TX, you are still disappointing me.
08-30-2012, 03:24 PM
#43
Former Vendor
iTrader: (31)
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Posts: 15,442
Total Cats: 2,100
It's not hard, guys.
"The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax."
You can charge a tax or a fee for citizenship, or require people to carry ID as citizens in a state, but you cannot prevent them from voting because they have not paid to obtain that ID.
"The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax."
You can charge a tax or a fee for citizenship, or require people to carry ID as citizens in a state, but you cannot prevent them from voting because they have not paid to obtain that ID.
Reply
0
0
08-30-2012, 03:29 PM
#47
As I think about it, this is a good time to point something out.
Measuring the Effects of Voter Identification Laws - NYTimes.com
This suppresses up to 2.4% of the voting population from Not Voting. Not a few here or there, a very large amount (Tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, in one state's case potentially in the range of low millions) of voters are not voting. Let me reiterate, potentially up to low millions of voters may have legislation introduced that either directly or indirectly prevents them from voting.
For what?
There has yet to be any proven case of the systemic fraud Republicans allege in modern elections. I know, I know, you are going to hit back with that ridiculous argument about 10,000 dead people on voting polls....
The problem with that argument, and what makes it ridiculous is yes, people voted in the previous election. Then people died. This is expected behavior. The logical construction of this argument is "If you vote, you can't die". There is no sane reason to expect this. People die between the election, what you have to do when you say this is and then prove the people who died voted in a later election after they died. There is no evidence of this, only people dying after they voted!
Now, as for the Kansas argument. Waiting for evidence | Wichita Eagle - It's been debunked. By Kansas themselves.
Now let's take an even more careful look at Kansas. They alleged 221 cases of voter fraud from 1997 to 2010, but upon further inspection of 221 of these cases, not a single case of voter fraud could be found. Several cases of supposed voter fraud in their grouping was a military member's absentee ballot not matching their signature on file - yes, seriously. The implication of voter fraud is deployed military members not matching their signature on file. Many other cases of supposed voter fraud include parents mailing their at-university children's ballots, and similar insanity. But let's just assume for a second that every single one of these ballots were fraudulent, shall we? That's somewhere around 16 fraudulent votes per year.
Let's assume for a second Kansas's law is at the low end of estimated voter suppression schemes, and it's a measly 0.8%. Kansas is estimated to have about 3million people*, or about 24,000 votes suppressed per election. In trade for an estimated ~16 fraudulent-votes-that-have-never-been-proven-fraudulent per year.
I'll go through any state you want Brainy, any state you want. The numbers are the same universally. You see a handful of incidents of true voter fraud per election in the worst case (We're talking single digits at most, if not completely zero), and it's typically of the variety in the vein of Kansas. Specifically, someone goes to the DMV, applies for something, and then the DMV asks them if they want to register to vote.
Finally, I'm just going to use Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania GOPers Concede That Voter Fraud Claims Are a Myth | Addicting Info
Voter ID law has nothing to do with fraudulent voting. Even if you give every single possible allegedly fraudulent vote over 13 years in Kansas (Which has already been debunked anyways), you end up with an incidence of voting fraud that is so low that I cannot characterize it in any way other than a rounding error. And even given these assumptions, Kansas is trying to eliminate their alleged-but-proven-false voter fraud cases by passing laws that will cause a portion of the population orders of magnitude larger not to vote.
Now, I know what you are going to come back with Brainy. But Republicans in Wisconsin already proved that false. Due to how Republicans in Wisconsin crafted their voter ID law, college IDs are not eligible for one specific reason. They meet every other criteria, except that they do not have an expiration date. Their solution? Add an expiration date.
But then the Republicans in Wisconsin started whining about how if that is allowed, it will only increase voter fraud and they cannot allow college IDs that meet all the requirements of their voter ID law. If an ID meets every criteria that is set by the Republican's bill, how on earth can it aid voter fraud unless their bill has nothing to do with voter fraud in the first place?!?
I don't know your professional background Brainy. But in my professional background, under no circumstances do we replace a working algorithm in code for another algorithm that is provably and substantially orders of magnitude worse due to some level of paranoia that was easily proven false. If I did that, I'd be fired.
*Source: Kansas QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau
Measuring the Effects of Voter Identification Laws - NYTimes.com
This suppresses up to 2.4% of the voting population from Not Voting. Not a few here or there, a very large amount (Tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, in one state's case potentially in the range of low millions) of voters are not voting. Let me reiterate, potentially up to low millions of voters may have legislation introduced that either directly or indirectly prevents them from voting.
For what?
There has yet to be any proven case of the systemic fraud Republicans allege in modern elections. I know, I know, you are going to hit back with that ridiculous argument about 10,000 dead people on voting polls....
The problem with that argument, and what makes it ridiculous is yes, people voted in the previous election. Then people died. This is expected behavior. The logical construction of this argument is "If you vote, you can't die". There is no sane reason to expect this. People die between the election, what you have to do when you say this is and then prove the people who died voted in a later election after they died. There is no evidence of this, only people dying after they voted!
Now, as for the Kansas argument. Waiting for evidence | Wichita Eagle - It's been debunked. By Kansas themselves.
Now let's take an even more careful look at Kansas. They alleged 221 cases of voter fraud from 1997 to 2010, but upon further inspection of 221 of these cases, not a single case of voter fraud could be found. Several cases of supposed voter fraud in their grouping was a military member's absentee ballot not matching their signature on file - yes, seriously. The implication of voter fraud is deployed military members not matching their signature on file. Many other cases of supposed voter fraud include parents mailing their at-university children's ballots, and similar insanity. But let's just assume for a second that every single one of these ballots were fraudulent, shall we? That's somewhere around 16 fraudulent votes per year.
Let's assume for a second Kansas's law is at the low end of estimated voter suppression schemes, and it's a measly 0.8%. Kansas is estimated to have about 3million people*, or about 24,000 votes suppressed per election. In trade for an estimated ~16 fraudulent-votes-that-have-never-been-proven-fraudulent per year.
I'll go through any state you want Brainy, any state you want. The numbers are the same universally. You see a handful of incidents of true voter fraud per election in the worst case (We're talking single digits at most, if not completely zero), and it's typically of the variety in the vein of Kansas. Specifically, someone goes to the DMV, applies for something, and then the DMV asks them if they want to register to vote.
Finally, I'm just going to use Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania GOPers Concede That Voter Fraud Claims Are a Myth | Addicting Info
Voter ID law has nothing to do with fraudulent voting. Even if you give every single possible allegedly fraudulent vote over 13 years in Kansas (Which has already been debunked anyways), you end up with an incidence of voting fraud that is so low that I cannot characterize it in any way other than a rounding error. And even given these assumptions, Kansas is trying to eliminate their alleged-but-proven-false voter fraud cases by passing laws that will cause a portion of the population orders of magnitude larger not to vote.
Now, I know what you are going to come back with Brainy. But Republicans in Wisconsin already proved that false. Due to how Republicans in Wisconsin crafted their voter ID law, college IDs are not eligible for one specific reason. They meet every other criteria, except that they do not have an expiration date. Their solution? Add an expiration date.
But then the Republicans in Wisconsin started whining about how if that is allowed, it will only increase voter fraud and they cannot allow college IDs that meet all the requirements of their voter ID law. If an ID meets every criteria that is set by the Republican's bill, how on earth can it aid voter fraud unless their bill has nothing to do with voter fraud in the first place?!?
I don't know your professional background Brainy. But in my professional background, under no circumstances do we replace a working algorithm in code for another algorithm that is provably and substantially orders of magnitude worse due to some level of paranoia that was easily proven false. If I did that, I'd be fired.
*Source: Kansas QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau
Reply
0
0
08-30-2012, 04:21 PM
#51
As such is the case, it would indeed be illegal to use a polling place as a way to check for identification.
Reply
0
0
08-30-2012, 04:32 PM
#52
After a bit of research, the principle of this is correct. The scope of legality to ask someone for identification is somewhat expanded in Ohio, but that scope of legality covers only crime prevention and crime investigation (And even then, a photo ID is not required as I previously suggested: a person is only legally required to give their Name, Address, and Date of Birth).
(Edit) Cliffs for third parties: SC has upheld that you must verbally identify yourself to a police officer in the situations Fooger identifies, but has consistently upheld that unless you are lawfully detained, compelling physical ID such as a driver's license is unconstitutional.
Reply
0
0
08-30-2012, 04:57 PM
#53
How do so many people not have a valid ID? I do not think I would be able to function normally for more then 2 days without an ID. I have to show my ID all the time. We all know poor people drink and they *should* need an ID to purchase the alcohol so how are sooo many voters displaced by this? I am not educated on this particular matter at all and am unclear why people would not vote. Is the argument that they just do not want to show their ID or that they do not actually have one.
Reply
0
0
08-30-2012, 05:10 PM
#54
How do so many people not have a valid ID? I do not think I would be able to function normally for more then 2 days without an ID. I have to show my ID all the time. We all know poor people drink and they *should* need an ID to purchase the alcohol so how are sooo many voters displaced by this? I am not educated on this particular matter at all and am unclear why people would not vote. Is the argument that they just do not want to show their ID or that they do not actually have one.
But legally, you cannot require actions that are not directly related to voting in order to vote if it will have a disproportionate impact on certain segments. In this case, it's a test for ID (And it's one of the reasons why the voter ID laws are being tested judicially, see Texas* and Pennsylvania as examples), but has a rich history in things such as literacy tests, poll taxation, citizenship tests, and even proposed IQ tests (I do not remember offhand if those proposals were ever put into law).
Here is an analogy for you: I have never owned a gun, I don't own a gun, and I will likely never own a gun. Admittedly, I have training, and I know how to use one better than most of the people in the US - but I don't own one. However, I am a passionate advocate against most forms of gun control.
Just because something does not infringe on my personal right or ability to bear arms, or my right or ability to vote, does not mean that I should not speak out about it.
(Edit)*: http://news.firedoglake.com/2012/08/...-voter-id-law/ - here's a source for you if you want more information. Pennsylvania's decision is an entirely different barrel of worms, and is well worth researching too.
Reply
0
0
08-30-2012, 05:31 PM
#55
Be careful there, you're generalizing me "we all", and suggesting fact "know", to perpetuate a stereotype "poor people drink"
My wording might be a bit off, but my mangina is slightly offended.
The argument being used against requiring a government issued photo ID is that we would be violating the rights of people who don't have a photo ID - which in my own opinion is a bit ridiculous, because just like you, I feel like everyone should have a photo ID, but apparently some adults do not have a photo ID.
In the simplest form, I would suspect that voter fraud my happen as so:
Bob goes to the polling place, he takes his water bill with him, and votes as "Bob" in precinct A.
Bob's friend, Gary, doesn't want to put up with the perceived hassle of voting. Bob, being unreasonably supportive of one specific candidate, asks Gary if he can take Gary's electric bill to represent Gary in precinct B, because Gary has previously mentioned that he would vote for the same primary candidate as Bob; Gary agrees. Bob, after all, took the day off work just to vote. While at the polling place, Bob votes for Gary's primary candidate, and then continues to cast other votes for issues and candidate either with or without consent. IMO, Gary and Bob are both guilty of voter fraud, but there is no way to even form a suspicion between the two people unless someone at the polling place can positively ID either Gary or Bob.
How likely is this to happen? I have no Idea, but I would believe that far fewer than 0.1% of votes could possibly be cast this way. It seems that computer software errors cause more influence in an election than double voters do.
My wording might be a bit off, but my mangina is slightly offended.
The argument being used against requiring a government issued photo ID is that we would be violating the rights of people who don't have a photo ID - which in my own opinion is a bit ridiculous, because just like you, I feel like everyone should have a photo ID, but apparently some adults do not have a photo ID.
In the simplest form, I would suspect that voter fraud my happen as so:
Bob goes to the polling place, he takes his water bill with him, and votes as "Bob" in precinct A.
Bob's friend, Gary, doesn't want to put up with the perceived hassle of voting. Bob, being unreasonably supportive of one specific candidate, asks Gary if he can take Gary's electric bill to represent Gary in precinct B, because Gary has previously mentioned that he would vote for the same primary candidate as Bob; Gary agrees. Bob, after all, took the day off work just to vote. While at the polling place, Bob votes for Gary's primary candidate, and then continues to cast other votes for issues and candidate either with or without consent. IMO, Gary and Bob are both guilty of voter fraud, but there is no way to even form a suspicion between the two people unless someone at the polling place can positively ID either Gary or Bob.
How likely is this to happen? I have no Idea, but I would believe that far fewer than 0.1% of votes could possibly be cast this way. It seems that computer software errors cause more influence in an election than double voters do.
Reply
0
0
08-30-2012, 05:34 PM
#56
However, this type of fraud that you mention is extraordinarily rare and is caught relatively quickly. Ballot signatures are compared to the registration (Not to mention thrown out if there is even a slight question), and I have never gotten a ballot I did not have to sign.
Reply
0
0
08-30-2012, 08:16 PM
#57
When I said poor people drink I was not insinuating that they all heavily drink. I was more or less saying that most adults over the age of 21 drink. Poor people are no different. Back on topic...
I understand the underlying argument against the law. That is fine. I accept the premise. I am merely wondering where everyone is getting this idea that so many less people will vote if they have to show an ID. Where is this logic coming from?
Is there a study with statistics of how many people that actually vote do not possess IDs or perhaps there is an assumption people will for whatever reason refuse to vote because they would have to show someone their ID (maybe there is a warrant for them or something or they are just paranoid.).
Opposing the law on a constitutional basis is fine. However, I keep hearing claims about how Republicans are trying to hurt Democrats with this proposal. How are they coming to this conclusion. I am unclear on the logic and would just like some info.
I understand the underlying argument against the law. That is fine. I accept the premise. I am merely wondering where everyone is getting this idea that so many less people will vote if they have to show an ID. Where is this logic coming from?
Is there a study with statistics of how many people that actually vote do not possess IDs or perhaps there is an assumption people will for whatever reason refuse to vote because they would have to show someone their ID (maybe there is a warrant for them or something or they are just paranoid.).
Opposing the law on a constitutional basis is fine. However, I keep hearing claims about how Republicans are trying to hurt Democrats with this proposal. How are they coming to this conclusion. I am unclear on the logic and would just like some info.
Reply
0
0
08-30-2012, 09:51 PM
#58
(Edit) Insomnia hit, so time to elaborate a bit more beyond the previous sources.
http://www.truthaboutfraud.org/
This is a great resource and primer on the subject. Notable is the fact that no Republican will testify under oath that there is voter fraud like you hear them talk about. In fact, to date I am unaware of any Republican that has been willing to testify under oath that voter fraud exists beyond a handful of isolated cases. I could be wrong, but I would be very surprised if there was one - these allegations of voter fraud have little factual basis.
http://jacksonville.com/news/florida...w-florida-laws
These are hard numbers and hard results as to what happened due to supposed voter fraud. The GOP, in court and under oath admits their voter ID (And similar voter suppression laws) have nothing to do with voter fraud, as they have no evidence of what they claim. However, there is hard evidence their laws disproportionately affect people based on political party, as per the above.
Do you remember how we calculated out voter fraud in Kansas to 19 cases per year, even if every accusation was proven true? (Remember, they were all proven false) Well, voter registration dropped by almost 200k Democrats in a 13 month cycle compared to previous elections due to said "voter ID" laws. Not singular election, elections.
Most of these laws aren't being thrown out in court for no reason (Some do remain, but they are the ones that are written to not have a disproportionate affect). There is hard evidence substantiating the disproportionate affect they have. Tied to trying to justify this are some of the most absolutely ridiculous astroturfing I've ran across personally - CSB time, posters that don't want to hear my CSB can ignore the rest of my post.
One example of what I am talking about, on another forum I modmin at, a new poster posted several lengthly posts about how in Florida, people with shirts bearing Democratic slogans would come to the home for the elderly where he supposedly worked, but all of them were senile/not in their right mind/etc.. When he asked them about it, the volunteers-that-he-wouldn't-say-were-Democrats-but-implied-they-were told him they voted for the elderly and the elderly didn't need to actually vote, just be there.
When he was grilled on where he worked, at what times, etc. he clammed up and refused to give any details. A glance at his IP resulted in finding out he was (idiotically) posting from an IP tied to Tallahassee. A bit more research found out that IP was tied to the state government. I actually mentioned this in passing on here once already, I think.
Last edited by blaen99; 08-31-2012 at 05:19 AM.
Reply
0
0
09-06-2012, 10:05 AM
#59
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,501
Total Cats: 4,079
Remember when voter fraud isn't real?
Arkansas Legislator, Three Others Plead Guilty to Conspiracy to Commit Election Fraud
Arkansas Legislator, Three Others Plead Guilty to Conspiracy to Commit Election Fraud
Reply
0
0
09-06-2012, 11:07 AM
#60
Remember when voter fraud isn't real?
Arkansas Legislator, Three Others Plead Guilty to Conspiracy to Commit Election Fraud
Arkansas Legislator, Three Others Plead Guilty to Conspiracy to Commit Election Fraud
Reply
0
0
