Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
And why are Democrats against Photo ID at polls?
Posted by: McQ on Monday, October 30, 2006

Well findings in NY should help explain part of the reason:
Among the Journal's findings:

- There were dead people on the voter rolls in all of New York's 62 counties and people in as many as 45 counties who had votes recorded after they had died.

- One Bronx address was listed as the home for as many as 191 registered voters who had died. The address is 5901 Palisade Ave., in Riverdale, site of the Hebrew Home for the Aged.

- Democrats who cast votes after they died outnumbered Republicans by more than 4 to 1. The reason: Most of them came from Democrat-dominated New York City, where the higher population produced more matches.
I would guess NY isn't much different than any other state, if truth be told.

Yet Democrats continue to argue that voter photo ID measures which require particular forms of photo identification be presented to vote disenfranchise the poor and elderly (even when most states requiring it provide those IDs free and will even travel to the home of those needing them if necessary), and, well, fraud just isn't that big of a problem, statistically.

Except:
Last year, at least two dead voters were counted in a Tennessee state senate race that was decided by fewer than 20 votes.
And the potential is certainly there:
Earlier this year, officials in Washington state used health department records and the death index to remove 19,579 deceased people in the first four months after its statewide database was created. The effort there was underscored by the results of the 2004 gubernatorial election, in which Democratic Gov. Christine Gregoire won by 129 votes after two recounts of the more than 2.8 million cast.
So that certainly isn't a valid reason not to require positive photo ID, if the purpose of doing so is to ensure the integrity of the system - something in which Democrats also claim to be interested.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
the purpose is to ensure the integrity of the system - something in which Democrats also claim to be interested.
They also don’t seem to keen on figuring out a way to let our enlisted people (overseas) vote.
 
Written By: meagain
URL: http://
Hmmmmm. Disenfranches the poor and the elderly. Yeah, that’s it. Literally true, it turns out. Who are the poorest of the poor, and the most elderly generally? The dead. Now it turns out that those who will be disenfranchised most by the id laws are the poor and elderly dead.

Now it all makes sense.
 
Written By: vnjagvet
URL: http://www.yargb.blogspot.com
Missing from this post are the legitimate concerns of those opposed.
Mandating an ID is one thing, but addressing the difficulties of getting an ID is quite another.

The house-bound, for example, can vote by absentee ballot, but they can’t get an absentee ID.

For many, the nearest location for obtaining an ID is far removed, creating difficulties of transportation and expense.

There are elderly people without proper birth cetificates, dirvers’ licences or credit cards to document eligibilty. To overcome those obstacles would be an arduous task, again involving expenses.

The necessary expenses involved remind too many of the ’poll taxes’ of old.. Legitimate associations or not, these concenrs can not be just waved away.

A serious attempt to implement the ID system would need to address these isssues.

Just as MCQ hints at a Democratic political agenda to block the ID system, one can make a case for a GOP agenda to keep those who are negatively impacted off the voter rolls. The poor and elderly, along with the poor and minority groups are probably more likely to vote for Democrats.

In the abstract, I favor the idea of an ID system. I even favor a national ID system to replace social security and drivers licenses, etc., for secutiy reasons. But any proposal needs to get serious about examining the implementation process and the cost. It needs to analyze the practicality as well as the impact on citizens.


 
Written By: Laime
URL: http://
Missing from this post are the legitimate concerns of those opposed.
Mandating an ID is one thing, but addressing the difficulties of getting an ID is quite another.
Actually, if you read the post, it’s not missing at all:
(even when most states requiring it provide those IDs free and will even travel to the home of those needing them if necessary),
In GA, where I live, they’ll go to your house for the picture and then send you the free ID.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
The poor and elderly, along with the poor and minority groups are probably more likely to vote for Democrats.
And the fact that this group of undocumentable people just happens to vote the way you favor, well....that’s just fortuitous circumstance.

 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
I am all for requiring ID at the polling place when you sign your name on the registered to vote list but the ID wouldn’t stop the fraud either. All it would take is 2 or 3 people in the place that issues the ID to be activists for either party. They have access to the database that keeps all of our digital photos. What is to stop them from just giving thier favored party scum a few extra IDs with thier pictures on them and a dead persons name or a name that is on the registered list but hasn’t voted for 15 years?
 
Written By: SkyWatch
URL: http://
The house-bound, for example, can vote by absentee ballot, but they can’t get an absentee ID.

For many, the nearest location for obtaining an ID is far removed, creating difficulties of transportation and expense.

There are elderly people without proper birth cetificates, dirvers’ licences or credit cards to document eligibilty. To overcome those obstacles would be an arduous task, again involving expenses.

The necessary expenses involved remind too many of the ’poll taxes’ of old.. Legitimate associations or not, these concenrs can not be just waved away.


It’s just an accident, I suppose, that the problem groups you mention, are the traditional target groups for the Democrats, huh?


 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://
"In GA, where I live, they’ll go to your house for the picture and then send you the free ID."

Well, that takes care of ONE of the problems - in GA.

If you read my post, though, my concerns are much broader.
(Remember, I’m not opposed to the IDs in princeiple, I’m concerned about the cost and implementation. If all the kinks are worked out, more power to them.)

I think about the passenger security list problems, not yet resolved.
I think about the border fence, unfunded.
I think about the security breaches in all sorts of databanks.
I wonder if this, like any other system, is not
open to fraud.
I wonder why, with the distrust of governemtn so high on the radar screen here, anyone would put their trust in a governmental resolution to this problem nationwide.

I woender why the ’dead voters’ can’t be expunged from voter lists with existing mechanismas, since they could be discovered with same.
 
Written By: Laime
URL: http://
Why are we acting surprised when both groups want to maximize their own voters potential for voting and reduce their opponents?

Poorer people and older people are less likely to have photo id than other people, they are also more likely to vote Democrat. If you’re a Republican, reducing their ability to vote to any degree is a good thing, and a bad thing for Democrats.

Think of all the methods used to accomplish this goal over the years, poll taxes, literacy tests, intimidation.

I say that if a person is willing to sign under oath that they are the person they are purporting to be, then they should be allowed to vote. If they turn out not be that person, convict them of a crime.

This whole "papers please" mentality frosts my keister.

Think about it, you are disenfranchising people because you have essentially decided that since some people cheat, all people without id must be considered cheaters. It’s antithetical to our "innocent until proven guilty" ideal.

Cap
 
Written By: CaptinSarcastic
URL: http://
What is to stop them from just giving thier favored party scum a few extra IDs with thier pictures on them and a dead persons name or a name that is on the registered list but hasn’t voted for 15 years?
The types of IDs allowed one would suspect. It might not be foolproof, granted, but my guess is it would cut down on such abuses quite a bit.

And, of course, this should be coupled with timely and routine purges of the voting rolls (to identify and remove those who have died since the last election).
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Most of the errors appear to be due to people being improperly counted as dead, not improperly permitted to vote. There is an issue here, but it’s not as straightforward as you paint it, McQ.
 
Written By: Mithras
URL: http://mithrastheprophet.blogspot.com
I think about the passenger security list problems, not yet resolved.
I think about the border fence, unfunded.
I think about the security breaches in all sorts of databanks.
I wonder if this, like any other system, is not
open to fraud.
I wonder why, with the distrust of governemtn so high on the radar screen here, anyone would put their trust in a governmental resolution to this problem nationwide.
Federal problems ... we’re talking state IDs. States administer the polls, not the Feds.
I woender why the ’dead voters’ can’t be expunged from voter lists with existing mechanismas, since they could be discovered with same.
Possibly. But isn’t the only problem that photo IDs address. Not all fraudulent voters are dead.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
For example, when one family member’s vote is marked against another family member, who has died. None of the 500 incidents investigated individually showed signs of fraud.
 
Written By: Mithras
URL: http://mithrastheprophet.blogspot.com
For example, when one family member’s vote is marked against another family member, who has died. None of the 500 incidents investigated individually showed signs of fraud.
And that should preclude positive photo ID at a polling place for what reason?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Poorer people and older people are less likely to have photo id than other people, they are also more likely to vote Democrat. If you’re a Republican, reducing their ability to vote to any degree is a good thing, and a bad thing for Democrats.
Except here in GA the Republican legislature has passed a bill which make the ID free and provides a means to get that ID done without ever having to leave your house, if necessary.

So back to that "integrity of the system" thing. Given the provisions of the law, what problem do you have with it?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Needs a better solution than ID. Have a biometric identity check at the polls that doesn’t require you to actually bring anything with you. All you need is your previous registration.

Everyone’s against fraud, but the costs to voting - economic and otherwise - need to be kept as low as possible.

I hadn’t heard that GA was offering free ID. If it’s true, that’s a good start, but I don’t believe it’s a uniform trend. I’m pretty sure that several laws lacking that feature were struck down by courts. Which does suggest some of the motives that may have been involved.
 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
MCQ-I AM NOT OPPOSED TO VOTER IDS.

I just don’t think it’s the cure-all it’s cracked up to be.
And, as a conservative budgeter, I worry about the cost vs. benefit issue.

On another note, I don’t subscribe to the reasoning that state goveernments are somehow ’purer’ than federal ones. Either or both are just as prone to run amock. From some recent state legislation passed, I am tempted to run to the feds for protection.

As usual, you have your opinions, and I have mine.
As we are not advancing to any new enlightenment, you are welcome to have the last word.
 
Written By: Laime
URL: http://
Why are we acting surprised when both groups want to maximize their own voters potential for voting and reduce their opponents?
Cap, here’s the problem - I accepted Laimes assertion that the disenfranchised would be poor and elderly strictly as a matter of argument. The fact is none of us can say specifically where a given demographic of suddenly ineligible voters is going to turn up and which side they might vote for.
The fact that the Dems seem so concerned they’re going to lose votes makes me wonder if they aren’t precisely counting on ineligible voters to swell their vote count.

You’re automatically presuming I’m for this so I can disenfranchise a portion of the voting population which may or may not vote the same way I do.
That’s not it. I’m saying we shouldn’t let people vote who aren’t eligible regardless of whichever party they vote for. Big difference.
Same as I’m against people sneaking over our borders regardless of their good nature and decency as human beings.
I have to pass an ID check, why should I have to follow a rule and others are exempt - how the heck is that equal protection under the law?


 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
I just don’t think it’s the cure-all it’s cracked up to be.
I didn’t say it was a cure-all. I asked why Democrats oppose it.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
I didn’t say it was a cure-all. I asked why Democrats oppose it.
Because voting is a fundamental right. A person should not have to present identification to exercise a fundamental right. That is reason alone.

What’s next - you need ID to get into a courthouse? To petition your government? To speak? Imagine for a moment if the government said you needed ID to get into a church.

The better question is: Why are (some so-called) libertarians in favor of it?
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
Imagine for a moment if the government said you needed ID to get into a church.
Why on Earth would anyone imagine that?
Because voting is a fundamental right. A person should not have to present identification to exercise a fundamental right.
You have a fundamental right to own property too. But try buying a car w/o an ID.
 
Written By: Pablo
URL: http://
Because voting is a fundamental right.
For whom MK? For anyone? Anyone? Are children allowed to vote in your world? How about people visiting on vacation who happen to be here on November 7th?

The better question is: Why are (some so-called) libertarians in favor of it?
Because we are not anarchists. We favor limited government and the rule of law. The law in this case would be identifying yourself BEFORE you are allowed to cast your vote.
 
Written By: meagain
URL: http://
You have a fundamental right to own property too. But try buying a car w/o an ID.
I have a fundamental right to own something? Really? Ok, I hereby exericse my right to own a Corvette. So where are the keys?

You sound like a socialist.

The right you have is not the right to own something. The right you have is the right not to be deprived of your property without due process of law.

Now, imagine for one moment that the government came to your house one day and told you that you they were going to take your property unless you showed some ID. Because, after all, according to your theory, the government can limit your fundamental right if you don’t show ID. It thus stands to reason the government can deprive you of your property without due process of law unless you pony up some ID.

So, I assume, you would be ok with that kind of law. Right?
For whom MK? For anyone? Anyone? Are children allowed to vote in your world? How about people visiting on vacation who happen to be here on November 7th?
No - for registered voters. We already require people to register to vote. Now you want to make them show ID too? What’s next - a test? A tax?
Because we are not anarchists. We favor limited government and the rule of law. The law in this case would be identifying yourself BEFORE you are allowed to cast your vote.
So the burden is on the voter to prove he is not violating the law before he exercises a fundamental right? And that is limited government in your eyes? I see. What’s next? Do I have to bring my wife down to the police department to prove she is not a minor before I can have sex with her?

You got a funny definition of limited government.


 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
A person should not have to present identification to exercise a fundamental right.
Then I guess we shouldn’t be checking id’s whenever someone trys to buy a beer (as per the 21st Amendment).
 
Written By: SaveFarris
URL: http://
Because we are not anarchists. We favor limited government and the rule of law. The law in this case would be identifying yourself BEFORE you are allowed to cast your vote.
I’m me... there I have identified myself?

Oh, you don’t trust me?

Not my problem.

Unless you want to use the force of government to enforce your distrust.

Every voting precinct I have ever seen has a list of eligible voters in that precinct. If a person walks in and identifies themselves as someone who is on the list, they should be eligible to vote once they have signed the affidavit line swearing that they are who they say they are.

Dead people shouldn’t be on the list, live people who pretend to be dead people (or someone else) should be prosecuted, live people who are on the list but don’t have id should not be precluded from voting, as this provision would do.

Cap

 
Written By: CaptinSarcastic
URL: http://
Do I have to bring my wife down to the police department to prove she is not a minor before I can have sex with her?
No, but you do have to provide an ID in order to get a marriage license. It’s been that way for decades if not centuries. And somehow, the Republic has persevered...
 
Written By: SaveFarris
URL: http://
Because voting is a fundamental right. A person should not have to present identification to exercise a fundamental right. That is reason alone.
Wrong.

Voting is a fundamental right for citizens. And, exclusively, live citizens.

How, minus identification, do you determine that status?

Oh, and thanks again for proving why many on the left are unthinking in most of their knee-jerk positions.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Except here in GA the Republican legislature has passed a bill which make the ID free and provides a means to get that ID done without ever having to leave your house, if necessary.

So back to that "integrity of the system" thing. Given the provisions of the law, what problem do you have with it?
What do you have to show the authorities when they show up at your house in order for them to give you an ID? Do you have to let them in your house? Can they use anything they see in such a visit as the basis for an arrest? A search warrant? Will they come when I want them to come or when they have time to come? Do I have to pass some sort of means test (or other test) before they will come to my house? If I don’t speak english will they provide me with someone who speaks my language? How long does it take before the ID arrives?
 
Written By: Ugh
URL: http://
If I have a right to vote, then any individual without that right who successfully votes against me has disenfranchised me. Disenfranchisement cuts both ways, and I for one would like to see better protection of the rights of those who do vote lawfully.
 
Written By: piercello
URL: http://
Further: Will anyone who asks for such a visit automatically have their background checked by the authorities? Will the authorities run a search for outstanding arrest warrants? Parking tickets? If I miss my appointment can I schedule another one? How about if I miss that one? And the one after that? What happens if the authorities can never come when I am available? What checks are in place to ensure such trips aren’t themselves used for massive voting fraud or the issuance of fake IDs? How do I schedule a visit? Where can I find information on how to schedule a visit? How do I know I have to have an ID before I vote, I never did before? If they refuse to issue an ID, can I appeal that decision? If so, how? How will I know that? What if I win an appeal after election day, can I vote retroactively? What if that changes the outcome of the election? How long does my ID stay valid? Can I use an expired ID? If I lose my ID will you come again to my house for free? What if I lose it the day before the election? What if I forget it and the polls are about to close?
 
Written By: Ugh
URL: http://
why are Democrats against it? because it purports to solve a problem which is virtually nonexistent by imposing an additional requirement which will tend to disenfranchise likely Democratic voters.

and, because these efforts are virtually never accompanied by measures to prevent fraud in absentee voting.

 
Written By: Francis
URL: http://
Ugh.... jeez - enough already. I could fire back at you with the same types of questions regarding driving.

Cap - you are you? Congrats - nice to meet you. Try to get on a plane telling the TSA folks that it is their problem that YOU do not have an ID. Let me know how that goes OK?

MK -
We already require people to register to vote. Now you want to make them show ID too? What’s next - a test? A tax?
You know, it would probably benefit us all if there was a test people had to take before voting. But I won’t go there at this point. I’m just curious, if you are OK with registering, why are you NOT ok with IDing yourself? Is it disenfranchising to have to register?
 
Written By: meagain
URL: http://
Then I guess we shouldn’t be checking id’s whenever someone trys to buy a beer (as per the 21st Amendment).
You ever read the 21st Amendment? It doesn’t say you have a right to drink. Indeed, it effectively lets each state makes laws regarding alcohol. Like requiring ID before one can purchase alcohol.

Sorry Charlie.
Wrong.

Voting is a fundamental right for citizens. And, exclusively, live citizens.

How, minus identification, do you determine that status?
You frame the question incorrectly. From a constitutional standpoint, the burden should not be on a citizen to prove they are a citizen. The burden should be on the government to prove the person is not a citizen.

It is a crime for a person without documentation to be in the United States. So does that mean the police should be able to demand your identification whenever they see fit? After all, minus identification, how do we determine your status?

"Your papers, please." And this coming from a so-called libertarian.
Oh, and thanks again for proving why many on the left are unthinking in most of their knee-jerk positions.
No, just jealous guardians of fundamental rights, especially when wingnuts want to empower government to limit them.
Except here in GA the Republican legislature has passed a bill which make the ID free and provides a means to get that ID done without ever having to leave your house, if necessary.
Right. This is the myth.

This is the reality. From the Post:
Under the Georgia law, residents would need to produce original birth certificates and other documents to get the new digital identification card. The cards could only be obtained at Department of Motor Vehicles offices.

But critics say that many potential voters do not have the required documents and that some could not afford the $20 processing fee for identification.

State officials promised to provide free identification to anyone who swore under oath that they were indigent. But the law provided no definition of what constituted indigence in the state of Georgia, opening the possibility for possible perjury charges, activists said.

Liberal critics compiled statistics showing that far more white residents owned cars than African Americans. The law, they argued, gave an unfair advantage to white people while placing a burden on those who are black.

On top of that, the state recently reorganized the Department of Motor Vehicles, paring down the number of offices. After the reorganization, there were no DMV offices in Atlanta, a city with a wide black majority. The closest station is at least nine miles away. Fewer than 60 of the state’s 159 counties have DMV offices.

State officials countered that they were providing a single vehicle, known as the GLOW bus, to traverse the state, providing applications and licenses to those with the proper documents. Critics expressed disbelief that one bus could accommodate the needs of so many potential voters.
So one bus to cover the whole state? You actually think this is the answer?
I’m just curious, if you are OK with registering, why are you NOT ok with IDing yourself? Is it disenfranchising to have to register?

Who says I’m ok with it? I simply acknowledge the fact of its existence.

 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
The burden should be on the government to prove the person is not a citizen.
Then please MK, I mean this seriously, tell me how the government can achieve this stated goal?
Who says I’m ok with it? I simply acknowledge the fact of its existence.


Well, I will ask specifically then - Are you OK with registering to vote?
 
Written By: meagain
URL: http://
Ugh.... jeez - enough already. I could fire back at you with the same types of questions regarding driving.

Last time I checked no one has ever been killed by someone else casting a ballot, though perhaps someone has died from infection due to a paper cut. Nor was driving a fundamental right of citizenship, to be taken away only if you commit a felony (and then only in some states).
 
Written By: Ugh
URL: http://
From a constitutional standpoint, the burden should not be on a citizen to prove they are a citizen. The burden should be on the government to prove the person is not a citizen.
Nonsense.
It is a crime for a person without documentation to be in the United States. So does that mean the police should be able to demand your identification whenever they see fit? After all, minus identification, how do we determine your status?
Nope ... it means when you claim to be someone in order to do something to which you further claim you’re entitled, you have to prove you’re that person. Entitlement doesn’t mean something for everyone.

Entitlement: A government program that guarantees and provides benefits to a particular group.

Voting is something to which citizens are entitled by law. It is not something to which non-citizens are entitled. Or dead people. Or felons.

Consequently, I don’t care if you walk around all day without papers, when you decide to claim an entitlement provided to a particular group, you have to prove you are a member of that group.
So one bus to cover the whole state? You actually think this is the answer?
It is part of the answer. The rest has to do with providing transportation to those that need it to the stations indicated. It’s really not that hard and they’ll have plenty of time to get them before the next election (as this one is under the old rules).

Funny how the elderly and poor manage to find a way to line up and make the trips necessary for other benefits the state provides, but can’t seem to manage a 9 mile trip to a liscence facility in 2 years. How in the world would they ever get to the polls, which, amazingly, are located close to the very same facilities.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Because voting is a fundamental right. A person should not have to present identification to exercise a fundamental right. That is reason alone
Indeed, it’s such a fundamental right that the Dems want their voters to indulge in it multiple times!
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Last time I checked no one has ever been killed by someone else casting a ballot, though perhaps someone has died from infection due to a paper cut.
But they might have later died because the wrong leader was fraudulently elected, huh? Or had their rights abrogated. Property stolen. Etc., etc.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Because voting is a fundamental right. A person should not have to present identification to exercise a fundamental right.
You ever read the 21st Amendment? It doesn’t say you have a right to drink. Indeed, it effectively lets each state makes laws regarding alcohol. Like requiring ID before one can purchase alcohol.
Yeah. How about pointing to the provision in the Constitution that says you have the right ... nay, the "fundamental right" to vote.
 
Written By: MichaelW
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
Voting is a fundamental right for citizens. And, exclusively, live citizens.

How, minus identification, do you determine that status?
If they have a pulse, they are alive.

You are not trying to ascertain if someone is alive, you are trying to ascertain if someone is committing fraud, BUT in your zeal you are supporting a law that refuses the right of anyone without proper ID the right to vote, and they have done NOTHING wrong.
If I have a right to vote, then any individual without that right who successfully votes against me has disenfranchised me. Disenfranchisement cuts both ways, and I for one would like to see better protection of the rights of those who do vote lawfully.
Fair enough.

So let’s do the math.

Let’s assume that 4% of voters without ID are committing fraud. (probably a very high estimate, but as long as the number is under 50%, the end result is the same).

That would mean that 96% of voters without ID are not committing fraud.

You want to disenfranchise the 96% of voters in order to prevent the 4% from disenfranchising by vote cancellation an equivelant number of voters.

Get the dead people off of the voter rolls, stop trying to find ways to eliminate the votes of live eligible voters.
Cap - you are you? Congrats - nice to meet you. Try to get on a plane telling the TSA folks that it is their problem that YOU do not have an ID. Let me know how that goes OK?
One of the reasons I choose not fly when it can be avoided. I can get from point A to point B in America without flying and without ID, but I can’t get from not having voted to having voted without ID (under this "papers please" law that the libertarians are suggesting).

By the way, I am fine with the laws of most states which provide a provisional ballot if the voter does not have ID. Provisional ballots would be counted last if there are enough to change the outcome, and each provisional ballot can be challenged or reviewed for fraud. Just don’t turn legitimate voters away from the polls.

Here is some date from one state about who gets caught in voter ID nets.
A June 2005 study by the University of Wisconsin found the following:

An estimated 23 percent of persons aged 65 and over do not have a Wisconsin drivers license or a photo ID.
An estimated 98,247 Wisconsin residents ages 35 through 64 also do not have either a drivers license or a photo ID.
Less than half (47 percent) of Milwaukee County African American adults and 43 percent of Hispanic adults have a valid drivers license compared to 85 percent of white adults outside Milwaukee.
For young adults ages 18-24 only 26 percent of African Americans and 34 percent of Hispanics in Milwaukee County have a valid license compared to 71 percent of young white adults in the balance of the state
Hmm, considering that most voter fraud is conducted with absentee ballots where no ID is required at all, the ONLY purpose I can see for shutting all the people above out is that one might not like the way they are likely cast their ballot.

Hey, I know, let’s have all voting done at places where cars are not allowed, if you don’t come by bus, you have to walk 6 miles. There is no reason for this, except that voters that I don’t want voting will be less likely to vote. Oh, I need for it sound more legitimate like "fraud prevention", okay, I’ll work on that.
But they might have later died because the wrong leader was fraudulently elected, huh? Or had their rights abrogated. Property stolen. Etc., etc.
Typically people only get killed when we elect the "right" people.


Cap








 
Written By: CaptinSarcastic
URL: http://
On top of that, the state recently reorganized the Department of Motor Vehicles, paring down the number of offices. After the reorganization, there were no DMV offices in Atlanta, a city with a wide black majority. The closest station is at least nine miles away. Fewer than 60 of the state’s 159 counties have DMV offices.
Oh please -
Shut the hell up, and tell the washington post to shut up too if they can’t do a simple Web Search to validate such an absolutely ridculous claim

Google - "DMV offices" & Atlanta Georgia

http://www.dds.ga.gov/locations/dllocations.aspx?csc=50
Atlanta Customer Service Center # 50
All Customer Service Centers will be closed
Saturday, November 11, 2006
and will reopen on Tuesday, November 14, 2006.

The day following a holiday is typically a very busy day, so please plan ahead.

Office Hours: Tuesday - Saturday
7:30 - 5:00
Address: 445 Capitol Ave SE
Atlanta GA. 30312
http://maps.yahoo.com/py/maps.py?Pyt=Tmap&addr=445+Capitol+Ave+SE&csz=Atlanta,+GA+30312

You’re trying to tell me you buy the claim that they’d close the DMV office (called DDS in Georgia) in a major metropolitan area like Atlanta and no one would think it odd?
You ARE simple, no, you are beyond simple, and clearly so is your WaPo source.

And before you get alarmed that there’s only one in Atlanta -
That’s consistent with Houston Texas, Dallas Texas, Austin Texas, San Antonio Texas, Los Angeles (yes, California!), etc.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Because voting is a fundamental right.
No, it is just a means of selecting our politicians.

It is the results that are what really matter, not the act of voting itself. If the results are better if mkultra doesn’t vote, perhaps mkultra shouldn’t vote. That’s why we have things like an electorial college: the Founders wanted to come up with something that worked, not something where each and every person had an equal vote.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
The fact that the Dems seem so concerned they’re going to lose votes makes me wonder if they aren’t precisely counting on ineligible voters to swell their vote count.
I’m sure some are counting on the illegal vote.






 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
You want to disenfranchise the 96% of voters in order to prevent the 4% from disenfranchising by vote cancellation an equivelant number of voters.
You’re saying that 96% of voters will be deprived of the right to vote because they have to show ID. Do you understand how ridiculous this sounds?

You folks opposed to requiring ID to vote are good at throwing around empty rhetoric, but you haven’t produced any solid facts showing just how many people will not vote as a result of states requiring ID.
 
Written By: steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com/
It’s antithetical to our "innocent until proven guilty" ideal.
As is the rule that doesn’t allow me to carry my .45 pistol onto an airliner. Well, either that or you don’t grasp the "innocent until proven guilty" thing . . .
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
If they have a pulse, they are alive.
No kidding. And after purposely ignoring the word "citizen", tell me - how does their pulse indicate whether they are or aren’t a citizen and thus entitled or not entitled to vote?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
The house-bound, for example, can vote by absentee ballot, but they can’t get an absentee ID.
The fact that there are housebound people doesn’t mean that requiring people to go to polls to vote (instead of having vans bring the polls to everyone) isn’t such an undue hardship that we can’t do it ... all we need to do is offer alternatives or workarounds for exceptions. Diebold’s machines have many criticisms but the fact that blind people cannot use them is not 1 of them.
You are not trying to ascertain if someone is alive, you are trying to ascertain if someone is committing fraud, BUT in your zeal you are supporting a law that refuses the right of anyone without proper ID the right to vote, and they have done NOTHING wrong.
Why have voter registration in the first place then? If a person never registered to vote, what’s the difference?
 
Written By: h0mi
URL: http://
You frame the question incorrectly. From a constitutional standpoint, the burden should not be on a citizen to prove they are a citizen. The burden should be on the government to prove the person is not a citizen.
From a constitutional standpoint, this is nonsense.

 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
You are not trying to ascertain if someone is alive, you are trying to ascertain if someone is committing fraud, BUT in your zeal you are supporting a law that refuses the right of anyone without proper ID the right to vote, and they have done NOTHING wrong.
1) You have no idea if they have done anything wrong.

2) You have no idea if they are entitled to vote.

The ID is supposed to help sort that out.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
You know, it would probably benefit us all if there was a test people had to take before voting. But I won’t go there at this point.
Yes, it would benifit the nation, but it would also kill the Democratic Party.

Also: votes only really matter if they sway the outcome. For example, if there were 20 people on an island voting on who to eat first, and mkultra already had 11 votes, it wouldn’t really matter how mkultra votes, it’s into the pot for him. If your vote doesn’t sway the outcome, why waste gas going to the polls? Well, a good answer is: someone will analyze the voting results and draw conclusions, and in that sense votes that don’t sway outcomes still have some value.

And, as Florida 2000 shows, we have trouble determining to the last vote what the real count was, so in this sense a single vote doesn’t matter (i.e. can’t sway an election). Now, we might have a Diebold solution that gives the impression of an accurate count, but senile Gore voters can push the wrong button just as they can punch the wrong hole. So in large elections an individual vote is essentially meaningless, so if voting is a right it is a hollow right.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
I would guess we could probably get most democrats to agree with the first of these ideas, and a smaller number to the second.

1. Allow anyone residing in the USA to have a vote, not just citizens.

2. Since the actions of America impact the world, we should allow foreigners abroad to vote in our national elections.

 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
Harun, you need a third:

3) Prevent US military from voting.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Yes, it would benifit the nation, but it would also kill the Democratic Party.
Pointing out spelling errors is generally a low point in a forum discussion, however, it is acceptable, even required, when the error is within a sentence calling other people stupid.

A significant number of poor people are uneducated, and also Democrats, I won’t argue that. I will suggest that there are lot of not so poor people in red states who go out of their way to be ignorant.

Maybe the first question should be, "What is the process by which life on earth came to be as it is today?"

A. Evolution
B. Not evolution



 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
" live people who pretend to be dead people (or someone else) should be prosecuted,"

True, but just how does one do that? How do you identify this live someone?

**************************
"Every voting precinct I have ever seen has a list of eligible voters in that precinct"

Why do they have a list? Why shouldn’t you just be able to go in and vote? Their distrust shouldn’t be your problem.

***********************
"What do you have to show the authorities when they show up at your house in order for them to give you an ID?"
"If I don’t speak english will they provide me with someone who speaks my language?"
"If I miss my appointment can I schedule another one? How about if I miss that one? And the one after that? What happens if the authorities can never come when I am available?"

1) A moment of your time and your face, so they can photograph it.
2) How does one become a citizen without meeting the requirement of speaking some English?
3) Pretty mobile for someone too infirm to leave the house.

************************
"A June 2005 study by the University of Wisconsin found the following..."

Gee, from all those estimates of the number of people without driver’s licenses, I would estimate they have no traffic problems at all.

************************

" how does their pulse indicate whether they are or aren’t a citizen and thus entitled or not entitled to vote?"

Elementary, my dear M. We all know that every true patriot’s heart beats faster to the strains of the Star Spangled Banner and the sight of the Red, White, and Blue.


A very entertaining and amusing thread, and not even a full moon. I am sure even the comments I intentionally skip were also amusing.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Maybe the first question should be, "What is the process by which life on earth came to be as it is today?"

A. Evolution
B. Not evolution
Since evolution is used to explain speciation, and not the origin of life, that’s a simple question to answer.

Kinda funny that you didn’t know it, given your quickness to point out others’ ignorance.
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com/
Voting is a fundamental right for citizens
Voting is a responsibility
Voting is a privilege

Given the gravity of the situation, why not show ID?
 
Written By: Shark
URL: http://
This just in, dead people, pets, and illegal aliens overwhelmingly support the Democratic party.
 
Written By: kyle N
URL: http://impudent.blognation.us/blog
Steverino,

Cap’s question (though facaetious) had nothing to do with the origin of life as you seem to be saying:
Maybe the first question should be, "What is the process by which life on earth came to be as it is today?"
came to be as it is today’ not ’came to be’; I think you are interpreting the question as if it were the latter. A strong argument can be made that ’as it is today’ implies speciation and does not question the origin of life, which I fully agree evolution does not address.

Also earlier on by selectively quoting Cap you miss his point:
Let’s assume that 4% of voters without ID are committing fraud. (probably a very high estimate, but as long as the number is under 50%, the end result is the same).

That would mean that 96% of voters without ID are not committing fraud.

You want to disenfranchise the 96% of voters in order to prevent the 4% from disenfranchising by vote cancellation an equivelant number of voters.
You quote only the last sentence which relies heavily on the first two. So when you assert:
You’re saying that 96% of voters will be deprived of the right to vote because they have to show ID.
you fail to recognise that he was talking about 96% of voters without ID, not 96% of voters overall.





 
Written By: Kav
URL: http://livingrealworld.blogspot.com
you fail to recognize that he was talking about 96% of voters without ID, not 96% of voters overall.
Well Kav, Cap sure did make it confusing then did he not? He sets himself up for misinterpretation with his last line -

You want to disenfranchise the 96% of voters in order to prevent the 4% from disenfranchising by vote cancellation an equivalent number of voters.
In order for your critique of Steverino to work, Cap would have had to add the words "without ID" to his last line.

Voting is a privilege is it not? And there is responsibility associated with it. So let’s make sure we know who is wielding this power.

 
Written By: meagain
URL: http://
This exchange turned out to be quite interesting, It actually dramatizes, in a nutshell, the two major mindsets at work in this country.

A. The Exclusionists
Their primary concern is to see that the wrong people don’t join the ’club’. People are suspect until they can prove their innocence.
If some people are excluded unjustly, that’s just too bad.

B. The Inclusionists
Their primary concern is that no one is excluded unjustly. If some people sneak into the club without membership, it’s worth it as the price of guaranteeing that no legitimate member is excluded.

In a cartoon, I would draw the A’s as cold, authoritarian males and the B’s as nurturing, emotional females.

It is really depressing to see how close to divorce the As and Bs are. Definitley, these parties are in need of family counseling.
 
Written By: Laime
URL: http://
yep, and republicans in Florida were messing with conviction records to ensure that minorities won’t vote!
 
Written By: rr
URL: http://
As another method, I think we should go to the indelible, takes at least 5 days to get it off, ink stain on the body part to prevent multiple votes. No ID’s needed, but you only get one vote. And if you have a bandage covering the chosen marked body part when you show up to vote, the ink goes on 4 or 5 different areas. Limit the fraud potential to just 2 votes. And cause those multiple voters to walk around for days covered in bandages to hide their fraud.
 
Written By: Loren
URL: http://
Their primary concern is to see that the wrong people don’t join the ’club’. People are suspect until they can prove their innocence.
If some people are excluded unjustly, that’s just too bad.
Not at all. If there is an exclusionist impulse here it is to exclude those who have no right to do what they want to do. There are civil rights accrued to citizens which are not rights non-citizens have.

Tell me, would you be all right, given a family vote, if your child invited 6 or 7 of his (or her) friends in to have the vote go their way? Or would you insist that family votes mean family only?
Their primary concern is that no one is excluded unjustly. If some people sneak into the club without membership, it’s worth it as the price of guaranteeing that no legitimate member is excluded.
And, of course, given your black and white treatment, it is actually a bit of both.

What I don’t understand, and what those who oppose this can’t explain (apparently) is why given we register voters (and you seem to be fine with that since it is that which helps establish their right to vote) why you oppose a positive way of ensuring the person claiming to be that registered voter is who he says he is?

Otherwise, as someone has said, why register? Open the polls and let anyone who can manage to get in the door (I imagine my 6 year old grandson would love to vote and I wouldn’t mind telling who to vote for at all) vote.

That is, after all, what your ultimate argument boils down too (in the name of "inclusion").
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Wow, every point against my comments were already addressed by people who understood their clear meaning, as opposed to the folks who went out of their to pretend they meant something I did not say.

Yes, "came to be as it is today" was a reference to speciation.

Yes, when I have two sentences that discuss a single group, those without ID, I did not imagine that in the concluding sentence when I referenced the same 96% as in the previous sentence, that ANYONE would simply (key word) assume that I was talking about a totally different group.
Well Kav, Cap sure did make it confusing then did he not? He sets himself up for misinterpretation with his last line -

You want to disenfranchise the 96% of voters in order to prevent the 4% from disenfranchising by vote cancellation an equivalent number of voters.
Let’s assume that 4% of voters without ID are committing fraud. (probably a very high estimate, but as long as the number is under 50%, the end result is the same).

That would mean that 96% of voters without ID are not committing fraud.

You want to disenfranchise the 96% of voters in order to prevent the 4% from disenfranchising by vote cancellation an equivelant number of voters.
This really confused you? Really?

You really thought that I mentioned 4% of voters without id’s, and the I mentioned 96% of voters without id’s, and then mentioned BOTH in the sentence that followed using the qualifier "THE" and you really thought I had simply stopped talking about the group without id’s and suddenly was referring to the entire voting universe? Really?

And you don’t mind admitting this?

Really?


What I don’t understand, and what those who oppose this can’t explain (apparently) is why given we register voters (and you seem to be fine with that since it is that which helps establish their right to vote) why you oppose a positive way of ensuring the person claiming to be that registered voter is who he says he is?
 
Written By: CaptinSarcastic
URL: http://
Oops, meant to block this and respond...
What I don’t understand, and what those who oppose this can’t explain (apparently) is why given we register voters (and you seem to be fine with that since it is that which helps establish their right to vote) why you oppose a positive way of ensuring the person claiming to be that registered voter is who he says he is?
I’ll try to explain my POV...

Registering is a step, this step requires that individuals PROVE who they are and where they live.

A significant number of potential voters are eliminated by this step. (I’m not advocating for removing this step)

Showing up is a step, this requires knowing where the polling place is and being on the voter rolls and telling a poll worker who we are, which they crosscheck against the voter rolls.

A less significant number are eliminated by this step. (I am not advocating for removing this step)

What I am saying is that this is enough steps.

I disagree with your argument that we need more steps, like providing a picture ID when you show up at the poll. I am okay with this step as requirement for non-provisional ballots, but I am absolutely opposed to this step as a requirement to vote, or more pointedly as a valid reason to turn people away from the polls. Allow people without ID, who are willing to sign an affidavit confirming their identity, to vote on a provisional ballot. If the election is decided and the provisional ballots could not alter the outcome, throw them away. If the election is close enough to be decided by the provisional ballots, the eligibility of these voters can then be double checked.

In this scenario you have addressed the problem of fraud (desire of the exclusionists) and you have not disenfranchised anyone (desire of the inclusionists).

What I can’t understand is why you think my solution, that addresses both concerns is less desirable for you than simple turning eligible voters away in order to prevent a tiny fraction of fraudulent voters from submitting a ballot.

Cap

 
Written By: CaptinSarcastic
URL: http://
I disagree with your argument that we need more steps, like providing a picture ID when you show up at the poll. I am okay with this step as requirement for non-provisional ballots, but I am absolutely opposed to this step as a requirement to vote, or more pointedly as a valid reason to turn people away from the polls.
No one is saying they should be turned away if they don’t have the ID. In fact the law, here in GA, states a provisional ballot may be voted. But the onus is on them, then, to provide proper ID before the vote is counted. For legitimate voters, that should be no problem.

Registering to vote, as the post indicates, doesn’t mean all voters registered are legitimate. Review the 191 registered to a single address. Without some form of positive ID at the polls, a relatively few people could vote all of those registrations. However, getting acceptable picture ID in all of those names might be a little tougher.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
A. The Exclusionists
Their primary concern is to see that the wrong people don’t join the ’club’. People are suspect until they can prove their innocence.
If some people are excluded unjustly, that’s just too bad.

B. The Inclusionists
Their primary concern is that no one is excluded unjustly. If some people sneak into the club without membership, it’s worth it as the price of guaranteeing that no legitimate member is excluded.
Actually, my perspective is that voting per se is just a process. The goal is good government, or at least best possible government. If having a king produced better government, then we should go back to that. If having a Senate that isn’t directly elected results in better government, we should go back to that.

Inclusion vs exclusion doesn’t much concearn me. If I thought illegal aliens made good political decisions, it wouldn’t bother me if they voted.

 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
MCQ: "..an exclusionist impulse here it is to exclude those who have no right to do what they want to the
"...onus is on them, then, to provide proper ID"
====
There are several issues involved here, and MCQ likes to pretend that it’s simple, leading not surprisingly to his pre-set conclusions.

First, let’s deal with fraud. No one, that I have heard of, is defending fraud. No one, that I know of, is denying that there is, indeed, some fraud. How much illicit voting actually goes on is being debated among people who have studied this, though perfunctoriy, and there is wide disagreement. I haven’t studied it, so I don’t know. Those who cite individual cases, con’t know either, because their focus is limited.

Second, how to deal with fraud. This is where the exclusivitsts part from the inclusivists. One sees the risk of a non-citizen voting as the
greatst danger to be avoided, while the other sees a genuine citizen being unable to vote as the greatest danger.

Both concerns are legitimate, and I don’t like the either/or situation.

To assert that there would be fewer problems because it’s a state, and not a federal, program, is just that: an assertion. Brlieve it or not.

To my mind, now that some states have enacted ID requiremnts, the rational thing to do would be to analyze the results. Investigate complaints seriously. Balance the cost vs. benefit sheet.

In the meantime, states that do not have ID requirements, could clean up thir voter rolls more diligently. They should have a mechanism to register and investigate complaints, as well.

After comparing the vaious results, we would have more solid grounds for forming opinions than resorting to personal inclinations, i.e., to fall in with the As or Bs.

THINK ABOUT THIS; an old, house-bound citizen in Georgia has no documentation to prove citizenship.
The state sends someone to the house, but there are no documents there. A provisional ballot is not going to solve the problem of the missing documents. But the onus is on this person to comply. What happens then? Who does the calling, the leg-work, the fee paying in order for this person to exercise the right to vote? And what if this person just is intimidated into silence by the rigmarole?
This is where the As part ways with the Bs. Some are willing to overlook this person as a necessary casualty, others would see it as a travesty.

Conclude what you want. Just don’t pretend that the choice is simple.



 
Written By: Laime
URL: http://
Yes, when I have two sentences that discuss a single group, those without ID, I did not imagine that in the concluding sentence when I referenced the same 96% as in the previous sentence, that ANYONE would simply (key word) assume that I was talking about a totally different group.
Hey cap, I knew what you meant - however, I’ve seen the rational you’re complaining about used just recently on the military tribunals bill to claim that Bush can/will round up anyone he pleases, citizen or not and throw them in a dark hole without explaining the charges. Used by international legal ’experts’ no less who claimed somehow a section from a bill specifically dealing with illegal combatants could be construed to actually refer to anyone at all.

So, don’t feel so bad that some folks managed to mis-interpret your couple of sentences.

Laime -
Good point -
THINK ABOUT THIS; an old, house-bound citizen in Georgia has no documentation to prove citizenship.
The state sends someone to the house, but there are no documents there. A provisional ballot is not going to solve the problem of the missing documents. But the onus is on this person to comply. What happens then? Who does the calling, the leg-work, the fee paying in order for this person to exercise the right to vote? And what if this person just is intimidated into silence by the rigmarole?
This is where the As part ways with the Bs. Some are willing to overlook this person as a necessary casualty, others would see it as a travesty.

Conclude what you want. Just don’t pretend that the choice is simple.
I’m with you on this - let me ask a couple of questions about this supposed person.
How do they buy food? Cash buried in jars years ago?
Taxes on the property? How are they paying them?
Do they have no bank account from which they withdraw?
No Social Security checks that are cashed?
No social services which are rendered to them?
No case in which they actually have to prove who they are at some point for reasons OTHER than to vote?
NONE?

Your theory is all well and good in a system from the 40’s, 50’s, 60’s and even the 70’s. As time has passed I have to believe these people living under the identification radar, and being valid voters, are fewer and fewer.

Still, I see your point, that any valid voters denied are travesties of voting justice.
Same principle as the death penalty killing one honest man in 10,000 without the dramatic consequences.
I don’t have an answer for your fear. I have to rely on common sense that says fewer valid voters will be disenfranchised than potential frauds which could be prevented. Fraud is not random, it’s thought out and orchestrated, it’s not an accident, or a mistake. It’s done with malice aforethought.
Do bear in mind that people have lots of time to get registered BEFORE election day. If they want to vote that badly, where this becomes some human rights class crime in denying them, then there’s ample time to get ID. If it’s that important, and not just some whim that hits them the day before the election (when someone comes round with the van to transport them to five or six precincts to cast multiple votes in exchange for a couple of bucks per....)

That doesn’t leave much solace perhaps for the truly disenfranchised though.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Still, I see your point, that any valid voters denied are travesties of voting justice.
Same principle as the death penalty killing one honest man in 10,000 without the dramatic consequences.
I don’t quite see these the same. A single vote simply doesn’t matter. Only votes that sway elections matter. When recounts vary by hundreds, what does one vote mean?

Evectively, many, many actual cast votes are disenfranchised by statistical effects. That’s reality, and we live with it (although in 2000 it looked like some Democrats were going to have aneurysms over it).

 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Suppose I show up at the polls to cast my vote and find that someone else, intentionally or inadvertently, has voted in my name. Should I get to vote no questions asked, thus getting two votes? How can I prove that I haven’t voted yet? How many people, theoretically speaking, should be allowed to vote using my name before someone asks, ever so politely, for an ID?
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Tim - thank you, because that’s the other side of this coin. Valid voters disenfranchised by commission of fraud.

Anybody on the other side want to deal with that issue?
I mean, what about the nice little old lady who saved for 3 months to get her ID, and put her cats on half rations and sold her late husbands war medals so she could get enough cash to take a cab to the ID office and get her proof she was who she said she was, and then on election day she shows up at the voting booth with her portable oxygen bottle trailing behind her and someone else has already voted in her name?
What about her? (Straw old woman, meet straw poor person)

Don - they aren’t the same - but the same flavor of argument is used against the death penalty - any single injustice wipes out all the justice, it’s a common argument. In short, if it’s not stone cold perfect, we shouldn’t do it.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
looker,

I understand, but life is an inherent "good", voting isn’t.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Don -
I understand, but life is an inherent "good", voting isn’t.
I know, I should have skipped the comparison. As to ’inherent’ things.

An aspect that people forget about the founders, they wanted to allow life, liberty, and pursuit of etc for everyone, but they didn’t think EVERYONE should vote.
They had no problem with the idea of a limited set of people voting, in fact they enshrined it. It was later generations that changed the system.

While I approve of the current system over the one they established it certainly makes me take less seriously the argument that we should allow anyone to vote and worry about identfying them as valid only when it suddenly, statistically, ’matters’ (ie during a re-count when someone’s media favored, poll declared, election night predicted, Democratic victor turns out to lose...).

 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
any single injustice wipes out all the justice, it’s a common argument. In short, if it’s not stone cold perfect, we shouldn’t do it.
And yet, we still kill people, but you want to allow people to be turned away at the polls if they don’t have ID based on an argument that fails to sway people away from killing a few innocents to insure they kill a lot of guilty people?

What am I missing?

How about this, you want picture ID, fine, when someone comes in and claims to be Eligible Voter X, take their picture. You now have picture ID.

If someone else comes in claiming to be Eligible Voter X you now have the mug shot of the person who committed a fraud.

Feel better, or does any solution that doesn’t turn people away from the polls fail to meet the necessary standard here?
 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
Hey Cap - to be honest, yeah, I kinda LIKE that idea.
And I’m sure if we wiggle it around enough we can find problems with it that will make it objectionable to people on either side of the issue.
I mean right away I’d say cost and time wise it’s probably a non-starter, but
it’s thinking outside the box that solves problems.
We are trying to solve a problem here, right? Not just waving our arms around in panic at the idea that we’re asking people to identify themselves in some satisfactory way?

 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
You put a photo ID requirement on all federally funded programs and the problem will be solved by the next election.
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider