Photo ID required!

[Coito ergo sum]

Where did I say that voter fraud doesn't matter?

Ian did. If you didn't, then o.k.

I just think that nitpicking the on the poor, elderly and Hispanics is a misplaced area of concern...I'd rather have a discussion about Diebold and that kind of fraud...to this day that hasn't been cleared up really, has it?

I am 4 square against all forms of electronic voting. Period. Without qualification. My suggestion to clear up Diebold is to not have it. It is a prescription not only to fraud, but complete election theft. I am vocal and vociferous about my avid antipathy to the Diebold machines and anything like them.

I do not, however, think you've established, or that Ian's sources establish that there is any nitpicking going on. And, I don't take illegal voting by hispanics or anyone else less seriously than by any other race. I take the issue of electronic voting, though, more serious than anything else because it is a prescription for the compete and utter theft of any election anytime.

At least if we have small precincts all run separately, on paper, and verified by representatives of differing interests, then improper voting can be at a minimum limited in scope to the precinct level. That still doesn't mean that it is a non-issue. If I go to my precinct and vote, having taken the time to learn about the candidates, and cast an honest ballot, I do not want people who are ineligible to vote casting ballots and diluting the proper, legal votes. That is as much a constitutional and civil rights concern as any other voting concern.

I think, at bottom, the real issue here, I suspect -- I can't prove, but I suspect - is that the real reason that people hand-wave the ID requirements and oppose them is for a more underlying reason: those folks think the folks that are currently ineligible to vote should, instead, be eligible. The same folks that oppose ID requirements seem, in my experience, to think the idea of barring non-citizens from voting is itself something that needs to be changed. Thus, they don't take particularly seriously the fact that some of those non-citizens might cast an improper ballot here and there. That is just a hunch of mine, based on nothing but my own sense and feeling from having discussed the issue with a fair number of people. I don't expect anyone to admit it.

[maiforpeace]

Where did I say that voter fraud doesn't matter?

Ian did. If you didn't, then o.k.

I just think that nitpicking the on the poor, elderly and Hispanics is a misplaced area of concern...I'd rather have a discussion about Diebold and that kind of fraud...to this day that hasn't been cleared up really, has it?

I am 4 square against all forms of electronic voting. Period. Without qualification. My suggestion to clear up Diebold is to not have it. It is a prescription not only to fraud, but complete election theft. I am vocal and vociferous about my avid antipathy to the Diebold machines and anything like them.

I do not, however, think you've established, or that Ian's sources establish that there is any nitpicking going on. And, I don't take illegal voting by hispanics or anyone else less seriously than by any other race. I take the issue of electronic voting, though, more serious than anything else because it is a prescription for the compete and utter theft of any election anytime.

At least if we have small precincts all run separately, on paper, and verified by representatives of differing interests, then improper voting can be at a minimum limited in scope to the precinct level. That still doesn't mean that it is a non-issue. If I go to my precinct and vote, having taken the time to learn about the candidates, and cast an honest ballot, I do not want people who are ineligible to vote casting ballots and diluting the proper, legal votes. That is as much a constitutional and civil rights concern as any other voting concern.

I think, at bottom, the real issue here, I suspect -- I can't prove, but I suspect - is that the real reason that people hand-wave the ID requirements and oppose them is for a more underlying reason: those folks think the folks that are currently ineligible to vote should, instead, be eligible. The same folks that oppose ID requirements seem, in my experience, to think the idea of barring non-citizens from voting is itself something that needs to be changed. Thus, they don't take particularly seriously the fact that some of those non-citizens might cast an improper ballot here and there. That is just a hunch of mine, based on nothing but my own sense and feeling from having discussed the issue with a fair number of people. I don't expect anyone to admit it.

I admit that's probably the case with me too. Why? Because it is a rather casual system...for example, absentee ballots. All you have to do is sign up for it initially, and they never ask for your ID again. You just have to swear you are who you are by signing.

[Coito ergo sum]

Yes, but absentee ballots are generally smaller in number, and they are generally only counted if the election is close, and then both sides heavily scrutinize them. It's not like there are no protections for absentee ballot fraud.

I don't see why it ought to be open for non-citizens or why one would want it to be. Non-citizens generally have the right to vote in their own country's elections, and Americans don't have the right to vote there. Like, a Mexican could vote by absentee ballot or in person in Mexican elections, but I would be prosecuted if I tried to vote in a Mexican election. I find it bizarre that folks would want non-citizens to vote in our elections.