BF2S Forums democrats are really concerned about voter fraud, ya right!!

lowing wrote:

GorillaTicTacs wrote:

Methinks Lowing hasn't voted in the US before, and that article certainly doesn't cover everything. 

First off, you need to register to vote well in advance of going to your selected polling station.  This registration is not automatic, though it is often as easy as filling in a card mailed to you and dropping it back in the mailbox.  Some cities even put a registration card in your face when you're getting your vehicle tags.  This system is already in place.  Republicans in the last two elections have had real problems in allowing registrations to go through the system, and like to drop registered voters from the list...ie the Ohio 2004 and Florida 2000 elections.

Next step is that you still need to prove who you are when you actually get to the polling station.  In some places it is enough to just show the other part of the stub you ripped from your voter registration application, in others they require some form of ID.  This system is purposely loose in regards to requirements, so people that can legally vote should theoretically have no hindrance.

I won't even get into the Diebold flaws, that's another thread topic entirely.

I will share this story though.  In 2002 I was dating a German girl and we happened to be away for a weekend to another part of Germany.  It was Sunday, voting day, and she suddenly remembered she needed to vote.  I thought "Crap, we gotta cut our 3-day weekend short and drive all the way back".  Nope.

She walks to the nearest voting station near our FKK resort, flashes her student ID, they check it on the computer, and she walks right in and votes...gets a receipt, walks back out and showed me she voted Green up and down the ticket, including local seats (wierd girl, but damn fine...) and we walk off.   WTF?  Germany is a lot of people and they can have such a painless sytem like that, what is wrong with us?

Wow, so think I don't vote? Well, ok..........

The problem here is at by not providing a photo ID at the polls the potential for voter fraud goes up. Now, I will admit that if the dems get their way, and we allow illegals to have drivers liecenses, then that also will aid in voter fraud.

Here in GA, no photo ID is required, hell you can produce anything with your name on it and it will be accepted practically. So lie on your voter registration and show no ID practically at the polls, sure why not? How much checking they really do before issuing a voter registration card I really have no idea.

PureFodder wrote:

lowing wrote:

GorillaTicTacs wrote:

Methinks Lowing hasn't voted in the US before, and that article certainly doesn't cover everything. 

First off, you need to register to vote well in advance of going to your selected polling station.  This registration is not automatic, though it is often as easy as filling in a card mailed to you and dropping it back in the mailbox.  Some cities even put a registration card in your face when you're getting your vehicle tags.  This system is already in place.  Republicans in the last two elections have had real problems in allowing registrations to go through the system, and like to drop registered voters from the list...ie the Ohio 2004 and Florida 2000 elections.

Next step is that you still need to prove who you are when you actually get to the polling station.  In some places it is enough to just show the other part of the stub you ripped from your voter registration application, in others they require some form of ID.  This system is purposely loose in regards to requirements, so people that can legally vote should theoretically have no hindrance.

I won't even get into the Diebold flaws, that's another thread topic entirely.

I will share this story though.  In 2002 I was dating a German girl and we happened to be away for a weekend to another part of Germany.  It was Sunday, voting day, and she suddenly remembered she needed to vote.  I thought "Crap, we gotta cut our 3-day weekend short and drive all the way back".  Nope.

She walks to the nearest voting station near our FKK resort, flashes her student ID, they check it on the computer, and she walks right in and votes...gets a receipt, walks back out and showed me she voted Green up and down the ticket, including local seats (wierd girl, but damn fine...) and we walk off.   WTF?  Germany is a lot of people and they can have such a painless sytem like that, what is wrong with us?

Wow, so think I don't vote? Well, ok..........

The problem here is at by not providing a photo ID at the polls the potential for voter fraud goes up. Now, I will admit that if the dems get their way, and we allow illegals to have drivers liecenses, then that also will aid in voter fraud.

Here in GA, no photo ID is required, hell you can produce anything with your name on it and it will be accepted practically. So lie on your voter registration and show no ID practically at the polls, sure why not? How much checking they really do before issuing a voter registration card I really have no idea.

So requiring a photo ID is not the solution to the problem, ensuring that voter registration is carried out thoroughly is. Hence the democrats were right to vote this down as it isn't the solution and relying on it would lead to unfounded confidence when all the immigrants get fake (and poosibly real if illegals are allowed drivers licences in the future) IDs. Congratulations to the democrats for shooting down a poor idea.

ATG wrote:

topal63 wrote:

lowing wrote:

So apparently showing ID to prove you have the right to vote in our elections is somehow offensive to you??

The Diebold machine problem - is a system problem. The system lacks veracity. It should not be this way. The current system has no checks to guarantee veracity. The log/original vote count is discarded as part of the current system. On many machines the vote count is uploaded to a centralized server (where they can easily be tampered with). It should be possible to compare the upload with the original vote count (log) prior to upload (but within the current system-framework - you can't - there is only the upload; the original is discarded).

That is not the subject of this thread and you are derailing.

The subject is the herd like voting of the Democrats, as usual, in a manner that is harmful to our country.

lowing wrote:

The amendment failed 42-54.

God I hate liberals.

WASHINGTON — This year Senate Republicans are threatening filibusters to block more legislation than ever before, a pattern that's rooted in — and could increase — the pettiness and dysfunction in Congress.

The trend has been evolving for 30 years. The reasons behind it are too complex to pin on one party. But it has been especially pronounced since the Democrats' razor-thin win in last year's election, giving them effectively a 51-49 Senate majority, and the Republicans' exile to the minority.

Seven months into the current two-year term, the Senate has held 42 "cloture" votes aimed at shutting off extended debate — filibusters, or sometimes only the threat of one — and moving to up-or-down votes on contested legislation. Under Senate rules that protect a minority's right to debate, these votes require a 60-vote supermajority in the 100-member Senate.

This year Republicans also have blocked votes on immigration legislation, a no-confidence resolution for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and major legislation dealing with energy, labor rights and prescription drugs.

Nearly 1 in 6 roll-call votes in the Senate this year have been cloture votes. If this pace of blocking legislation continues, this 110th Congress will be on track to roughly triple the previous record number of cloture votes — 58 each in the two Congresses from 1999-2002, according to the Senate Historical Office.

These antics fit the continuing decline of the Senate, including an unwritten rules change requiring 60 votes (out of 100) to pass any meaningful bill. When I arrived on Capitol Hill 50 years ago, Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson (like Reid today) confronted a slim Democratic Senate majority and a Republican president but was not burdened with the 60-vote rule.

Discriminatory Impact of ID RequirementsIn a comprehensive 2006 study commissioned by the Election Assistance Commission (EAC), an analysis of the impact of voter identification laws on voter turnout revealed that there was a 2.7% decrease in turnout overall in states that required documentary ID compared to states that required voters to give their names. In states that require photo ID, the percentage increased to 2.9% as compared to states that only require the voters’ names. The decrease in voter turnout is dramatically higher among minority Americans. African-American registered voters in the 2004 Current Population Survey were 5.7 percent less likely to say they voted in states that required a form of identification compared to states where one had to give one’s name. Hispanic voters in states that required a form of ID were 10 percent less likely to say they had voted compared to Hispanic voters in states where voters only gave their names. The percentage of decrease for Asian-American voters was 8.5 percent.

Eleven percent of Americans surveyed in a recent survey commissioned by the Brennan Center for Justice do not have government-issued photo ID, such as driver’s licenses or state-issued non-driver’s photo ID. According to U.S. Census data, that amounts to greater than 214 million citizens. Those without photo ID are disproportionately the elderly, students, women, people with disabilities, low income people and people of color.

• Women are more than twice as likely than men not to have a drivers’ license.
• One of every five senior women does not have a license.

Of all Americans without a license:
• One-fifth are 18-24 year olds;
• Over one-third are seniors;
• Over 70% are women.

A Wisconsin study revealed that African Americans are half as likely to have driver’s licenses as whites, and the disparity increases among younger voters; only 22% of black men aged 18-24 had a valid driver’s license. In Georgia, researchers found that 36% of citizens over age 75 did not have a driver’s license.7

Even among those that do have driver’s licenses, a substantial percentage does not show their current address. Again, this is even more the case among lower income Americans who move more frequently.8If an ID card such as a driver’s license does not contain the voter’s current address, which is true of millions of Americans, he or she is likely to be turned away from the polls. In Wisconsin, for example, 97% of all students do not have their current address on their photo ID.9

If an eligible voter forgets to bring ID, some states will not give them a provisional ballot, and most that do will not count those provisional ballots. This undermines an important “safety net” under the Help America Vote Act.

There is also some question as to whether strict identification laws can even be implemented without effectively shutting down voter registration. Arizona has attempted to implement a very strict form of identification - proof of citizenship at the time of registration. In the first six months of 2005, more than 5,000 Arizona citizens had their voter registrations rejected for failing to provide adequate proof of citizenship

Challenges Obtaining Identification

While it may seem benign to require voters to present a state-issued photo ID, in fact, there are multiple barriers to obtaining this ID. For those who are most likely not to have the identification, it is a significant burden to obtain the necessary back-up documentation, take time off during business hours, find transportation to offices that issue the ID, and find the funds for application fees and transportation.

Beyond the costs of money and time, voters face other barriers as well. Most states require a government-issued birth certificate (or the equivalent, such as a US passport) in order to issue a state ID. Many citizens do not have a birth certificate or, if they do, they have one issued by a hospital, not a state or local government. There are often fees associated with ordering a birth certificate, ranging from $7 to $26, and paradoxically, many state agencies require photo identification in order to obtain a birth certificate.

A study by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities shows that low-income people, African-Americans, the elderly, those without high school diplomas, and rural residents are much more likely not to have a passport or birth certificate available. It is important to note that these are self-reported responses and therefore underestimate the problem. Many people believe that their hospital birth certificate is enough, while obtaining state-issued ID generally requires a government-issued birth certificate.

Congress has recently been considering several bills that would make it even more difficult and expensive to get the ID necessary to vote. On September 20, 2006, the House passed a bill that would require voters to show either a U.S. passport or possibly the so-called “REAL ID” card - a federally mandated driver’s license that does not exist yet. The Senate has considered an even stricter version that only allows the “REAL ID” card. This is the bill passed in Congress - that was voted down in the Senate (42-54, nay).

If either bill passes, voters will have to buy expensive ID to vote. A U.S. passport - which only 25-27% of Americans currently have - now costs $97. And because the “REAL ID” card does not exist yet (states are required to provide them in 2008), nobody knows how much it will cost. But a similar new ID for 750,000 transportation workers will cost $140 per person. The National Governor’s Association warns that “the days of going to the DMV and getting your license on the same day are probably over.”

Last edited by topal63 (2007-07-24 09:36:56)

topal63 wrote:

http://projectvote.org/fileadmin/ProjectVote/Policy_Briefs/Project_Vote_Policy_Brief_8_Voter_ID.pdf

In a comprehensive 2006 study commissioned by the Election Assistance Commission (EAC), an analysis of the impact of voter identification laws on voter turnout revealed that ... African-American registered voters in the 2004 Current Population Survey were 5.7 percent less likely to say they voted in states that required a form of identification compared to states where one had to give one’s name. Hispanic voters in states that required a form of ID were 10 percent less likely to say they had voted compared to Hispanic voters in states where voters only gave their names....

Eleven percent of Americans surveyed in a recent survey commissioned by the Brennan Center for Justice do not have government-issued photo ID, such as driver’s licenses or state-issued non-driver’s photo ID.

While it may seem benign to require voters to present a state-issued photo ID, in fact, there are multiple barriers to obtaining this ID. For those who are most likely not to have the identification, it is a significant burden to obtain the necessary back-up documentation, take time off during business hours, find transportation to offices that issue the ID, and find the funds for application fees and transportation....

Many citizens do not have a birth certificate or, if they do, they have one issued by a hospital, not a state or local government. There are often fees associated with ordering a birth certificate, ranging from $7 to $26, and paradoxically, many state agencies require photo identification in order to obtain a birth certificate.

A study by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities shows that low-income people, African-Americans, the elderly, those without high school diplomas, and rural residents are much more likely not to have a passport or birth certificate available.

Vote reformers argue that Americans need more and better documentation if we want to exercise our right to vote. They play on fears that, as Federal Election Commissioner Hans von Spakovsky put it, "the Democratic Party and its alter ego organizations" like the NAACP and the League of Women Voters, working particularly in states with large immigrant populations, are drawing on their "long and studied history" of voter fraud to steal elections from good, solid, Republican candidates.

But this is bunk, through and through. Suppose there were widespread fraud under our current system. What would you see? You'd expect, for one thing, a much higher turnout in states not requiring ID to vote, as McGintys flooded the polls. But in 2004, according to ElectionLine.org, two states which require ID, Alaska and South Dakota, ranked among the top ten states for voter turnout, while six of the states with the lowest turnouts do not require identification. There is no obvious correlation.

But if that's not good enough, let's take another view. If there were widespread fraud, you would also expect results to differ dramatically from predictions. If it were true, as one Republican lawyer remarked to Karl Rove in a public forum last year, that the Democratic Party "rests on the base of election fraud," you would expect Democrats to win elections out of proportion to public support for their policies. But if anything, the pattern runs the other way: at no time since the late 1980s has less than half the population supported the proposition that "government should care for those who can't care for themselves," and indeed the proportion of Americans supporting that idea has generally run above two-thirds. Yet Republicans campaigning against this presumption managed to maintain electoral majorities nationwide through much of this era.

So the circumstantial evidence isn't good. Nor has direct evidence of systematic or consequential voter fraud shown up despite considerable effort to find it among the millions of votes cast. As Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has noted, the Department of Justice "made enforcement of election fraud and corruption offenses a top priority" starting in 2002. Yet in three years the Department of Justice found only two cases of double voting and 12 cases of voting by non-citizens--some in states requiring voter ID, some not. Such cases appear to have resulted from error or ignorance, not systematic corruption, and in any event have no clear relation to stricter voter ID laws.

Allegations of voter fraud -- someone sneaking into the polls to cast an illicit vote -- have been pushed in recent years by partisans seeking to justify proof-of-citizenship and other restrictive ID requirements as a condition of voting. Scare stories abound on the Internet and on editorial pages, and they quickly become accepted wisdom.

But the notion of widespread voter fraud, as these prosecutors found out, is itself a fraud. Firing a prosecutor for failing to find wide voter fraud is like firing a park ranger for failing to find Sasquatch. Where fraud exists, of course, it should be prosecuted and punished. (And politicians have been stuffing ballot boxes and buying votes since senators wore togas; Lyndon Johnson won a 1948 Senate race after his partisans famously "found" a box of votes well after the election.) Yet evidence of actual fraud by individual voters is painfully skimpy.

Before and after every close election, politicians and pundits proclaim: The dead are voting, foreigners are voting, people are voting twice. On closer examination, though, most such allegations don't pan out. Consider a list of supposedly dead voters in Upstate New York that was much touted last October. Where reporters looked into names on the list, it turned out that the voters were, to quote Monty Python, "not dead yet."

Or consider Washington state, where McKay closely watched the photo-finish gubernatorial election of 2004. A challenge to ostensibly noncitizen voters was lodged in April 2005 on the questionable basis of "foreign-sounding names." After an election there last year in which more than 2 million votes were cast, following much controversy, only one ballot ended up under suspicion for double-voting. That makes sense. A person casting two votes risks jail time and a fine for minimal gain. Proven voter fraud, statistically, happens about as often as death by lightning strike.

Yet the stories have taken on the character of urban myth. Alarmingly, the Supreme Court suggested in a ruling last year ( Purcell v. Gonzalez) that fear of fraud might in some circumstances justify laws that have the consequence of disenfranchising voters. But it's already happening -- those chasing imaginary fraud are actually taking preventive steps that would disenfranchise millions of real live Americans.

Identification requirements often sound simple. But some types of paperwork simply aren't available to many Americans. We saw this with the new Medicaid proof-of-citizenship requirement, which led to benefits being cut off for many longtime citizens. Some states insist that voters provide photo IDs such as driver's licenses. But at least 11 percent of voting-age Americans, disproportionately elderly and minority voters, lack the necessary papers. Required documentation such as naturalization paperwork can cost as much as $200. By contrast, when the poll tax was declared unconstitutional in 1966, it was $1.50 ($8.97 in 2007 dollars).

Congress should use this controversy as an opportunity to address true issues of voter protection. Experts have concluded that the most significant threat of fraud comes from electronic voting systems, now used by 80 percent of voters. Legislation introduced by Reps. Rush D. Holt (D-N.J.) and Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.) would require a voter-verified record along with random audits to double-check against tampering. It would also bar wireless components from machines that could allow a hacker using a PDA to stage an attack. Lawmakers should also immediately stop pushing ID measures that would turn away legitimate voters.

Those investigating the U.S. attorney firings should ask what orders went out to other prosecutors in the run-up to the 2006 election. Prosecutors are not hired-gun lawyers on a party payroll. They have a special duty to exercise their power responsibly, particularly in the context of a heated election. Pressure on prosecutors to join a witch hunt for individual voter fraud is a scandal, not just for the Justice Department but for voters seeking to exercise their most basic right.

In Pima County, home to Tucson, 60% of those who tried to register initially could not. Chris Roads, chief deputy recorder and registrar, said all appeared to be U.S. citizens but many had moved to Arizona recently and couldn't access birth certificates or passports.

It takes two to three years to get a marriage license from California, if you have lost your copy, so you can prove your citizenship.

Georgia's effort to introduce this requirement was held unconstitutional as a poll tax, because it required voters to pay for an ID in order to vote. It has since salvaged its rule, but only by making a voter ID free. The requirement will still likely deprive many in Georgia of the right to vote because it was imposed at the last minute.

The Carter-Baker commission in 2002-2004 said fraudulent votes make up .000003% of the votes cast. That's a lot of zeros. Let me say it a different way. Out of almost 200 million votes that were cast during these elections, 52 were fraudulent. To put that into some context, you are statistically more likely to get killed by lightning than to find a fraudulent vote in a federal election.

Even the Carter-Baker Commission which proposed voter ID requirements, has stated that any such requirements should wait until 2010, to allow adequate time to prepare voters and election officials for the change, and should include free access to voter IDs for the 12% of Americans of voting age who don't have driver's licenses.

Last edited by topal63 (2007-07-24 09:54:38)

AAFCptKabbom wrote:

Here's a few comments from a friend, who happens to be black and came from a family that has always been Democrats;
"No self-respecting or educated black man should be or needs to be a democrat anymore",  "Back then we needed people to take up our cause but those days are over - thank God",  "It's time to move ahead and lead and not be held back by the great white democrats anymore - it was  just another form of slavery that my family lived through - not for me".  (he said it's a hand-me-down view and not challenged in the community)

Even though I gave him shit for throwing that tired old "white" and "slavery" thing into the conversation I still know where he's coming from...

lowing wrote:

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/fund200409130633.asp

Quoted from the above
"With its hanging chads, butterfly ballots and Supreme Court intervention, the Florida fiasco compelled this country to confront an ugly reality: that we have been making do with what noted political scientist Walter Dean Burnham has called "the modern world's sloppiest electoral systems." How sloppy? Lethally so. At least eight of the nineteen hijackers who attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were actually able to register to vote in either Virginia or Florida while they made their deadly preparations for 9/11."

Look voter fraud is evident it exists, it has happened in all its varieties from both dems an republicans, but why not try and fix it. Positively  IDENTIFYING eligible voters seems to be very necessary process. Why are the democrats so against this??

The Carter-Baker commission in 2002-2004 said fraudulent votes make up .000003% of the votes cast. That's a lot of zeros. Let me say it a different way. Out of almost 200 million votes that were cast during these elections, 52 were fraudulent. To put that into some context, you are statistically more likely to get killed by lightning than to find a fraudulent vote in a federal election.

In fact, according to the US Department of Justice, since October 2002, 86 individuals have been convicted of federal crimes relating to election fraud (including several offenses not remedied by ID requirements), while 196,139,871 ballots have been cast in federal general elections. The ratio of confirmed cases of voter fraud to votes cast is so small our calculator renders the answer in scientific notation!

"A person who commits or attempts to commit any fraud in connection with voting, votes a fraudulent ballot, or votes more than once in an election can be convicted of a felony of the third degree and fined up to $5,000 and/or imprisoned for up to 5 years."

Oct. 13, 2006 –  A preliminary US Elections Commission report on voter fraud suggests there are few incidents of individual voter fraud in the US, or at least less than government officials and voting groups claim, while systemic types of fraud and disenfranchisement are significant.

Last edited by topal63 (2007-07-24 13:08:20)

topal63 wrote:

lowing wrote:

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/fund200409130633.asp

Quoted from the above
"With its hanging chads, butterfly ballots and Supreme Court intervention, the Florida fiasco compelled this country to confront an ugly reality: that we have been making do with what noted political scientist Walter Dean Burnham has called "the modern world's sloppiest electoral systems." How sloppy? Lethally so. At least eight of the nineteen hijackers who attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were actually able to register to vote in either Virginia or Florida while they made their deadly preparations for 9/11."

Look voter fraud is evident it exists, it has happened in all its varieties from both dems an republicans, but why not try and fix it. Positively  IDENTIFYING eligible voters seems to be very necessary process. Why are the democrats so against this??

That is downright pathetic bullshit.

Yea see Dem.s want terrorist to vote - they really do! (/sarcasm, give me a f-n break from this stupidity).

The problem of individual voter fraud is a myth. Systematic voter fraud is something else.

The Carter-Baker commission in 2002-2004 said fraudulent votes make up .000003% of the votes cast. That's a lot of zeros. Let me say it a different way. Out of almost 200 million votes that were cast during these elections, 52 were fraudulent. To put that into some context, you are statistically more likely to get killed by lightning than to find a fraudulent vote in a federal election.

Illegal undocumented individuals influencing an election result - has no foundation in reality or fact. The Democrat’s opinion on this issue should be clear to you. It is a Republican effort to disenfranchise voters in the upcoming Election. It has been more or less agreed that reform is necessary (by 2010 or 2012), but not in a time frame that will disenfranchise actual eligible American citizens in upcoming Elections (2008). It is not undocumented illegal aliens that will be affected (as there is zero proof that there is a problem also there is zero proof that there is widespread individual voter fraud), but rather this bill will affect: women, the elderly, the poor, minorities, etc. This is just another disingenuous appeal (political misdirection from real issues; or real systemic fraud). Widespread individual voter fraud is a myth - utter fabrication - entirely false, and not substantiated by a single shred of evidence.

In Florida, there is a heavy penalty for committing voter fraud: http://election.dos.state.fl.us/fraud/index.shtml

"A person who commits or attempts to commit any fraud in connection with voting, votes a fraudulent ballot, or votes more than once in an election can be convicted of a felony of the third degree and fined up to $5,000 and/or imprisoned for up to 5 years."

san4 wrote:

topal63 wrote:

The Carter-Baker commission in 2002-2004 said fraudulent votes make up .000003% of the votes cast. That's a lot of zeros. Let me say it a different way. Out of almost 200 million votes that were cast during these elections, 52 were fraudulent. To put that into some context, you are statistically more likely to get killed by lightning than to find a fraudulent vote in a federal election.

lowing wrote:

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/fund200409130633.asp

Quoted from the above
"With its hanging chads, butterfly ballots and Supreme Court intervention, the Florida fiasco compelled this country to confront an ugly reality: that we have been making do with what noted political scientist Walter Dean Burnham has called "the modern world's sloppiest electoral systems." How sloppy? Lethally so. At least eight of the nineteen hijackers who attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were actually able to register to vote in either Virginia or Florida while they made their deadly preparations for 9/11."

Hey, give lowing his due. 52 plus 8 = 60 fraudulent voters out of 200 million.

topal63 wrote:

san4 wrote:

topal63 wrote:

The Carter-Baker commission in 2002-2004 said fraudulent votes make up .000003% of the votes cast. That's a lot of zeros. Let me say it a different way. Out of almost 200 million votes that were cast during these elections, 52 were fraudulent. To put that into some context, you are statistically more likely to get killed by lightning than to find a fraudulent vote in a federal election.

lowing wrote:

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/fund200409130633.asp

Quoted from the above
"With its hanging chads, butterfly ballots and Supreme Court intervention, the Florida fiasco compelled this country to confront an ugly reality: that we have been making do with what noted political scientist Walter Dean Burnham has called "the modern world's sloppiest electoral systems." How sloppy? Lethally so. At least eight of the nineteen hijackers who attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were actually able to register to vote in either Virginia or Florida while they made their deadly preparations for 9/11."

Hey, give lowing his due. 52 plus 8 = 60 fraudulent voters out of 200 million.

He is struggling with the difference between the system and the Individual. The idea that voter ID requirements, placed upon the individual, will improve the actual systemic problems - is simple political misdirection.

1.) Every commission/report agrees - that voter ID requirements are eventually necessary. But, not immediately if they disenfranchise actual citizens (as opposed to some absurd conservative mythical threat of a deluge of illegal aliens registering to vote). Most (reports) agree that now is not the time to impose strict voter restrictions (& disenfranchise any portion of the actual legal to vote public; legal citizens), but rather to give time to allow voters to obtain ID's that may prove difficult for: divorced women, the poor, the elderly, etc. Any bill that proposes reform (related to voter IDs) needs to grandfather the rights of current citizens to vote, per current requirements, until a reasonable time has passed (say 2010-2012); if such is not in the bill, it could be deemed unconstitutional by denying en masse individuals/actual citizens the right to vote. A cut-off time is necessary in any bill proposing a uniform US-ID, as a portion of any voter reform act.

2.) Machine fraud - and the veracity of the system - is of greater concern (IMO).

3.) Manipulations after votes are cast or gerrymandering congressional districts, etc - present a greater problem (IMO).

4.) Criminal activity - is also of greater concern (than the myth of individual voter fraud). Anyone actively trying to influence an election by badgering voters, scare tactics, manipulations at the polls, etc - is criminal. This is something that is real and not a myth.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

jonsimon wrote:

Anyone want to present the full text of the bill? Without that, you have no way of knowing what kinds of riders are attatched to the bill.

Actually lowing (bless his little stone-carved heart) is referring to an action the Democrats (and Republicans)  took in voting not to include the Photo ID provision in a student-loan bill, not the actual bill itself.  More government-sanctioned bickering and political compromise.