Huges07.1 posted:

---

Being the retard I am,...wait, what was my point again?

---

Huges07.1 posted:

---

It's funny how many things sobaki and yuki agree on.

---

ineenia posted:

---

I don't have strong feelings either way on this but let me throw an argument out there.

In a country where the whole justice system is based on people being innocent until proven guilty, wouldn't requiring people to show ID to vote be a assumption of guilt and a demand of to prove your innocents by the government?

---

huggipaul posted:

---

brown people voting is a serious problem

---

Tipztoe posted:

---

ineenia posted:

---

I don't have strong feelings either way on this but let me throw an argument out there.

In a country where the whole justice system is based on people being innocent until proven guilty, wouldn't requiring people to show ID to vote be a assumption of guilt and a demand of to prove your innocents by the government?

---

no it would not.

---

Tipztoe posted:

---

ineenia posted:

---

I don't have strong feelings either way on this but let me throw an argument out there.

In a country where the whole justice system is based on people being innocent until proven guilty, wouldn't requiring people to show ID to vote be a assumption of guilt and a demand of to prove your innocents by the government?

---

no it would not.

---

Yukishiro1 posted:

---

Tipztoe posted:

---

ineenia posted:

---

I don't have strong feelings either way on this but let me throw an argument out there.

In a country where the whole justice system is based on people being innocent until proven guilty, wouldn't requiring people to show ID to vote be a assumption of guilt and a demand of to prove your innocents by the government?

---

no it would not.

---

Yeah. Not any more than requiring people to prove eligibility before getting welfare benefits or any other entitlement.

---

ineenia posted:

---

I don't have strong feelings either way on this but let me throw an argument out there.

In a country where the whole justice system is based on people being innocent until proven guilty, wouldn't requiring people to show ID to vote be a assumption of guilt and a demand of to prove your innocents by the government?

---

Aerlinthian posted:

---

Why does government insist upon licensed drivers, pilots, doctors, lawyers, etc? Why aren't we allowed to take their word for it?

---

paulg_68 posted:

---

People should be allowed to vote a million times each with no checks on anything. This is better than inadvertently inconveniencing one civil war era democrat who doesn't have ID. -- Libtards

---

theredkay1 posted:

---

Voting on the other hand.....there is no market participant improvement.

---

Groucho48 posted:

---

Still waiting on examples of significant voter fraud that could have been prevented by picture IDs.

---

Groucho48 posted:

---

Still waiting on examples of significant voter fraud that could have been prevented by picture IDs.

---

paulg_68 posted:

---

Groucho48 posted:

---

Still waiting on examples of significant voter fraud that could have been prevented by picture IDs.

---

Suppose some guy wants to vote for his brother who he knows doesn't ever vote. He doesn't have a picture ID with his brother's name on it. He decides not to do it.

Do you need another one?

---

Yukishiro1 posted:

---

That isn't really correct. You can vote just showing a utility bill but your name has to be on the list. If it isn't you can register and vote on the same day but typically the votes are tallied seperately.

---

Yukishiro1 posted:

---

That isn't really correct. You can vote just showing a utility bill but your name has to be on the list. If it isn't you can register and vote on the same day but typically the votes are tallied seperately.

---

Groucho48 posted:

---

So, we have suppositions of how people could illegally vote. Still no examples of it happening in more than a scattering of places over the years.

Same thing when Indiana claimed to simply HAD to mandate picture IDs to prevent fraud but then couldn't point to any examples of that kind of voter fraud actually happening.


All you guys know how to do is repeat right wing talking points ad nauseum with no way to back up what you are saying.

WE NEED PICTURE IDs TO PREVENT FRAUD!!!

Can you point to any examples of voter fraud over the last 20-30 years that made any kind of impact and which picture IDs would have prevented?

LIBERALS!!!!

---

Groucho48 posted:

---

So, we have suppositions of how people could illegally vote. Still no examples of it happening in more than a scattering of places over the years.

---

IMHO posted:

---

Yukishiro1 posted:

---

That isn't really correct. You can vote just showing a utility bill but your name has to be on the list. If it isn't you can register and vote on the same day but typically the votes are tallied seperately.

---

I don't even know how to rebut you sometimes.

Let's try this.... What does it take to get "on the list"?

..or more to the point, should you have to be an American to vote in elections in America?

---

Groucho48 posted:

---

This is a solution in search of a problem.

---

IMHO posted:

---

should you have to be an American to vote in elections in America?

---

IMHO posted:

---

IMHO posted:

---

should you have to be an American to vote in elections in America?

---

---

paulg_68 posted:

---

Because they're hard to find when people aren't required to show photo ID.

---

Groucho48 posted:

---

paulg_68 posted:

---

Because they're hard to find when people aren't required to show photo ID.

---

So, your argument that lack of voter fraud cases proves there is voter fraud?

---

paulg_68 posted:

---

Groucho48 posted:

---

paulg_68 posted:

---

Because they're hard to find when people aren't required to show photo ID.

---

So, your argument that lack of voter fraud cases proves there is voter fraud?

---

No. You're the one saying that the lack of people getting caught is proof of something.

It's not. Reason is obvious.

---

By now, it's abundantly clear that a number of the U.S. attorneys whom Gonzales's minions sent packing didn't live up to Karl Rove's expectations in one crucial particular: They had failed to ring up convictions, or even mount prosecutions, for voter fraud. As Dan Eggen and Amy Goldstein reported in Monday's Washington Post, five of the 12 federal prosecutors either sacked or considered for sacking last year had been singled out by Rove and other administration officials for nonperformance on voter fraud. Amazingly, all five came from states -- Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, Washington, and Wisconsin -- where Republicans were embroiled in tight election contests.

With the home office in Washington breathing down their necks, why did these experienced prosecutors fail to bring voter fraud indictments? The crime, after all, had become a major Justice Department concern. Starting in 2002, Justice required every U.S. attorney to designate a district election officer, whose job it would be to end this epidemic of electoral fraud. These officers' attendance was required at annual training seminars, where they were taught how to investigate, prosecute and convict fraudulent voters. The statutes were adequate; the investigators were primed, well-funded and raring to go.

And nothing happened. For the simple reason that when it comes to voter fraud in America, there's no there there. Voter fraud is a myth -- not an urban or rural myth, as such, but a Republican one.

As a report authored this spring by Lorraine Minnite, a political science professor at Barnard College of Columbia University, for the voter-rights program Project Vote makes unmistakably clear, the government's failure to prosecute or convict more than a handful of people for voter fraud isn't for lack of trying. Since 2002, the Justice Department's Ballot Access and Voting Integrity Initiative has, as Gonzales put it, "made enforcement of election fraud and corruption offenses a top priority." And yet between October 2002 and September 2005, just 38 cases were brought nationally, and of those, 14 ended in dismissals or acquittals, 11 in guilty pleas, and 13 in convictions.

IMHO posted:

---

IMHO posted:

---

IMHO posted:

---

should you have to be an American to vote in elections in America?

---

---

---

Groucho48 posted:

---

I say that to start requiring picture ID there needs to be some evidence that the current way of doing things isn't working. No one has been able to show the current way isn't working.

---

IMHO posted:

---

IMHO posted:

---

IMHO posted:

---

[quote=IMHO]should you have to be an American to vote in elections in America?

---

---

---

Aerlinthian posted:

---

Groucho48 posted:

---

This is a solution in search of a problem.

---

BS, unions, ACORN (now renamed).


Oh and BTW, I am vehemently against computer systems used in voting. Anyone who thinks those are a good idea is an abject ignoramus.

---

paulg_68 posted:

---

Groucho48 posted:

---

I say that to start requiring picture ID there needs to be some evidence that the current way of doing things isn't working. No one has been able to show the current way isn't working.

---

The problem is that we can't detect fraud. You say we shouldn't put fraud detection in place until we detect massive amounts of fraud.

You seriously can't see the error in your logic?

You asked for how one would commit fraud and it took me 2 seconds to come up with a very easy way. Either you must think I'm a super genius or you have to admit that it would be pretty easy for other people to come up with such simple plans.

---

Institute of Southern Studies posted:

---

In a letter sent last week from Civil Rights Division Acting Assistant Attorney General Loretta King to Georgia state officials, the DOJ said that Georgia's voter verification program is frequently inaccurate and has a "discriminatory effect" on minority voters, subjecting a "disproportionate number of African-American, Asian and/or Hispanic voters to additional, and more importantly, erroneous burdens on the right to register to vote." The letter went on to say that the system "does not produce accurate and reliable information and that thousands of citizens who are in fact eligible to vote under Georgia law have been flagged." The ruling bars Georgia from continuing the citizenship verification, although the state can appeal to the DOJ to reconsider.

Handel and her aides created the verification system in 2007, extending the state's requirement to verify a voter's identity at the time of registration to include the verification of citizenship as well. The citizenship verification program matches information a potential voter has submitted with information maintained by the state Department of Driver Services and the federal Social Security Administration. Voters are "flagged" when they have non-matching information.

According to the DOJ analysis, Georgia's program "flagged a large number of persons who have subsequently demonstrated that they are in fact citizens, Indeed, of the 7,007 individuals who have been flagged...as potential non-citizens, more than half were in fact citizens."

The DOJ also calculated that although blacks and whites made up equal numbers of the newly registered, blacks were flagged 60 percent more than whites. The DOJ similarly found that "Hispanic and Asian individuals are more than twice as likely to appear on the (flagged) list as are white applicants." In essence the program puts an undue burden on blacks, Hispanics and Asians to prove their citizenship when trying to vote.

---

Remnant_OBrien posted:

---

So we've got Paul and IMHO demanding that someone prove something doesn't exist.

meanwhile in the most scrutinized election in modern America (Washington Governor election of 2004), which was ultimately decided by less than 130 votes out of 2.7 million votes cast. Found 0 cases of fraud.

---

Groucho48 posted:

---

I don't know what your argument is.

---

Groucho48 posted:

---

No, I don't think non-citizens should be allowed to vote...

---

Groucho48 posted:

---

Do you have any examples of significant numbers of illegal immigrants trying to vote by pretending they are someone else?

---

Groucho48 posted:

---

Your argument seems to be...I KNOW there is voter fraud, therefore, the fact we haven't been able to find any only goes to show that it is going on.

---

Groucho48 posted:

---

Having scores or hundreds or thousands of voters showing up in polling places claiming to be some one else is stupid, risky, expensive, inefficient and incredibly, incredibly rare.

---

Remnant_OBrien posted:

---

meanwhile in the most scrutinized election in modern America (Washington Governor election of 2004), which was ultimately decided by less than 130 votes out of 2.7 million votes cast. Found 0 cases of fraud.

---

paulg_68 posted:

---

Groucho48 posted:

---

Your argument seems to be...I KNOW there is voter fraud, therefore, the fact we haven't been able to find any only goes to show that it is going on.

---

That's not my argument at all. My argument is that it took me 2 seconds to come up with a way to commit voter fraud and you haven't denied that it would be successful.

Picture ID's would be a simple, cheap, and would stop most of that sort of fraud. I bet 99.9% of voters have them already.

Groucho48 posted:

---

Having scores or hundreds or thousands of voters showing up in polling places claiming to be some one else is stupid, risky, expensive, inefficient and incredibly, incredibly rare.

---

For a thing to be rare it must exist.

---

paulg_68 posted:

---

What percentage of people vote but don't have ID?

I'm guessing the number starts with a decimal point and some zeroes.

---