Photo ID required!

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Photo ID required!

Post by Coito ergo sum » Wed Mar 14, 2012 5:17 pm

Clinton Huxley wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:
Clinton Huxley wrote:
Ian wrote:I have plenty of derision for plenty of things in Europe, so don't try to call me a hypocrite there. Europe could take a number of lessons from us now and then...
For some reason, CES has to reference everything back to how "Yurp" does things, like it is somehow relevant....
I'll remember this next time someone says that the US ought to be doing things the way you're a peeins do it because ever other industrialized, civilized nation does it that way... "we pay X for gasoline, so so should you..." "we have a socialized health care system..." etc. etc. etc....
Still irrelevant.....
It's not irrelevant, since in determining what is reasonable is often done by comparison to what may be a common or prevailing manner of dealing with this or that. That is why folks say "every other western industrialized country has X, Y or Z" when debating many issues - they are suggesting that a certain way of doing things is proper because many other decent countries opt to do it that way. What would be strange would be to say that it is relevant in one instance, but suddenly not relevant in another (when the comparison is not beneficial).

And, if someone from a country which requires IDs tries to make an argument that it is improper to require them in the US, but doesn't make the same objection to their own country's requirement, then one might conceivably find that a somewhat hypocritical view of it. And, especially if direct or veiled accusations of "racism" are bandied about, as they often are on this issue.

User avatar
Ian
Mr Incredible
Posts: 16975
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 6:42 pm
Location: Washington DC

Re: Photo ID required!

Post by Ian » Wed Mar 14, 2012 5:18 pm

Coito ergo sum wrote:
MrJonno wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:So, on this issue, we need not do what the enlightened Europeans generally do. Check.
When I vote there is no id whatseover they ask your name and where you live and check according to their lists whether you have already voted. Always found that a bit suspect but as getting people to vote in the first place is generally a lot harder than getting them to vote fraudently its never been top of anyone concerns
It's pretty well settled that fraudulent voting has gotten Presidents elected. Most people accept that it occurred in 1960, and it was alleged rampantly in 2000. Requiring IDs would help minimize the ability of those schemes to be carried through.
That's election fraud, not rampant voter fraud. There's a huge difference. The potential fraud in those cases had nothing to do with large numbers of people claiming that they were somebody else so they could vote more than once, or illegal immigrants taking the risk of showing up to polling stations. The individual voter fraud you've been addressing is a very different (and very unimportant) issue.

Look through the smokecreen on this. It's about suppressing voter registration.

User avatar
Clinton Huxley
19th century monkeybitch.
Posts: 23746
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 4:34 pm
Contact:

Re: Photo ID required!

Post by Clinton Huxley » Wed Mar 14, 2012 5:21 pm

You brought up "enlightened Europeans"', CES, neatly flaunting the chip on your shoulder and kind of derailing your own thread.
"I grow old … I grow old …
I shall wear the bottoms of my trousers rolled"

AND MERRY XMAS TO ONE AND All!

Imagehttp://25kv.co.uk/date_counter.php?date ... 20counting!!![/img-sig]

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Photo ID required!

Post by Coito ergo sum » Wed Mar 14, 2012 5:40 pm

Ian wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:
MrJonno wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:So, on this issue, we need not do what the enlightened Europeans generally do. Check.
When I vote there is no id whatseover they ask your name and where you live and check according to their lists whether you have already voted. Always found that a bit suspect but as getting people to vote in the first place is generally a lot harder than getting them to vote fraudently its never been top of anyone concerns
It's pretty well settled that fraudulent voting has gotten Presidents elected. Most people accept that it occurred in 1960, and it was alleged rampantly in 2000. Requiring IDs would help minimize the ability of those schemes to be carried through.
That's election fraud, not rampant voter fraud. There's a huge difference. The potential fraud in those cases had nothing to do with large numbers of people claiming that they were somebody else so they could vote more than once,
Of course it is. "Vote Early, Vote Often." And, the story about how folks who resided in Illinois graveyards somehow voted in the 1960 election. When people can vote as people they aren't, it's voter fraud, and election fraud. If identification was required, they'd have to create a whole fuckload of fake IDs.

MrJonno
Posts: 3442
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 7:24 am
Contact:

Re: Photo ID required!

Post by MrJonno » Wed Mar 14, 2012 5:44 pm

Coito ergo sum wrote:
MrJonno wrote:I hope no one would have to pay for photo id and if voting isnt withing easy walking distance I would expect travel costs or postal voting with a free stamp to be allowed
Your country provides that?

Anyone can who can't get to an electoral station can get a postal vote (not sure if the stamp is included) , in fact I think anyone can get a postal vote but I would have to check on this.

As electoral districts are never more than around 60000 people and have multiple booths you should never been more than 5 minutes walk from one which still can an issue if you are handicapped. You can actually get someone to vote for you if you want (have to tell the gov in advance). You're helpful local MP to be will almost certainly get some party hack to give you a lift if you ask as well.

You do get small amounts of fraud through not normally the type of people turning up and voting illegally but as you have such small constituents its hardly likely to change the result of an election and the penalties (for a government who got caught doing it would be immense)
When only criminals carry guns the police know exactly who to shoot!

User avatar
Tyrannical
Posts: 6468
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 4:59 am
Contact:

Re: Photo ID required!

Post by Tyrannical » Wed Mar 14, 2012 5:53 pm

Coito ergo sum wrote:
Ian wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:
MrJonno wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:So, on this issue, we need not do what the enlightened Europeans generally do. Check.
When I vote there is no id whatseover they ask your name and where you live and check according to their lists whether you have already voted. Always found that a bit suspect but as getting people to vote in the first place is generally a lot harder than getting them to vote fraudently its never been top of anyone concerns
It's pretty well settled that fraudulent voting has gotten Presidents elected. Most people accept that it occurred in 1960, and it was alleged rampantly in 2000. Requiring IDs would help minimize the ability of those schemes to be carried through.
That's election fraud, not rampant voter fraud. There's a huge difference. The potential fraud in those cases had nothing to do with large numbers of people claiming that they were somebody else so they could vote more than once,
Of course it is. "Vote Early, Vote Often." And, the story about how folks who resided in Illinois graveyards somehow voted in the 1960 election. When people can vote as people they aren't, it's voter fraud, and election fraud. If identification was required, they'd have to create a whole fuckload of fake IDs.
Which is why we have an electoral college and not a popular vote, Illinois voter fraud no matter how bad can only affect who gets the Illinois delegates. Voter fraud requires local political power, so you probably would require a clear majority of supporters to enacts the fraud, but if you already have a plurality in a certain State fraud wins you no more than what you would fairly get. In many circumstances of course, close elections can certainly be stolen.
A rational skeptic should be able to discuss and debate anything, no matter how much they may personally disagree with that point of view. Discussing a subject is not agreeing with it, but understanding it.

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Photo ID required!

Post by Coito ergo sum » Wed Mar 14, 2012 5:55 pm

MrJonno wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:
MrJonno wrote:I hope no one would have to pay for photo id and if voting isnt withing easy walking distance I would expect travel costs or postal voting with a free stamp to be allowed
Your country provides that?

Anyone can who can't get to an electoral station can get a postal vote (not sure if the stamp is included) , in fact I think anyone can get a postal vote but I would have to check on this.
We have vote by mail too, called absentee voting and early voting. Polling places have been expanded so it's not just on one day anymore either.
MrJonno wrote:
As electoral districts are never more than around 60000 people and have multiple booths you should never been more than 5 minutes walk from one which still can an issue if you are handicapped. You can actually get someone to vote for you if you want (have to tell the gov in advance). You're helpful local MP to be will almost certainly get some party hack to give you a lift if you ask as well.
Our districts are small too, but we have far more suburban and rural areas that may prohibit someone from easily walking. A 5 minute walk is a kilometer, right? We don't have them quite that close for most people, unless one is in a very urban area.
MrJonno wrote:
You do get small amounts of fraud through not normally the type of people turning up and voting illegally but as you have such small constituents its hardly likely to change the result of an election and the penalties (for a government who got caught doing it would be immense)
There is little to no enforcement of fraudulent voting here, and it is pretty much left up to the people manning the polling places. It would certainly make it easier on the folks at the polling place to have people bring forth a photo ID of some kind.

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Photo ID required!

Post by Coito ergo sum » Wed Mar 14, 2012 5:57 pm

Tyrannical wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:
Ian wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:
MrJonno wrote:
When I vote there is no id whatseover they ask your name and where you live and check according to their lists whether you have already voted. Always found that a bit suspect but as getting people to vote in the first place is generally a lot harder than getting them to vote fraudently its never been top of anyone concerns
It's pretty well settled that fraudulent voting has gotten Presidents elected. Most people accept that it occurred in 1960, and it was alleged rampantly in 2000. Requiring IDs would help minimize the ability of those schemes to be carried through.
That's election fraud, not rampant voter fraud. There's a huge difference. The potential fraud in those cases had nothing to do with large numbers of people claiming that they were somebody else so they could vote more than once,
Of course it is. "Vote Early, Vote Often." And, the story about how folks who resided in Illinois graveyards somehow voted in the 1960 election. When people can vote as people they aren't, it's voter fraud, and election fraud. If identification was required, they'd have to create a whole fuckload of fake IDs.
Which is why we have an electoral college and not a popular vote, Illinois voter fraud no matter how bad can only affect who gets the Illinois delegates.
Of course, and the delegates nowadays follow the popular vote.
Tyrannical wrote: Voter fraud requires local political power, so you probably would require a clear majority of supporters to enacts the fraud, but if you already have a plurality in a certain State fraud wins you no more than what you would fairly get. In many circumstances of course, close elections can certainly be stolen.
And, have been, apparently.

MrJonno
Posts: 3442
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 7:24 am
Contact:

Re: Photo ID required!

Post by MrJonno » Wed Mar 14, 2012 6:06 pm

There is little to no enforcement of fraudulent voting here, and it is pretty much left up to the people manning the polling places. It would certainly make it easier on the folks at the polling place to have people bring forth a photo ID of some kind.
Nothing wrong with it in principle but such ID absolutely should be free and easy to obtain, £5-£50 or equivalent in dollars plus spending several hours queuing/taking a day off work etc to arrange would not count as easy or free.

Like many reasonable ideas its not the idea but why people want to implement is the bigger question, is it to stop voter fraud or just to make it harder for poor (or lazy!) to get the vote.

Individuals voting more than one is highly unlikely to change elections, getting corrupt officials to stick 1000's of ballot papers in they signed themselves into the ballot box or just losing the box can do (not sure what the electronic equivalent of that is but I sort of like a paper trail in our elections)
When only criminals carry guns the police know exactly who to shoot!

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Photo ID required!

Post by Coito ergo sum » Wed Mar 14, 2012 6:34 pm

MrJonno wrote:
There is little to no enforcement of fraudulent voting here, and it is pretty much left up to the people manning the polling places. It would certainly make it easier on the folks at the polling place to have people bring forth a photo ID of some kind.
Nothing wrong with it in principle but such ID absolutely should be free and easy to obtain, £5-£50 or equivalent in dollars plus spending several hours queuing/taking a day off work etc to arrange would not count as easy or free.
We don't have to take time off work. I got my drivers license here in my state in 15 minutes after work one day and it cost me $25, as I recall. Maybe $50. I can't remember. I just double checked. $48 for a drivers license. $25 for a mere ID card.
MrJonno wrote:
Like many reasonable ideas its not the idea but why people want to implement is the bigger question, is it to stop voter fraud or just to make it harder for poor (or lazy!) to get the vote.
To stop voter fraud.
MrJonno wrote:
Individuals voting more than one is highly unlikely to change elections, getting corrupt officials to stick 1000's of ballot papers in they signed themselves into the ballot box or just losing the box can do (not sure what the electronic equivalent of that is but I sort of like a paper trail in our elections)
They have oversight from both of the major parties at the polling places and watching the ballot boxes.

User avatar
camoguard
The ferret with a microphone
Posts: 873
Joined: Fri Nov 13, 2009 11:59 pm
About me: I'm very social and philosophically ambitious. Also, I'm chatty and enjoy getting to meet new people on or offline. I think I'm talented in writing and rapping. We'll see.
Location: Tennessee
Contact:

Re: Photo ID required!

Post by camoguard » Wed Mar 14, 2012 7:35 pm

I'm with the Justice Department on this one. The standard rule of thumb is "Why make voting harder?" You've got to mount a persuasive case to answer that before the JD will let you through.

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Photo ID required!

Post by Coito ergo sum » Wed Mar 14, 2012 7:42 pm

camoguard wrote:I'm with the Justice Department on this one. The standard rule of thumb is "Why make voting harder?" You've got to mount a persuasive case to answer that before the JD will let you through.
Why guard against illegal voting?

User avatar
Ian
Mr Incredible
Posts: 16975
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 6:42 pm
Location: Washington DC

Re: Photo ID required!

Post by Ian » Wed Mar 14, 2012 8:59 pm

Coito ergo sum wrote:
Ian wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:
MrJonno wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:So, on this issue, we need not do what the enlightened Europeans generally do. Check.
When I vote there is no id whatseover they ask your name and where you live and check according to their lists whether you have already voted. Always found that a bit suspect but as getting people to vote in the first place is generally a lot harder than getting them to vote fraudently its never been top of anyone concerns
It's pretty well settled that fraudulent voting has gotten Presidents elected. Most people accept that it occurred in 1960, and it was alleged rampantly in 2000. Requiring IDs would help minimize the ability of those schemes to be carried through.
That's election fraud, not rampant voter fraud. There's a huge difference. The potential fraud in those cases had nothing to do with large numbers of people claiming that they were somebody else so they could vote more than once,
Of course it is. "Vote Early, Vote Often." And, the story about how folks who resided in Illinois graveyards somehow voted in the 1960 election. When people can vote as people they aren't, it's voter fraud, and election fraud. If identification was required, they'd have to create a whole fuckload of fake IDs.
You're kidding yourself. It's either wishful thinking or willful ignorance, or you're just plain suckered, but this is incorrect. Find some information that says lots of individual voters, on their own, commit that sort of fraud at the polls. And if large numbers of people discreetly cooperate with some shady organizations seeking to commit fraud one vote at a time at the polls, find that as well since that sort of conspiracy is what I think you're implying. Find enough to make an actual case for creating a law, and I'll buy your line.

Otherwise, I'm telling you: this is nothing more than a case of one party trying to tilt the electoral playing field in their favor by making it harder for their opponents' constituents to vote. They can't say that of course, so they've got their excuse: "We're trying to prevent voter fraud." Well FFS, voter fraud barely even registers as a problem if it does at all. And I don't care if this makes me sound partisan, heaven forbid, but Republicans are notorious for that that kind of electioneering. Go ask Willie D. Whiting how that sort of thing works.

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Photo ID required!

Post by Coito ergo sum » Wed Mar 14, 2012 9:27 pm

Republicans and Democrats are notorious for electioneering. Don't even pretend that Democrats don't do this shit. It's the Democrat machine in Chicago that set the bar.
The Government Accountability Office estimated that up to 3 percent of individuals called for jury duty from voter registration rolls in just one U.S. district court were not U.S. citizens. While that may not seem like a large number, it’s more than enough to tip close elections — say, Florida in 2000.. Florida has over a million illegal aliens, and the Justice Department has prosecuted non-citizens, including a state-legislature candidate, for voting there. In California, a congressional seat came within 200 votes of being stolen in 1996 by non-citizens’ voting; a city councilmember was permanently disqualified from public office for soliciting non-citizens to vote in Compton in 2001.
After a grand-jury investigation of the 1982 Illinois governor’s race resulted in the conviction of aliens for illegally registering and voting, the U.S. Attorney estimated that there were 80,000 non-citizens registered to vote in Chicago. In 1985, the district director of the Immigration and Naturalization Services testified in the Illinois legislature that 25,000 illegal and 40,000 legal aliens remained registered in Chicago. The grand jury found that aliens registered so they could “obtain documents identifying them as U.S. citizens” and had used their voter registration cards “to obtain a myriad of benefits, from social security to jobs with the Defense Department.” More recently, Bexar County, Texas, found hundreds of aliens registered to vote, some of whom had voted in a dozen local, state, and federal elections, and Harris County found a Norwegian citizen who had voted in a state legislative race decided by only 33 votes. Similar accounts from other states such as Utah and Arizona demonstrate that this is a widespread phenomena.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/ ... -spakovsky (Von Spakovsky is a former Federal Election Commission member and was an assistant attorney general at the Department of Justice -- full disclosure - now with Heritage Foundation).
The weaknesses of the current registration system are to blame. First, in order to make registration easier, federal laws do not require proof of citizenship when registering, and states routinely offer registration to anyone getting a driver’s license, regardless of citizenship. Moreover, federal agencies in charge of immigration and customs enforcement refuse to comply with a federal law that requires them to cooperate with election officials in checking the citizenship status of registered voters. Overall, this amounts to an “honor” system — expecting immigrants, including those who broke the law to come here, to obey the law.

And even if an illegal alien would normally follow the rules, federal law provides an incentive for him to register to vote: Voter-registration cards, obtainable after a limited or no identification check, can be used to verify legal work status. They can also help when it comes to drivers’ licenses.
There are a number of solutions to this problem. The most important is that we must stop relying on an honor system, and require voters to provide proof of citizenship; election officials should have access to the government databases used by employers to verify the citizenship status of prospective employees. The federal government already uses these tools on everyone trying to get a job, negating the argument that proof of citizenship is discriminatory. Arizona, the only state that requires proof of citizenship to register to vote, has already turned away thousands of non-citizens who attempted to register — including almost 3,000 who tried to register when they applied for drivers’ licenses. State and federal courts should notify election officials when potential jurors are excused because they are not U.S. citizens.

Americans may disagree on many areas of immigration policy, but they should not disagree on the basic principle that only citizens should vote. Government officials have an obligation to enforce those laws.
Now - I'm flexible on the solution. But, for fuck's sake -- asking people AT LEAST to prove citizenship to get a voter registration card, and prove that they are who they say they are, seems, at bottom, a bare minimum to preserve some semblance of integrity of the system.

Some Americans argue that alien voting is a nonexistent problem or dismiss reported cases of non-citizen voting as unimportant because, they claim, there are no cases in which non-citizens "intentionally" registered to vote or voted "while knowing that they were ineligible."[6] Even if this latter claim were true-which it is not-every vote cast by a non-citizen, whether an illegal alien or a resident alien legally in the country, dilutes or cancels the vote of a citizen and thus disenfranchises him or her. To dismiss such stolen votes because the non-citizens supposedly did not know they were acting illegally when they cast a vote debases one of the most important Rights of citizens.[7]
The evidence is indisputable that aliens, both legal and illegal, are registering and voting in federal, state, and local elections. Following a mayor's race in Compton, California, for example, aliens testified under oath in court that they voted in the election.[8] In that case, a candidate who was elected to the city council was permanently disqualified from holding public office in California for soliciting non-citizens to register and vote.[9] The fact that non-citizens registered and voted in the election would never have been discovered except for the fact that it was a very close election and the incumbent mayor, who lost by less than 300 votes, contested it.[10]
Similarly, a 1996 congressional race in California may have been stolen by non-citizen voting.[11] Republican incumbent Bob Dornan was defending himself against a spirited challenger, Democrat Loretta Sanchez. Sanchez won the election by just 979 votes, and Dornan contested the election in the U.S. House of Representatives. His challenge was dismissed after an investigation by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform turned up only 624 invalid votes by non-citizens who were present in the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) database because they had applied for citizenship, as well as another 124 improper absentee ballots.[12] The investigation, however, could not detect illegal aliens, who were not in the INS records.

The Oversight Committee pointed out the elephant in the room: "f there is a significant number of 'documented aliens,' aliens in INS records, on the Orange County voter registration rolls, how many illegal or undocumented aliens may be registered to vote in Orange County?"[13] There is a strong possibility that, with only about 200 votes determining the winner,[14] enough undetected aliens registered and voted to change the outcome of the election. This is particularly true since the California Secretary of State complained that the INS refused his request to check the entire Orange County voter registration file, and no complete check of all of the individuals who voted in the congressional race was ever made.[15]
http://www.heritage.org/research/report ... zen-voting
Non-citizen voting is likely growing at the same rate as the alien population in the United States; but because of deficiencies in state law and the failure of federal agencies to comply with federal law, there are almost no procedures in place that allow election officials to detect, deter, and prevent non-citizens from registering and voting. Instead, officials are largely dependent on an "honor system" that expects aliens to follow the law. There are numerous cases showing the failure of this honor system.

An alien from Belize, for example, testified that he and his two sisters were able to register easily because they were not asked for any identification or proof of citizenship and lied about where they were born. After securing registration, he voted in Chicago.

Once such aliens are registered, of course, they receive the same encouragement to vote from campaigns' and parties' get-out-the-vote programs and advertisements that all other registered voters receive. Political actors have no way to distinguish between individuals who are properly registered and non-citizens who are illegally registered.

The U.S. Attorney at the time estimated that there were at least 80,000 illegal aliens registered to vote in Chicago, and dozens were indicted and convicted for registering and voting.[22]

The grand jury's report resulted in a limited cleanup of the voter registration rolls in Chicago, but just one year later, INS District Director A. D. Moyer testified before a state legislative task force that 25,000 illegal and 40,000 legal aliens remained on the rolls in Chicago
http://www.heritage.org/research/report ... zen-voting

User avatar
Ian
Mr Incredible
Posts: 16975
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 6:42 pm
Location: Washington DC

Re: Photo ID required!

Post by Ian » Wed Mar 14, 2012 9:52 pm

National Review and Heritage? Don't think for a minute I'm going to give that stuff a shred of weight. I thank you for making your own argument look as biased the people behind this issue, which I suppose it is.

Coito, get new sources! If a source of information has an agenda to push before they've reported or written anything, they are not to be trusted no matter what "facts" they lay out in front of you. If I was making a point and tried to back it up with articles from the Center for American Progress and MoveOn.org, what would you think of my rebuttal?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 31 guests