I Pit the ID-demanding GOP vote-suppressors

[Lobohan]

Originally Posted by magellan01

Can you give an example of his lying? His honesty is not really my fight (not that I question it for a second), but charges of this kind are thrown around on these boards too loosely too often. And they rarely pan out, resulting in the person hurling the charge looking like an ass. I'm sure that's not the case with you, of course, so, let's see these lies from Bricker that you allege.

He pretends not to understand comments and bats his eyes. That's a lie.

Sort of like you're doing, when you pretend you actually want a cite.

In any case, this whole thread is a lie: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...d.php?t=654796

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'll go back to talking to people smarter than you, you bigoted piece of shit.

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by Lobohan

He pretends not to understand comments and bats his eyes. That's a lie.

Sort of like you're doing, when you pretend you actually want a cite.

In any case, this whole thread is a lie: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...d.php?t=654796

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'll go back to talking to people smarter than you, you bigoted piece of shit.

As I expected. When you say "lie", you don't mean "lie" like the rest of the world uses the word. You disagree with Bricker, he frustrates you, so you revert to your lame-ass ad hominem bag of tricks. Nothing new. Just wanted to show you for what you are.

Thanks for being so obliging.

[Lobohan]

Originally Posted by magellan01

As I expected. When you say "lie", you don't mean "lie" like the rest of the world uses the word. You disagree with Bricker, he frustrates you, so you revert to your lame-ass ad hominem bag of tricks. Nothing new. Just wanted to show you for what you are.

Thanks for being so obliging.

No I mean lie as in his initial presentation of the thread was dishonest.

Like you lie when you say that you have an intelligent reason to be against same sex marriage.

I understand why you defend Bricker. He's by far the best of your ilk. He must seem like a God to someone of your limited capacity.

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by Lobohan

No I mean lie as in his initial presentation of the thread was dishonest.

Like you lie when you say that you have an intelligent reason to be against same sex marriage.

I understand why you defend Bricker. He's by far the best of your ilk. He must seem like a God to someone of your limited capacity.

See, you're not using "lie" like the rest of the world. A lie is not when you disagree with what someone says. A lie is when someone knowingly speaks something that they know to be untrue. So, I repeat my request for a cite. Now, I know you'll try to address this sloppily, because otherwise you'll be able to be pinned down as being full of shit. Heavens! So, I'll have to ask you for the particular thing Bricker stated that was:

1) untrue, and
2) he knew to be untrue

I'll wait.

[Lobohan]

Originally Posted by magellan01

See, you're not using "lie" like the rest of the world. A lie is not when you disagree with what someone says. A lie is when someone knowingly speaks something that they know to be untrue. So, I repeat my request for a cite. Now, I know you'll try to address this sloppily, because otherwise you'll be able to be pinned down as being full of shit. Heavens! So, I'll have to ask you for the particular thing Bricker stated that was:

1) untrue, and
2) he knew to be untrue

I'll wait.

Originally Posted by Bricker

I suppose I get tired of seeing a constant litany here of how evil Republicans are. And it's great for you to tell ME it's unhelpful, but why don't you say that to the people who are doing it?

I can't really carry off the persona, as evidenced by my quick admission when asked about abstinence-only sex ed that conservatives do the same things, and for essentially the same reasons: they want to make things better but succumb to ideology over fact.

Nothing I have said here is anything I don't believe. I have simply not (until asked) volunteered it's a problem on both sides.

Why am I supposed to always be reasonable and fair, and slog through threads calling me a partisan bigot day after day?

Here Bricker admits that he didn't honestly post the OP in that thread. In any case, I appreciate the opportunity to explain something to you that you already know, but are too much of a piece of shit to admit to.

Domo.

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by Lobohan

Here Bricker admits that he didn't honestly post the OP in that thread. In any case, I appreciate the opportunity to explain something to you that you already know, but are too much of a piece of shit to admit to.

Perfect. So, you backpedal from he "lied" to he wasn't posting "honestly", meaning that he didn't offer the other side of the debate for you. Newsflash, ChuckleHead, that does NOT translate to him being dishonest. And you chose a post in which he clearly says he's being 100% truthful:

Originally Posted by Bricker

Nothing I have said here is anything I don't believe.

Good job. You've shown yourself to be either ignorant of what a lie is or to be totally full of shit*. Though the last part comes as zero surprise.

*Very possibly, both.


Aside: Snicker. Why is it that those who most cavalierly hurl accusations of lying are the most full of shit? Kinda funny, in a way.

[Lobohan]

Originally Posted by magellan01

Perfect. So, you backpedal from he "lied" to he wasn't posting "honestly", meaning that he didn't offer the other side of the debate for you. Newsflash, ChuckleHead, that does NOT translate to him being dishonest. And you chose a post in which he clearly says he's being 100% truthful:



Good job. You've shown yourself to be either ignorant of what a lie is or to be totally full of shit*. Though the last part comes as zero surprise.

*Very possibly, both.


Aside: Snicker. Why is it that those who most cavalierly hurl accusations of lying are the most full of shit? Kinda funny, in a way.

I don't doubt that you don't take what Bricker said for a lie. Because you aren't very smart.

I'll leave it up to the peanut gallery as to whether Bricker's actions in that thread count as lying.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Bosstone

I admittedly do think that the side effect of suppressing Democrat voters . . .

It is not a side effect, it is the whole point and you know it, liar.

[BigAppleBucky]

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/php/gal...hp/760/2/2.jpg

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by magellan01

Can you give an example of his lying? His honesty is not really my fight (not that I question it for a second), but charges of this kind are thrown around on these boards too loosely too often. And they rarely pan out, resulting in the person hurling the charge looking like an ass. I'm sure that's not the case with you, of course, so, let's see these lies from Bricker that you allege.

I am calling a liar anyone who claims to believe that any of this shit -- voter-roll purges, voter-ID laws, caging-lists -- has any real purpose other than Dem vote-suppression. I deny you do believe it. This is not a matter of respecting honest disagreement, because there is none. That is what this Pitting is about. Can I state that any more plainly?

[DMC]

Originally Posted by Bricker

As Bosstone correctly observes, this is a side effect, not the goal.

Of course it's the goal. Otherwise, they'd bar absentee ballots, which is where a boatload of the actual (albeit negligible) fraud occurs. Which Voter ID law was bundled with the elimination of absentee ballots again? I also don't see you up in arms about the exceptionally long waiting lines in urban areas while the suburbanites can often breeze right in.

For fuck's sake, you know better, and we know you know better. I've often disagreed with you, and even thought that you sometimes used twisted logic to try and defend your stance, but I don't recall ever thinking that you were nothing more than a partisan shill. I do now.

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by Lobohan

I don't doubt that you don't take what Bricker said for a lie. Because you aren't very smart.

Actually, smart has very little to do with this one. It'd simply understanding what a "lie" is and is not. Odd that this little nugget of information has been so elusive for you all these years.

Originally Posted by Lobohan

I'll leave it up to the peanut gallery as to whether Bricker's actions in that thread count as lying.

By all means. Let anyone who wants to raise their hand an admit they share this bit of ignorance and idiocy with you stand and be counted. Of course, you still haven't even pointed to a "lie". You already backpedaled to "dishonest", and that amounted to him only offering his side of the argument. Boo-hoo, poor Chuckle Head...Bricker didn't argue your side of the debate for you.

You really don't see how lame your on in this, do you? Ahh. Such is part of the beauty, I guess. Perhaps you might learn to keep your ad hominem yap shut a little more.

Hope springs eternal.

[crowmanyclouds]

Originally Posted by Bricker

So my point is: prudence dictates we implement a system ahead of time that allows us to reliably associate voters with voting. That may not stop fraud, but it creates a real framework for catching and punishing non-citizen voters, for example. Now, a voter can simply deny he was the one casting the ballots.

Yeah, umm,

Originally Posted by Bricker

... The problem arises only in the very rare cases when an election's results are within a margin of error that includes voter fraud numbers.

The Washington State governor's race in 2004 is a good example. No one knew ahead of time that the race would be so razor-thin. After a recount, Democrat Christine Gregoire was ahead by 129 votes.

That is not the time to discover that 200 voters were illegal aliens.

What do you do? You can't subtract 200 votes from Gregoire -- that would clearly be unfair, absent some showing they all voted for her. At the same time, you realize that the opponent is going to point to those votes as evidence that the winner shouldn't be considered the winner. ...

we might prevent some illegal votes before the fact and we can catch illegal voters after the fact but unless we abandon the secret ballot (now there's an idea sorely lacking for an advocate!) . . . Gregoire still wins.
So, tell me again, exactly what does this voter ID thingy accomplish exactly?

I can clearly see how shifting voter confidence from elections in general to the legitimacy of a specific elected official might appeal to Republicans some.

If the wet ink on the birth certificate don't sway 'em surely the wetbacks will?

Originally Posted by Sinaptics

... ID's are easily falsifiable, especially nowadays. In another thread a did some research and found one can be bought online for $20-25 complete with readable magnetic stripe. ...

The first rule of voter ID fight club is you don't mention the glaringly obvious security holes in voter ID fight club (see also: the solution to dead folks still being listed in poll books isn't to properly maintain the books . . . it's voter ID,

... it gets rid of your gambling debts it quits smoking
it's a friend and it's a companion
and it's the only product you will ever need
follow these easy assembly instructions it never needs ironing
well it takes weights off hips bust thighs chin midriff
gives you dandruff and it finds you a job it is a job
and it strips the phone company free take ten for five exchange
and it gives you denture breath
and you know it's a friend and it's a companion
and it gets rid of your traveler's checks
it's new it's improved it's old-fashioned
well it takes care of business never needs winding
never needs winding never needs winding ...
Tom Waits Step Right Up)

CMC fnord!
Interesting note: The thread Do the flaws in electronic voting machines render American elections unreliable? in GD has a grand total of 62 posts and the last one was on 06-12-2012. I guess some of the reasons for a lack of voter confidence in elections are just more important than others, or could it be that the solutions to flaws in electronic voting machines don't do anything to advance the Quixotic quest for voter IDs?

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

I am calling a liar anyone who claims to believe that any of this shit -- voter-roll purges, voter-ID laws, caging-lists -- has any real purpose other than Dem vote-suppression. I deny you do believe it. This is not a matter of respecting honest disagreement, because there is none. That is what this Pitting is about. Can I state that any more plainly?

Well, you can call anyone a liar you want. You can call your chair a liar, too. Doesn't make it so, though. And your explanation shows how your bias short-circuits your brain. It is wrong to think that what you describe has at its necessary and ONLY purpose Dem vote-suppression. For even if it is granted that such suppression is a necessary result—hell, even the intent of it—you also have the increased likelihood that only proper votes will be cast and the chances of a valid vote being undone by an illegal one is reduced. You have a more secure voting system that people can have increased faith in. So, you're wrong.

You say it's not about repeating honest disagreement. Well, you're free to not respect honest disagreement all you want. But what I love is that you absolutely deny 100% that anyone can have a principled position on this. Why? Because you've declared it so.

That's some comical shit, right there.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Hentor the Barbarian

So you're acknowledging that you're not right, but relying on the fact that most people want it.

Okay, I acknowledge that surveys may suggest that majorities would in general favor voter IDs. Let's provide them with facts, and then ask again. Let's ask if they think it would be worth the cost.

Go right ahead.

Relatedly, I suppose you must favor abortion rights. After all, majorities do, so therefore...

No, I don't favor abortion rights. But I absolutely acknowledge the legitimacy and validity of abortion rights laws.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Sinaptics

Okay, went back and reread all 16 pages of that damn thread. Was a real pain in the ass because I went backwards and for the last 10 pages you were telling John Stamos to go back an read your answer, which was actually on page 1 or 2.

Since I want everyone to be able to play along, I have to craft a post that gives the links and summarizes the argument which will take a bit of time. I'll see if I can get to this later or tomorrow as I have to go back to work since I spent the last hour reading a 16 page thread.

However, in brief, I think you arbitrarily dismissed the findings of the study. They even directly contradict your expressed reason for accepting them.

Obviously I don't agree. We can have that discussion here or in that thread -- whichever you like.

Of course, I wonder why you'd bother. According to the current line, I'm simply an unrepentant liar. Why would you waste time constructing an argument, if I am the sort of person who would simply deny you had a point?

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

I am calling a liar anyone who claims to believe that any of this shit -- voter-roll purges, voter-ID laws, caging-lists -- has any real purpose other than Dem vote-suppression. I deny you do believe it. This is not a matter of respecting honest disagreement, because there is none. That is what this Pitting is about. Can I state that any more plainly?

No, your point is plain.

It's simply wrong.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by DMC

Of course it's the goal. Otherwise, they'd bar absentee ballots, which is where a boatload of the actual (albeit negligible) fraud occurs. Which Voter ID law was bundled with the elimination of absentee ballots again? I also don't see you up in arms about the exceptionally long waiting lines in urban areas while the suburbanites can often breeze right in.

For fuck's sake, you know better, and we know you know better. I've often disagreed with you, and even thought that you sometimes used twisted logic to try and defend your stance, but I don't recall ever thinking that you were nothing more than a partisan shill. I do now.

Let me guess: you've lost all respect for me?

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by crowmanyclouds

Yeah, umm,we might prevent some illegal votes before the fact and we can catch illegal voters after the fact but unless we abandon the secret ballot (now there's an idea sorely lacking for an advocate!) . . . Gregoire still wins.
So, tell me again, exactly what does this voter ID thingy accomplish exactly?

As I have mentioned several times, the purpose is creating a framework by which we can reliably associate voters with the fact that they voted. We can prosecute non-citizens who vote.

This will,I am confident, be a deterrent for non-citizens voting,in the same way that cameras in bank lobbys act a deterrent for bank robberies.

Are you telling me that you missed each and every previous post where I said this?

[DMC]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Let me guess: you've lost all respect for me?

I realize it means squat to you, but yes. The list of people who I find to be without integrity isn't actually terribly long.

[emacknight]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

I am calling a liar anyone who claims to believe that any of this shit -- voter-roll purges, voter-ID laws, caging-lists -- has any real purpose other than Dem vote-suppression. I deny you do believe it. This is not a matter of respecting honest disagreement, because there is none. That is what this Pitting is about. Can I state that any more plainly?

So you honestly believe that the Republican Party powers-that-be have data showing "a majority of Dem voters do not have valid government issued ID and are so busy being awesome that they can't go get one in time for an election every four years." And that upon seeing that data they decided that this law would would suppress enough votes for them to gain an advantage? That is what you think their master plan is?

Did you know that in the 2008 election only 57.37% of eligible voters bothered to cast a vote?

Of those, only 52.9% voted for Obama, about 10million more than for McCain. That's not much more than a quarter of eligible voters, and you honestly believe that the Republican Party thinks they aren't able to go get valid government id?

Of that 10million, how many do you think (a) did not at the time have valid government issued id and (b) would not have ever been able to get one because they're so busy being awesome during the entire 4 years leading up to the election and (c) that group represents a significant enough MARGIN that it would have altered the electoral college in McCain's favour all the while (d) not in any way suppress Republican votes in a district that might tip the scales in favour of Obama.

[Sinaptics]

Okay, these studies on the effect of voter ID on voter confidence were previously posted in the following thread:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...ght=confidence

Harvard/Columbia study (Note: This appears to be a joint effort between members of the two institutions. John actually linked it twice as separate studies, which it's not):

http://projects.iq.harvard.edu/cces/...cation-require

Among the conclusions (bolding mine):

Although a sizable share of the population believes that vote fraud commonly or occasionally occurs, there is little or no relationship between beliefs about the frequency of fraud and electoral participation (reported, validated, or intended). Nor does it appear to be the case that universal voter identification requirements will raise levels of trust in the electoral process. Such fears appear unaffected by stricter voter ID laws, given that individuals asked to produce ID seem to have the same beliefs about the frequency of fraud as those not asked for ID.

MIT Study:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...act_id=2035513

This study looks at the aspect of partisanship on voter confidence.

Among the findings:

Those findings suggest that change in election procedures, rather than their substance, decreases confidence in electoral practices. Another electoral practice that comes to mind worthy of investigating is voter identification, which has been justified precisely on voter confidence grounds. Our findings here suggest that states which have recently adopted more stringent voter identification requirements may experience a drop in voter confidence afterwards, and not only among opponents of the requirement.

John also referenced a book excerpt that I won't link since we can't adequately dissect it (unless someone wants to buy copies for everyone).

In response to these links, Bricker quotes the following from the Harvard/Columbia study:

We begin this Essay in Part I by situating the argument about fears
of fraud within the debate over voter identification requirements and
election law more generally. The argument follows a path familiar to
campaign finance law, in which the Court elided difficult questions
about the empirics of campaign contributions and corruption by relying on the prevention of the appearance of corruption as a state interest sufficient to justify restrictions on campaign contributions and expenditures.

Part II describes the unique national survey we
conducted to assess how widespread popular fear of two different
types of election fraud is, and the relationship between such fear and
the likelihood of people turning out to vote. Part III discusses our
findings about the prevalence of perceptions of vote fraud and how
those perceptions vary among political, racial, and other demographic
subgroups. In Part IV, we present findings suggesting that such fears
of fraud, while held by a sizable share of the population, do not have
any relationship to a respondent’s likelihood of intending to vote or
turning out to vote. Part V then assesses whether voter identification
laws might make a difference in quelling such fears of fraud. We find
that voters who have been forced to show identification are no less
likely to perceive fraud than those not similarly subject to an ID requirement. Part VI presents our conclusions.

And responds thus:

I suggest that the questions answered miss the mark. The real question would be: if voter ID is universal, and understood as a strict requirement in the jurisdiction, would voters still perceive fraud in equal strength?

Bricker appears to be relying on the notion (correct me if I'm wrong) that when voters who were required to present ID were asked about confidence they were thinking about places that don't require voter ID. This is the only explanation that I can come up with since the study states right in it's conclusion that

Such fears appear unaffected by stricter voter ID laws, given that individuals asked to produce ID seem to have the same beliefs about the frequency of fraud as those not asked for ID.

Bricker in a follow-up post quotes this part of the study:

The particular structure of the Cooperative Congressional Election
Study allows us to measure the use of voter identification at the aggregate state level and the individual level. The 2006 CCES asked individuals whether they were asked to show picture identification when
they voted.
40
Approximately half of all voters said that they were
asked to show photo identification, with the highest rates in the southern states and the lowest rates in the northeast.
41
States served as the
sampling frame for the 2006 CCES, and the very large 36,500-person
sample creates sufficient density of cases in each state that we can aggregate the individual-level responses to the state level to estimate the
frequency with which voter identification is required in the states. Of
course, only a few states actually mandate photo identification as the
only acceptable form of identification in order to vote.
42
We suspect
that most respondents who say they were asked for photo ID, in fact,
were merely asked for some form of ID and they produced a photo ID
— the most likely type of identification voters would have handy.
Nevertheless, one might suspect that if more stringent identification
requirements produce more confidence in elections, voters who say
they needed to produce ID would have lower fears of fraud than those
not similarly asked.
43
Moreover, although the aggregated responses
differ from what the law on the books actually requires in many states,
one still might expect that respondents from states where larger shares
of people say they were required to produce a photo ID might have
different views on the prevalence of fraud.

and writes that he rejects the reasoning of the study because

This misunderstands the value of photo ID. When a voter knows he is not REQUIRED to produce photo ID, he knows the ID requirements are weak or useless --even if he was personally asked for and able to provide a photo ID.

Which doesn't make any sense because they specifically asked people who WERE required to provide ID.

These two studies together heavily suggest that voter ID will have no impact or a negative impact on voter confidence.

[Lightnin']

Originally Posted by August West

Okay, so maybe "the poor" (although you seem to posit fairly lazy poor people), but why "minorities"?

I've been poor, and it isn't an easy life, but finding an hour to take a bus across town to the DMV is hardly an "onerous burden"

Originally Posted by Bricker

Open 9-5, Monday through Friday, with maybe some weekend hours as well, the whole goddam year, vs one polling place open on Election Day.

"Hmmmmm."

When I moved to Baltimore three years ago, I had to get a new drivers license. I drove to the closest DMV, which was a forty-minute drive from my house. I got there an hour before they opened, and the line was, no shit, halfway across the damn parking lot. It took me two hours just to get into the building. Once inside, it was another two hours before I was able to even start the process of getting my ID. Luckily, my wife is very organized, and had remembered to bring everything we needed to get our licenses- if I'd gone by myself, I wouldn't have brought enough to prove that I actually live where I said I did.

Now imagine doing all of that on a minimum wage. Imagine doing all that without a vehicle. Imagine doing all of that in a wheelchair.

Yes, it *is* a goddamn "onerous burden". Three years later, I still seethe when I think about how much bullshit that entire thing was.

When I had to renew my tags, I took my coworker's advice and went the opposite direction, out into the country. Again, another forty minute drive- but at this DMV, I was in and talking to a clerk within ten minutes. Of course, no bus runs out there...

Personally, I don't care whether we check IDs for voting. I was actually surprised the first time I voted and I didn't have to present my ID. However, if you're going to do it, it's got to be as easy as voting is now. If it isn't, if you require more hoops to jumped through, then you're disenfranchising voters who would normally be able to vote.

And I'm sure it's just coincidence that Republicans are the ones presenting this solution for a problem which may or may not exist, and which seems to disenfranchise voters who are more likely to vote for the opposition. Republicans are for small government, as long as it's the government they want.

[Sinaptics]

One thing that I postulated in another thread was a dual-system where you have to enter your SS # into a terminal prior to being allowed to vote. We already have plenty of systems with full lists of SS #'s that we could tie into, so setup shouldn't be a burdensome problem. Additionally, only citizens have SS #s. If it comes up that you're SS # has already been used, then ID could be provided to establish identity and an investigation could ensue.

Any thoughts on this?

[Bricker]

I'm not sure what these questions are even doing here, since they are fair, reasonable, and cogent efforts aimed at either refining or rebutting my claims. It's as if you brought in Bizarro World posts.

Originally Posted by Sinaptics

Bricker appears to be relying on the notion (correct me if I'm wrong) that when voters who were required to present ID were asked about confidence they were thinking about places that don't require voter ID. This is the only explanation that I can come up with since the study states right in it's conclusion that

Not exactly correct.

From the Harvard study, page 1755:

Of course, only a few states actually mandate photo identification as the only acceptable form of identification in order to vote.⁴² We suspect that most respondents who say they were asked for photo ID, in fact, were merely asked for some form of ID and they produced a photo ID — the most likely type of identification voters would have handy. Nevertheless, one might suspect that if more stringent identification requirements produce more confidence in elections, voters who say they needed to produce ID would have lower fears of fraud than those not similarly asked.

(emphasis added)

It's upon this supposition that the authors rest their claims. But it's not a valid one. Most voters know that their state doesn't require photo ID. They weren't thinking of other states when they responded as they did; they were thinking of their own state and the fact that photo ID was not required. It was THAT lack which resulted in a lower confidence. A repeat of this study, divided between states that require photo ID and those that don't, will prove my point.

See the distinction? Even people that were asked to produce ID were not required to produce PHOTO ID. That is the key upon which the whole voter ID discussion rests. Voters are not fools; they know a non-photo ID is weak or meaningless.

[Sinaptics]

Originally Posted by Bricker

I'm not sure what these questions are even doing here, since they are fair, reasonable, and cogent efforts aimed at either refining or rebutting my claims. It's as if you brought in Bizarro World posts.



Not exactly correct.

From the Harvard study, page 1755:



(emphasis added)

It's upon this supposition that the authors rest their claims. But it's not a valid one. Most voters know that their state doesn't require photo ID. They weren't thinking of other states when they responded as they did; they were thinking of their own state and the fact that photo ID was not required. It was THAT lack which resulted in a lower confidence. A repeat of this study, divided between states that require photo ID and those that don't, will prove my point.

See the distinction? Even people that were asked to produce ID were not required to produce PHOTO ID. That is the key upon which the whole voter ID discussion rests. Voters are not fools; they know a non-photo ID is weak or meaningless.

But many/most of the laws (if not all) being passed STILL don't require photo ID. So I don't see how that's relevant to the discussion.

[Lightnin']

Originally Posted by Sinaptics

One thing that I postulated in another thread was a dual-system where you have to enter your SS # into a terminal prior to being allowed to vote. We already have plenty of systems with full lists of SS #'s that we could tie into, so setup shouldn't be a burdensome problem. Additionally, only citizens have SS #s. If it comes up that you're SS # has already been used, then ID could be provided to establish identity and an investigation could ensue.

Any thoughts on this?

That wouldn't bother me at all.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Sinaptics

One thing that I postulated in another thread was a dual-system where you have to enter your SS # into a terminal prior to being allowed to vote. We already have plenty of systems with full lists of SS #'s that we could tie into, so setup shouldn't be a burdensome problem. Additionally, only citizens have SS #s. If it comes up that you're SS # has already been used, then ID could be provided to establish identity and an investigation could ensue.

Any thoughts on this?

Yes.

My wife is a citizen of the Dominican Republic and has a social security number. I'd love to get another right-wing voter on the rolls.

Second problem: let's say I show up and the system tells me my SSN has been used to vote. A full investigation of my ID proves I am the legitimate holder of my SSN.

How do we identify and prosecute the previous voter, the one who used my SSN?

[Sinaptics]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Yes.

My wife is a citizen of the Dominican Republic and has a social security number. I'd love to get another right-wing voter on the rolls.

Second problem: let's say I show up and the system tells me my SSN has been used to vote. A full investigation of my ID proves I am the legitimate holder of my SSN.

How do we identify and prosecute the previous voter, the one who used my SSN?

Hmm...wasn't aware that territory members got SS numbers. Makes sense now that I'm thinking about it. I suppose since we know which SS #s come from the territories, we could just bar their use.

Not sure re: investigation. Also, since you (probably) couldn't link the two systems, you wouldn't know which way the false vote went to discount it. Maybe a thumb print (not linked to a database) at voting time? That way, we have a fingerprint with which to identify the illegally voting party. Additionally, the ink could keep people from voting more than once.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Sinaptics

Hmm...wasn't aware that territory members got SS numbers. Makes sense now that I'm thinking about it. I suppose since we know which SS #s come from the territories, we could just bar their use.

Not sure re: investigation. Also, since you (probably) couldn't link the two systems, you wouldn't know which way the false vote went to discount it. Maybe a thumb print (not linked to a database) at voting time? That way, we have a fingerprint with which to identify the illegally voting party. Additionally, the ink could keep people from voting more than once.

I would absolutely be in favor of a thumb print at voting time, reliably associated with the name and address of the voter. In fact, that's better than a photo ID.

Er... the DR is not a US territory. Non-citizen permanent residents get Social Security numbers.

[Sinaptics]

Originally Posted by Bricker

I would absolutely be in favor of a thumb print at voting time, reliably associated with the name and address of the voter. In fact, that's better than a photo ID.

Er... the DR is not a US territory. Non-citizen permanent residents get Social Security numbers.

Geography was always my worst subject, though I'm getting better. Still, I'm assuming that we could identify those SS #s that shouldn't be voting.

[Lightnin']

Originally Posted by Bricker

let's say I show up and the system tells me my SSN has been used to vote. A full investigation of my ID proves I am the legitimate holder of my SSN.

How do we identify and prosecute the previous voter, the one who used my SSN?

Let's say you show up, show your ID, and the system tells you that your ID has already been used to vote. A full investigation of your ID proves that your ID is legitimate, but the other is fake- clearly you're the victim of identity theft.

How do we identify and prosecute the previous voter, the one with the fake ID?

In both cases, you get to vote. In both cases, the perpetrator goes unpunished.

Yes, it's easier to punch in someone else's SSN. But identity theft is already a growth industry, so even photo ID isn't infallible. What's next, genetic testing?


On edit: I'd be all for the thumbprint thing, as well. Almost everyone's got thumbs.

[Algher]

Originally Posted by Sinaptics

One thing that I postulated in another thread was a dual-system where you have to enter your SS # into a terminal prior to being allowed to vote. We already have plenty of systems with full lists of SS #'s that we could tie into, so setup shouldn't be a burdensome problem. Additionally, only citizens have SS #s. If it comes up that you're SS # has already been used, then ID could be provided to establish identity and an investigation could ensue.

Any thoughts on this?

Careful - almost getting rational in a GD spun off pit thread!

I also tried to toss out some ideas in the GD thread as well. While this thread has become a "bash Bricker" thread, I think that there is a lot of room for improvement on the basis of registration checking along with ID checking.

California, for example, asks for either a CA driver's license number or the last 4 of a social security number to register to vote. I don't know what they do after that to check eligibility (residence, appropriate felony convictions, citizenship status).

I mentioned that having a national ID check database, based off of three existing databases might be helpful in eliminating the purges like Florida is doing, and also in ensuring that the registration lists are accurate and checked.

- Social Security
- NICS for convictions (currently used for firearms purchases)
- E-verify (currently used for eligibility to work)

This could be a central place that each state could use to determine voting eligibility by state (since that is a state issue).

[Hentor the Barbarian]

There are some interesting ideas here. Fingerprint scanners could work.

I've got a more pragmatic solution: do nothing. You'd stop the same amount of fraudulent voting without having to set up one or more fingerprint scanners at each polling place in the US and provide ongoing maintenance and training. I'm assuming that programming, storage and retrieval from some database will be needed.

I'm all for government stimulus, although I'm not sure this is the ideal way to go.

[gamerunknown]

Presumably a central database can determine whether a Social Security number corresponds to a person eligible to vote. Though, there would be difficulties along the lines of putting in the wrong Social Security number accidentally and having one's vote discarded and possibly being accused of voter fraud.

[Uzi]

People can vote without proving who they are?! And people are arguing that this is a good thing?

Elections Canada
Simple. You show up at the polling station having chosen one of the many ID options available to you, including the option, if you are so incompetent or incapable of utilizing any of the other options available, of dragging a friend along who has the proper ID to vouch for you. Easy Peasy. Gah, you Americans are imbeciles sometimes.

"OMG! I have to vote! Wait, no ID. Well, maybe next time..."
<4 years later>, "OMG! I have to vote! Wait, no ID. Well, maybe next time..."

Frankly, who wants people voting who can't figure out how to get a proper ID?

[elucidator]

What is this, the fiftieth time? OK, what the hell. Not about the validity, or lack thereof, for voter id laws. Its about using that as an excuse to empower one party over another.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by emacknight

So you honestly believe that the Republican Party powers-that-be have data showing "a majority of Dem voters do not have valid government issued ID and are so busy being awesome that they can't go get one in time for an election every four years." And that upon seeing that data they decided that this law would would suppress enough votes for them to gain an advantage? That is what you think their master plan is?

No, I think their plan is to suppress just enough votes to make the difference in the close elections, which succeeded perfectly in Florida in 2000. And your pathetic lameass strawmanning only makes my point for me, liar.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Sinaptics

Geography was always my worst subject, though I'm getting better. Still, I'm assuming that we could identify those SS #s that shouldn't be voting.

So far as I am aware -- and I am open to correction -- no. There is no difference between SSNs issued to non-citizen permanent residents and citizens. And if a permanent resident becomes a naturalized citizen, there is no mechanism to inform the Social Security Administration.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Hentor the Barbarian

There are some interesting ideas here. Fingerprint scanners could work.

I've got a more pragmatic solution: do nothing. You'd stop the same amount of fraudulent voting without having to set up one or more fingerprint scanners at each polling place in the US and provide ongoing maintenance and training. I'm assuming that programming, storage and retrieval from some database will be needed.

I'm all for government stimulus, although I'm not sure this is the ideal way to go.

Under the current system, in states with no ID check, we have no way to identify a non-citizen who actually votes. Even when we identify the name of a non-citizen and a record of his voting, he has merely to deny it was him.

The proposed fingerprint system does just what I wanted to do with photo IDs: provides a reliable way of tying a voter to a person. That is, it creates a system of non-repudiation; a person cannot vote and then later successfully deny voting. It doesn't prevent a non-citizen from registering and voting, but it serves as a deterrent. The fear of punishment, virtually zero under the no-ID system, becomes strong.

Since that's exactly what I wish to accomplish, I absolutely favor it.

Interesting that you still oppose it. This removes any cost from the poor. I thought that was your big objection.

[Drunky Smurf]

Originally Posted by Uzi

People can vote without proving who they are?! And people are arguing that this is a good thing?

Elections Canada
Simple. You show up at the polling station having chosen one of the many ID options available to you, including the option, if you are so incompetent or incapable of utilizing any of the other options available, of dragging a friend along who has the proper ID to vouch for you. Easy Peasy. Gah, you Americans are imbeciles sometimes.

"OMG! I have to vote! Wait, no ID. Well, maybe next time..."
<4 years later>, "OMG! I have to vote! Wait, no ID. Well, maybe next time..."

Frankly, who wants people voting who can't figure out how to get a proper ID?

Amen.

[elucidator]

OK, fifty one, then, as many time as it takes. Not about voter id. About voter suppression.

[Uzi]

Originally Posted by elucidator

What is this, the fiftieth time? OK, what the hell. Not about the validity, or lack thereof, for voter id laws. Its about using that as an excuse to empower one party over another.

You're joking, right? If it is valid, who gives a shit whether it affects one party more than another?
Is your real concern that people don't get to vote, or that the Democratic party will lose votes? Because most of the rest of the Western world requires some sort of identification for voting and most of them are decidedly left of the political spectrum of both parties in the US. Voter ID hasn't stopped them from getting leftist parties elected.

[Algher]

Originally Posted by elucidator

OK, fifty one, then, as many time as it takes. Not about voter id. About voter suppression.

You want to make it about voter suppression, but your marketing department keeps failing. The other side can point to so many other Rights that we have that require ID such as drinking (21st Amendment) and shooting (2nd Amendment).

Keep trying though! Right now, however, you are only convincing your fellow true believers that allowing people to vote without any check to see if they are eligible is a Good Thing.

[Lobohan]

Originally Posted by Uzi

You're joking, right? If it is valid, who gives a shit whether it affects one party more than another?
Is your real concern that people don't get to vote, or that the Democratic party will lose votes? Because most of the rest of the Western world requires some sort of identification for voting and most of them are decidedly left of the political spectrum of both parties in the US. Voter ID hasn't stopped them from getting leftist parties elected.

If the solution, voter ID laws, causes more valid people to not be able to vote than would cast fraudulent votes it is a stupid solution.

If your hand is infected, cutting your arm off isn't a great solution. Get it?

This should be an obvious thing.


Now getting ID is very difficult in some places. It involves very long waits, and sometimes long trips where buses don't go. If you want to demand that there be a US ID card that everyone has, I agree with you. But you need to set that up before you can demand that someone take a day off work to get an ID.

[Sinaptics]

Originally Posted by Algher

You want to make it about voter suppression, but your marketing department keeps failing. The other side can point to so many other Rights that we have that require ID such as drinking (21st Amendment) and shooting (2nd Amendment).

Keep trying though! Right now, however, you are only convincing your fellow true believers that allowing people to vote without any check to see if they are eligible is a Good Thing.

Because the proposed solution doesn't do a damn thing BUT suppress possible votes. Well, it Bricker's mind, it also instills voter confidence.

I'm all for a fair and robust system. Looking at the laws passed, voter suppression is the only reasonable explanation for what they're trying to accomplish.

See Elucidator's comments on Florida banning Sunday voting. Or the laws to limit registration submitals to a 48 hour window. These guys don't want to make voting more secure. Or if they do, then they're mentally handicapped (apologies to mentally handicapped persons for comparing them to Republican legislators). They want to make it a bit harder for the "wrong" people to vote.

Voter ID doesn't do a damn thing to make elections more secure. If you want to brainstorm ways to make voting more secure without disenfranchising people, I'm with you.

[Uzi]

Originally Posted by elucidator

About voter suppression.

Which is easily rectified by getting a bleeding ID. Something that most people in the civilized world manage to do quite effectively. A stunning plot to stop people from voting, this is.

Snidely Wiplash: "Ha ha! You can't vote without ID now!"
Voter: "Ah, okay. Here it is."
Snidely Wiplash:

I have a hard time believing that someone who wants to vote, and actually will (rather than just whinging about how they were 'suppressed' to some pollster), can't make the effort. And a sad state for the Democratic party that they have to rely upon people who can barely make even that minimal effort.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Under the current system, in states with no ID check, we have no way to identify a non-citizen who actually votes. Even when we identify the name of a non-citizen and a record of his voting, he has merely to deny it was him.

The proposed fingerprint system does just what I wanted to do with photo IDs: provides a reliable way of tying a voter to a person. That is, it creates a system of non-repudiation; a person cannot vote and then later successfully deny voting. It doesn't prevent a non-citizen from registering and voting, but it serves as a deterrent. The fear of punishment, virtually zero under the no-ID system, becomes strong.

Since that's exactly what I wish to accomplish, I absolutely favor it.

Interesting that you still oppose it. This removes any cost from the poor. I thought that was your big objection.

See the part where I said "Fingerprint scanners could work"? Look again. Nowhere in my post did I say I objected to fingerprint scanners based on disenfranchisement. Dimwit. It's a very, very costly solution to a non-problem, which is why I wouldn't favor it. Generally I prefer to avoid implemeting solutions when there is no problem.

I find it interesting that you continually confound prosecution with identification of voter fraud. Are you acknowledging that it would not at all be impossible to identify fraudulent voting now?

In your preferred voter ID scenario, what's to stop the person from saying it wasn't them wen confronted.

[Uzi]

Originally Posted by Lobohan

Now getting ID is very difficult in some places.

So?

It involves very long waits,

So?

and sometimes long trips where buses don't go.

So?

Sucks to want to participate such that you won't make the sacrifice to get an ID that would probably benefit you in many other ways.

What is the Democratic party doing to rectify the situation? In Alberta we used to have the equivalent of the DMV. Lines were around the block. Now we have private registries where you can access all sorts of government services including getting your ID. They are all over the place. Line ups are usually quite short.

If you want to demand that there be a US ID card that everyone has, I agree with you. But you need to set that up before you can demand that someone take a day off work to get an ID.

Okay, so do it. The other side has opened the door a crack. Kick it open.

To those who continually oppose this because it won't solve a particular issue, why does most of the rest of the Western world do it, do you think?

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Originally Posted by uzi

To those who continually oppose this because it won't solve a particular issue, why does most of the rest of the Western world do it, do you think?

Because they're all socialists who don't mind giving over all their info to Big Government.