Voter ID Laws: Necessary to combat rampant fraud or subtle subjugation of the Democratic demographic

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by elucidator

That would make it more or less a popularity contest, and I quail before that standard. Your simple, direct candor and open mindedness are a beacon to us all.

I'm a conservative on the SDMB. I've been called a racist, a woman-hater, a troll, a Republithug, an Uncle Tom, a traitor, treasonous, and those were the compliments.

If you believe you might fail to win votes for this question based on my relative popularity over yours, I suggest you rethink.

[doorhinge]

Originally Posted by Hentor the Barbarian

You do make a nice point for me, though. Is Bricker er al willing to spend all of the resources you've outlined here to trade a problem that doesn't exist for a solution that doesn't solve?

There must be some additional benefits weighing into the calculation that conservatives see here. I wonder what those might be?

It's the basic premise of "One person, one vote". Many people in both major political parties and many independents expect their vote to count. They object to the fact that a fradulent vote would cancel theirs.

I can prove who I am and I'm eligible to vote. Once. Anyone who votes more than once is undermining our democratic republic.

How does allowing anyone the opportunity to vote just because they walked into a polling booth represent a democratic process? Did they cast a vote somewhere else? Will they cast another vote after they leave this voting booth? Were they bussed in from some other State?

I see nothing wrong with proving you live in the district where you are voting.

There should be no cost to the individual to obtain a State issued photo ID because there are laws against poll taxes and fees and tests.

[elucidator]

Originally Posted by Bricker

I'm a conservative on the SDMB. I've been called a racist, a woman-hater, a troll, a Republithug, an Uncle Tom, a traitor, treasonous, and those were the compliments....

You poor dear! Need a moment?

Hanky? Borrowed it from John Mace, sure he won't mind. Well, yeah, it is a bit crusty, but that's probably nasal. Probably.

No, no, you can keep it. He wasn't going to ask for it back, anyway.

[elucidator]

Doorhinge, gonna try this one more time, thinking that maybe you came in late. Voter ID laws are not the true subject here, its using voter ID laws to gain an electoral, partisan advantage. That's not right, in the sense of being totally wrong.

[Algher]

Originally Posted by Hentor the Barbarian

Wow. That's some technology that can count stock and maintain databases just by clicking a button.

Your perceptions on this and your obvious ignorance of the problems with inventory accuracy suggest a disconnection with reality. A moment's thought should make clear that accuracy does not increase as the population of things to count increases.

Walmart's inventory control and tracking system is one of the keys to their financial success. Inventory at a click of a mouse is only slight hyperbole. They were one of the first to enable RFID tags on items in the store for tracking. Each time an item is scanned and sold it hits the database, which drives automatic distribution of product from their warehouses to individual stores, maintaining a constant inventory level at each store.

So, yes, Walmart's size has allowed it to surpass many a mom-and-pop store's inventory controls. Walmart was able to easily cover the cost of developing cutting edge inventory control systems.

The United States could easily (from a cost and technology perspective) implement a national ID and database that would cover a variety of uses. Combine the data in the e-Verify system (for working in the US), with Social Security and add in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) that is used for firearms (giving us felony and mental illness status). At this point you have a national ID, and the ability to tag everyone as either eligible to vote or not.

To then use that at the state level, other work would still have to be done. For example, each state has a different list of felonies that it allows to vote or not. Other issues would be around residency status at the state level as well.

Now it is the conservatives who were against a National ID the last time around as I recall (and I could be wrong on that). But combining all of this disparate information to make it an easier process for voter registration, eligibility and identification could also help with work identification, firearms purchasing, and other issues where ID is required.

I have no issue with making this a free service for the first card, and only charging for replacements. This could even help with the census count. Finally, the 11% with no ID could finally buy a beer, a gun, open a checking account or just walk down the street and have something to show the police in case they are stopped.

[doorhinge]

Originally Posted by elucidator

Doorhinge, gonna try this one more time, thinking that maybe you came in late. Voter ID laws are not the true subject here, its using voter ID laws to gain an electoral, partisan advantage. That's not right, in the sense of being totally wrong.

Voter photo ID laws allow legitimate voters to vote IN THEIR DISTRICT and help prevent fraudulent votings.

Who gains an electoral, partisan advantage if non-residents, illegal aliens, and political operatives are not prevented from walking into any voting booth and casting a vote?

Does that vote total truely represent the "will of the people" or the will of those who are willing to lie, cheat, and steal to gain power over the people?

Are legitimate voters being denied the right to vote

OR

should illegal votes being allowed to alter the outcome of elections.

No voter wants their vote cancelled by an illegal voter.

[elucidator]

Are you tip-toeing towards advancing the notion that the Democrats favor, and depend upon, illegal voters? Be advised that such a notion has already been advanced, and has been offered the scorn and derision it deserves. Well, maybe not all the scorn it deserves, space is limited, time is short...

[doorhinge]

Originally Posted by Algher

The United States could easily (from a cost and technology perspective) implement a national ID and database that would cover a variety of uses.

I have no issue with making this a free service for the first card, and only charging for replacements. This could even help with the census count. Finally, the 11% with no ID could finally buy a beer, a gun, open a checking account or just walk down the street and have something to show the police in case they are stopped.

Voting is a State issue. As a legal resident of Illinois, I vote in Illinois. Every State decides who and who is not elegible to vote in that State. I object to the Federal government deciding or influencing who should vote in Illinois or Texas or Utah.

There's no point in charging for a replacement card. That will initiate lawsuits claim the individual's cost is a form of poll tax which has already been declared unconstitutional. That's a battle that has already been lost.

[elucidator]

Originally Posted by doorhinge

.... That's a battle that has already been lost.

Deservedly so. Yes?

[doorhinge]

Originally Posted by elucidator

Are you tip-toeing towards advancing the notion that the Democrats favor, and depend upon, illegal voters? Be advised that such a notion has already been advanced, and has been offered the scorn and derision it deserves. Well, maybe not all the scorn it deserves, space is limited, time is short...

Oh No, not scorn and derision. How will I manage to sleep at night? How will I manage to feed my children? What will become of me now?



I'm not tip-toeing anywhere. One person, one vote. Democrats, Republicans, independants, and third-parties. One person, one vote.

What do you consider the downside to one person, one vote?

[Algher]

Originally Posted by doorhinge

Voting is a State issue. As a legal resident of Illinois, I vote in Illinois. Every State decides who and who is not elegible to vote in that State. I object to the Federal government deciding or influencing who should vote in Illinois or Texas or Utah.

There's no point in charging for a replacement card. That will initiate lawsuits claim the individual's cost is a form of poll tax which has already been declared unconstitutional. That's a battle that has already been lost.

Yes, voting is a state issue. There are nationwide issues as well. Florida's scrub, for example, is looking for felons. These can be felons from any of the 50 states, plus Federal crimes. Pulling all of that data together is not easy, and is open to problems. Having that handled at the Federal level, leveraging the existing investment for NICS, could reduce the false positive problem.

My point is that the Federal government is ALREADY pulling together most of the information necessary to determine is someone is an eligible voter - why don't we use it? There is no reason that we can not solve the registration and identification problem, except that there are people who either don't see a problem or don't want to solve it. The solution itself does not necessarily have to be one that benefits one side over the other - if it is handled appropriately.

[doorhinge]

Originally Posted by elucidator

Deservedly so. Yes?

Yes. We elected representatives to represent us. We expect them to write Constitutional laws. Expecting any voter to pay anything (other than the taxes that pay for the entire voting process. The money has to come from somewhere.) is a waste of time and effort. It's been decided. The voter photo ID's and their replacements must be provided at no cost to the individual voter.

[doorhinge]

Originally Posted by Algher

Yes, voting is a state issue. There are nationwide issues as well. Florida's scrub, for example, is looking for felons. These can be felons from any of the 50 states, plus Federal crimes. Pulling all of that data together is not easy, and is open to problems. Having that handled at the Federal level, leveraging the existing investment for NICS, could reduce the false positive problem.

My point is that the Federal government is ALREADY pulling together most of the information necessary to determine is someone is an eligible voter - why don't we use it? There is no reason that we can not solve the registration and identification problem, except that there are people who either don't see a problem or don't want to solve it. The solution itself does not necessarily have to be one that benefits one side over the other - if it is handled appropriately.

And how does a voter challenge a Federal registration? It's difficult enough to deal with State or City bureaucracies. I seem to remember that a FLA newspaper began investigating why potential jurors were refusing their request to report for jury duty because they weren't citizens. Their names had been selected from voter rolls. If they weren't citizens, why were they voting?

The FLA scrub is looking for illegal voters. That includes felons, non-residents, illegal aliens. Either "one person, one vote" means something or it doesn't. If it doesn't, let's all go to NYC and vote Bloomberg (I) out of office or go to Indianapolis and vote Mayor Greg Ballard (R) out or even come to Chicago and vote Mayor Rahm Imanuel (D) out of office.

One person, one vote. Fraudulent voting is illegal.

[elucidator]

So, then, to preserve the pristine purity of your motives, you renounce, denounce, and condemn any effort to bend this marvelous thing towards any partisan advantage? Which is, in case you haven't noticed, the actual subject of this debate.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Originally Posted by Algher

Walmart's inventory control and tracking system is one of the keys to their financial success. Inventory at a click of a mouse is only slight hyperbole. They were one of the first to enable RFID tags on items in the store for tracking. Each time an item is scanned and sold it hits the database, which drives automatic distribution of product from their warehouses to individual stores, maintaining a constant inventory level at each store.

So, yes, Walmart's size has allowed it to surpass many a mom-and-pop store's inventory controls. Walmart was able to easily cover the cost of developing cutting edge inventory control systems.

The United States could easily (from a cost and technology perspective) implement a national ID and database that would cover a variety of uses. Combine the data in the e-Verify system (for working in the US), with Social Security and add in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) that is used for firearms (giving us felony and mental illness status). At this point you have a national ID, and the ability to tag everyone as either eligible to vote or not.

To then use that at the state level, other work would still have to be done. For example, each state has a different list of felonies that it allows to vote or not. Other issues would be around residency status at the state level as well.

Now it is the conservatives who were against a National ID the last time around as I recall (and I could be wrong on that). But combining all of this disparate information to make it an easier process for voter registration, eligibility and identification could also help with work identification, firearms purchasing, and other issues where ID is required.

I have no issue with making this a free service for the first card, and only charging for replacements. This could even help with the census count. Finally, the 11% with no ID could finally buy a beer, a gun, open a checking account or just walk down the street and have something to show the police in case they are stopped.

So, now we have come to this:

Conservatives favor a system that does not necessarily solve a problem that does not actually appear to exist, which would massively increase the size and cost of government, which could be used to facilitate a national firearms registry and would also link to medical records. Part of their thinking on the subject appears to be related to a belief that it is easier to accurately count one million things than it is to count one hundred things.

It is safe to say that not only are we through the looking glass, but that we've engaged with both the Mad Hatter and the Cheshire Cat at the same time.

[doorhinge]

Originally Posted by elucidator

So, then, to preserve the pristine purity of your motives, you renounce, denounce, and condemn any effort to bend this marvelous thing towards any partisan advantage? Which is, in case you haven't noticed, the actual subject of this debate.

Preserve the "what"?

The opening question of this thread is - Voter ID Laws: Necessary to combat rampant fraud or subtle subjugation of the Democratic demographic

What combat's rampant voter fraud better than insuring that "one person, one vote" is the rule?

How does "one person, one vote" subjugate the Democratic process?

Who benefits by not having up-to-date voter rolls? Who benefits by allowing non-residents, illegal aliens, and felons to vote in U.S. elections. It's certainly not the lawful constituancy.

[Algher]

Originally Posted by Hentor the Barbarian

So, now we have come to this:

Conservatives favor a system that does not necessarily solve a problem that does not actually appear to exist, which would massively increase the size and cost of government, which could be used to facilitate a national firearms registry and would also link to medical records. Part of their thinking on the subject appears to be related to a belief that it is easier to accurately count one million things than it is to count one hundred things.

It is safe to say that not only are we through the looking glass, but that we've engaged with both the Mad Hatter and the Cheshire Cat at the same time.

Is there a reason you quoted me? Because your post has very little to do with my post.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Originally Posted by Algher

Is there a reason you quoted me? Because your post has very little to do with my post.

Yes. Your post introduced an idea that is remarkable to me, in that I would have thought I would never hear a conservative endorse it. That is the idea of having a national firearms registry. I think a national database of mental health (or other medical) records is horrific as well, but I guess if you're down with a natonal database for some personal info, then hell, you're in for a pound.

[Algher]

Originally Posted by Hentor the Barbarian

Yes. Your post introduced an idea that is remarkable to me, in that I would have thought I would never hear a conservative endorse it. That is the idea of having a national firearms registry. I think a national database of mental health (or other medical) records is horrific as well, but I guess if you're down with a natonal database for some personal info, then hell, you're in for a pound.

Re-read my post - I said nothing about a firearms database. I was discussing existing Federal databases that could easily be used to determine voting eligibility. Since one of the issues in voting is whether or not you have been convicted of certain crimes - it sure would be nice to have a database from across the nation to check against.

The National Instant Criminal Background Check (called NICS) already exists. It is NOT a fireARMS database - it is a database to determine if someone is proscribed from owning a firearm.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nic...ion/nics-index

Now, combine that with SSN and you have a system to check if someone can legally vote. This is combining a couple of data sets that already exist to make it easier for states to purge their voting rolls of those ineligible to vote.

[The Tao's Revenge]

Originally Posted by doorhinge

I see nothing wrong with proving you live in the district where you are voting.

There should be no cost to the individual to obtain a State issued photo ID because there are laws against poll taxes and fees and tests.

Problem is, getting ID may be free in some states, but it requires documents that do cost money, or like the PA program, can have ridiculous road blocks.

One party seems quite hessitent to even go anywhere as close as the PA program. That's the topic of the thread.

[Lord Feldon]

Originally Posted by The Tao's Revenge

Problem is, getting ID may be free in some states, but it requires documents that do cost money, or like the PA program, can have ridiculous road blocks.

For instance, you cannot use an Indiana birth certificate issued before 2010 to get an Ohio ID card. Ohio demands that you show proof of your legal gender before you are allowed to have ID, and Indiana birth certificates did not list gender until then. People in that situation have to pay $40 extra or show additional documents required of nobody else just to satisfy the whim of the Ohio BMV.

[elucidator]

I can prove my gender with immediate certainty, but would prefer not in the confines of the DMV.

[Ají de Gallina]

Originally Posted by Hentor the Barbarian

Wow. That's some technology that can count stock and maintain databases just by clicking a button.

Your perceptions on this and your obvious ignorance of the problems with inventory accuracy suggest a disconnection with reality. A moment's thought should make clear that accuracy does not increase as the population of things to count increases.

Having worked, and managed, inventory both with pen-and-paper and computers, I can tell you that a system were every item has a code that is read as it arrives and as it leaves is much better, faster, and accurate than checking cards.

Accuracy does not increase in itself as population increases, but your ignorance of economies of scale is also disturbing. The idea that the most powerful nation in the world cannot accomplish what a poor country can, in a field were access to more money, personnel, and logistics per capita is essential is ludicrous.

[John_Stamos'_Left_Ear]

When in doubt, ask Jon Stewart...
No really - ask him!

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Lord Feldon

For instance, you cannot use an Indiana birth certificate issued before 2010 to get an Ohio ID card. Ohio demands that you show proof of your legal gender before you are allowed to have ID, and Indiana birth certificates did not list gender until then. People in that situation have to pay $40 extra or show additional documents required of nobody else just to satisfy the whim of the Ohio BMV.

So the solution seems obvious: fix the Ohio BMV, who are acting without the backing of Ohio law.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by elucidator

I can prove my gender with immediate certainty, but would prefer not in the confines of the DMV.

That's why they don't want you in the bank lobby any more, isn't it?

[John_Stamos'_Left_Ear]

Originally Posted by Rand Rover

Does anyone have any evidence that Republicans actually desire to disenfranchise likely Democratic voters? Ive never seen any, yet it's an article of faith among some.

I stopped posting here so I apologize for what will most likely be a hit and run, however Mike Turzai, the Pennsylvania GOP House majority leader, was nice enough to go on the record and state that the controversial Pennsylvania Voter ID law would... help address voter fraud? Increase voter confidence? Stop undocumented immigrants from voting?

Nope. None of those things. He said it "is going to allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania."

This wasn't just any Republican. This was the state house majority leader speaking to a throng who applauded when he said it. I want to congratulate the representative. He was far more honest about this than most of his ilk - and those supporting Voter ID laws in this thread, for that matter.

Let me state that having an elected official in my state make a statement such as this certainly does undermine my confidence in the process. Anyone else?

[doorhinge]

Originally Posted by John_Stamos'_Left_Ear

When in doubt, ask Jon Stewart...
No really ask him!

Jon Stewart is a "comedian" who hosts a half-hour "news satire" that pokes fun at politicians and professional journalists who cover them. He can't be held legally responsible for anything he says during his "shtick". His dozen(s) of writers edit their scripts for comedic effect, not facts.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by doorhinge

Jon Stewart is a "comedian" who hosts a half-hour "news satire" that pokes fun at politicians and professional journalists who cover them. He can't be held legally responsible for anything he says during his "shtick". His dozen(s) of writers edit their scripts for comedic effect, not facts.

And yet, somehow he manages to be a more serious and relevant journalist than anybody on Fox News.

[doorhinge]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

And yet, somehow he manages to be a more serious and relevant journalist than anybody on Fox News.

Jon Stewart is not and never has been a journalist. Stewart himself says that he is just a comic. The Daily Show describes itself as a fake news program. This isn't rocket surgery. Stewart isn't a news reporter but some people still think he is.

[ElvisL1ves]

You're missing the point. Which is, "Fox News is less serious and less relevant journalistically than a comic on a fake news program."

[doorhinge]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

You're missing the point. Which is, "Fox News is less serious and less relevant journalistically than a comic on a fake news program."

Then you agree "with" Jon Stewart that Jon Stewart is not a journalist.

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by doorhinge

Then you agree "with" Jon Stewart that Jon Stewart is not a journalist.

I agree Jon Stewart is no more of a journalist than anyone on Fox News. And no less.

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally Posted by doorhinge

Then you agree "with" Jon Stewart that Jon Stewart is not a journalist.

Of course. When did he ever say he was?

Now: Do you agree that he's still more credible and a more serious journalist than anyone you'll find on Fox News?

[doorhinge]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

Of course. When did he ever say he was?

Now: Do you agree that he's still more credible and a more serious journalist than anyone you'll find on Fox News?

Jon Stewart says he is "not" a journalist. Why should I believe that he "is" a journalist? He has a dozen or more writers who write comedy routines and Stewart plays the straight man in the comedy sketches. You can't sue the Daily Show or Stewart for slander or libel. They can't be held legally responsible for any lies they tell about anyone. It's comedy. It's a joke. Maybe it wasn't funny but it was still just a joke. Nothing personal was intended.

Anyone who continues to refer to Jon Stewart as a serious journalist is gravely mistaken.

[ElvisL1ves]

Who ever did?

You seem to have misread the question.

[Sinaptics]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

Who ever did?

You seem to have misread the question.

Misread...dodging...whichever.

No Jon Steward is not a journalist. Yes, they can be sued for libel or slander. Yes, viewers who get the majority of their news from the Daily Show are more informed than those who get the majority of their news from Fox News.

In fact, the most recent study (The one that says Fox News viewers are worse informed than people who don't watch any news) actually singled out the Daily Show.

Cassino also praised Jon Stewart and “The Daily Show” for being an informative program. People who watched “The Daily Show” were 12 points more likely to identify the Occupy protesters as Democrats. Cassino said:

“Jon Stewart has not spent a lot of time on some of these issues. But the results show that when he does talk about something, his viewers pick up a lot more information than they would from other news sources.”

[Bosstone]

Originally Posted by doorhinge

Jon Stewart says he is "not" a journalist.

Are you under the impression that you have to be designated a journalist before you're allowed to say true things?

[John_Stamos'_Left_Ear]

Another way to increase decrease voter turnout is to limit or do away with early voting. The Republican Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted is attempting to limit early voting - specifically in urban areas, and going so far as to remove Democratic board members who dare defy his plan by voting against it.

Why do Ohio Republicans suddenly feel so strongly about limiting early voting hours in Democratic counties? Franklin County (Columbus) GOP Chair Doug Preisse gave a surprisingly blunt answer to the Columbus Dispatch on Sunday: “I guess I really actually feel we shouldn’t contort the voting process to accommodate the urban—read African-American—voter-turnout machine.” Preisse is not some rogue operative but the chairman of the Republican Party in Ohio’s second-largest county and a close adviser to Ohio Governor John Kasich.

Preisse said publicly what many Republicans believe privately—keeping turnout down among Obama supporters is the best way for the GOP to win the 2012 election. That’s why, since the 2010 election, Republicans have devoted so much energy to voter-suppression efforts like limiting early voting hours, restricting voter registration drives, passing voter ID laws, disenfranchising ex-felons and purging the voter rolls.

Cutbacks to early voting disproportionately disenfranchise African-American voters in Ohio. African-Americans comprise 21 percent of the population in Franklin and Montgomery counties and 28 percent in Cleveland’s Cuyahoga County but accounted for 31 percent, 52 percent and 56 percent of early voters in the respective counties in 2008. (Nearly half of early voting in Franklin County in 2008 did so on nights or weekends.)

Now it’ll be harder for voters across Ohio, particularly in the most populous, heavily Democratic cities, to find a convenient time to vote before Election Day in order to avoid the long lines that plagued the state in 2004 and may have cost John Kerry the election. “In the hours and days now eliminated by legislative and Sec. of State restrictions, an estimated 197,000 Early In-Person votes were cast, constituting about 3.4% of all votes cast statewide in 2008,” according to a new report by Norman Robbins, research director for Northeast Ohio Voter Advocates. “This is very significant in Ohio where major elections have often been decided by a 2% margin of victory.”

Republicans were for reforms like early voting until Democrats started using them. “It just so happened that [2008] was the first time that early voting had been used in large numbers to mobilize African American and Latino voters," Wendy Weiser, director of the democracy program at the Brennan Center for Justice, told the Huffington Post. A federal court ruled on Thursday that early voting cutbacks in Florida—where blacks outnumbered whites by two to one among early voters in 2008—violated the Voting Rights Act. As Doug Preisse admitted on Sunday, Republicans are doing everything in their power to make sure 2012 isn’t a repeat of 2008.

The Nation

So there are two prominent Republican officials in swing states publicly admitting that their efforts are not to protect election integrity, voter confidence or other hand-waving nonsense. Here's another Republican official admitting what Bricker and others here will not: that these changes are purely about voter suppression that specifically targets likely Democratic voters.

[John_Stamos'_Left_Ear]

I suggest that those debating whether Jon Stewart is a legitimate citation in political matters start a new thread. That said, Jon Stewart did weigh in on this issue for those who care.

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally Posted by Sinaptics

In fact, the most recent study (The one that says Fox News viewers are worse informed than people who don't watch any news) actually singled out the Daily Show.

Still, it isn't necessarily true that watching Fox makes you uninformed. Rather, it's that they market to a target demographic, one that includes intelligence and curiosity levels. They use an approach that lets the intellectually lazy feel they actually are informed, that the "lamestream media" watchers are not, and that they are therefore actually smarter - and they didn't have to break a sweat to get that self-righteous feeling; they actually had it validated for them.

But then, they're still less credible as a news source than a satire show on a cable comedy channel.

[John_Stamos'_Left_Ear]

(Though if someone did start the thread as to whether Jon Stewart was a legitimate cite, I would say that discrediting any citation because of his or her credentials and not on the basis of their position - especially when the person also presents evidence themselves - would be an logical fallacy. Maybe this one?)