic.

I then applied for a voter ID card, here in Georgia. Since I didn't have a driver's license I had to bring proof of citizenship and residency, even though I have lived in the same house for thirty five years, the same house that was already in their records for the surrendered driver's license. I took my birth certificate and military discharge papers that listed me as a citizen.

One, they had no record that I had surrendered the driver's license. You can't get a voter ID card if you have a current driver's license. But I could surrender the license then and get a voter ID card. But I had to have the physical license, which I didn't have, the doctors had taken it when I failed my reaction test.

We then had to see the supervisor. You have to understand that I was in a motorized wheelchair, I have no balance, I have to be held up to stand and I will get become so dizzy when standing that I will eventually vomit, which can be fatal if I aspirate the stomach acid. (I am a lot of fun at parties.) And at that time I sounded like I was a Down's syndrome sufferer who had to shout to be understood.

The supervisor finally agreed that I could have an ID card if I said that the license was lost.

Then they looked at my primary proof of citizenship. The military discharge papers weren't accepted, I was too young by ten years. I still don't understand this. My passport had expired*. And they wouldn't accept my birth certificate because it didn't have a raised seal on the copy, only a stamped, signed and dated one.

I then tried to get a copy of my birth certificate from Tarrent country in Texas, which is about 2000 km from here. I remember that they required a government issued ID to get a birth certificate by mail. My wife, who speaks for me on the phone said no, they didn't require an ID card but that they couldn't get it to me in time to vote.

So I applied for an absentee ballot, by mail, no ID required. In fact, in the same law in which they enacted some of the harshest in person voter ID requirements in the country they loosened the requirements when applying for an absentee ballot. You only need the name of a registered voter, they have a blank that anyone can sign certifying that the registered voters applying for the ballots are not able to sign the form. You can sign for up to ten applications for each election. I think that they wanted to empathize that the purpose of the law was to decrease the support for Democrats and increase the opportunities for absentee voter fraud, which must favor the Republicans.

To be fair we angered the DDS clerk when we went over her head to her supervisor. She followed the exact letter of the law and even came up with some requirements of her own, we were told later that my birth certificate should have been accepted with the stamped seal. Honestly we all were getting a little testy in our second hour in the driver services office. And my case certainly couldn't be called typical.

Two things. With typical bureaucrat efficiency they sent me a new driver's license to replace the "lost" one. I am now a fully licensed quadriplegic driver with no restrictions on my license. I am probably also a felon for lying that I had lost my license. And two, since I am disabled they were suppose to send absentee ballots for each election. They didn't. When my wife called they said that they had no record of us voting by absentee ballot in 2012. It starts again.

They Republicans claim that if there is a single illegal vote that it effectively disenfranchises everyone. But if you prevent a thousand people from voting to prevent that one illegal vote isn't that far worse? And at least in Georgia we have stricter ID rules for voting than we have to register to vote. That is backwards. It eliminates the need for registration, doesn't it? Allow election day registration. They have now what you need to do it, a statewide network to record who has voted to prevent someone from voting twice.

Accept election day registration and I will stop complaining about the voter ID law.

* this has now been changed, a passport is accepted if it has been expired for less than ten years. I would like to think that the complaints that I sent to my state representative helped bring on this change.

 

[PyramidHead]

Pardon my naivety, but why shouldn't people who live here, work here, and contribute to society be allowed to vote? Felons, undocumented immigrants, etc. still have a stake in how they should be governed, don't they? If somebody gets elected because more people voted for them, isn't that enough to declare they should represent the people, even if not all of them have the paperwork to prove citizenship or have committed crimes in the past? (Not trolling, but substantially playing devil's advocate to provoke discussion.)

I'm not sure why felons shouldn't be allowed to vote. They're citizens, they have just as much interest in the future of the country as anyone else, and most of them are only in there for a short period.

I'm also not sure how a voter photo ID is supposed to help. It costs a fair bit, duplicates checks that should be done while drawing up the polling cards in the first place, doesn't stop many common types of frauds, and provides an extra hurdle that lowers voter turnout.

Why not extend the reasoning of the bolded part to undocumented immigrants?