I think we can concede now that it happens, wether accidental or not. The next step is to demonstrate that is sufficiently prevelant to change the outcome of an election.
Why is that the next step?
The question is not, “Has it changed an election?”
The question is: “Could it change an election?”
When Florida 2000 was a matter of less than a 1,000 vote-margin, we can certainly concede that it’s possible a future state may also be decided by such a razor-thin margin. If that happens, then we can certainly imagine that fraudulent votes affected the results, and work NOW to solve the problem.
But as yet no one has demonstrated that the number of legitimate voters unable to acquire a driver’s license or a state ID is large enough to constitute a serious problem.
How about, “Tie goes to the runner?” Yup, a single questionable call can determine a world series. So, don’t let yourself get in that position. Jeb Bush was elected Governor of Florida in 1998. If Buddy McKay would have won, Al Gore would have been the winner of Florida 2000.
Now, we could spend millions of dollars on ‘anti-fraud’ measures. But, until I’m aware of a serious problem with voter fraud that is costing people elections, I’m not buying it.
And of course, most of the Florida problems in 2000 were caused by double marked or improperly marked ballots. Not fraud.
No, the question is whether it is more likely to change an election than the suggested remedy. It’s a classic case of balancing false positives vs. false negatives. If ID cards can be freely and fairly provided to all legitimate voters, then there is little objection to it. But consider felon lists. While it is a good thing to keep felons from voting, preventing 100 felons from voting while preventing 1,000 non-felons with similar names from voting is not a good thing. The question should be which does least harm - the real question however seems to be which does least harm to my party.
As I noted in the other thread, there are about 440,000 illegal in the state of Georgia, and they make up roughly 5% of the state’s population. If only 1% of them were persuaded to vote illegally, that would be 4,400 votes, enough to swing many state-wide elections.
I have to question the motives of those who oppose strict requirements for identification at the polling place.
The 1861 election in Georgia to decide the question of secession from the Union was so close as to be breath-taking: 42,744 to 41,717–and the secessionists lost the popular vote.
But no one here is saying that we need to spend millions of dollars. We’ve already got a system of people checking your name off a list when you vote. We’ve already got systems of ID’s in place like passports and drivers licenses.
It cost nothing to simply have people show an ID when they vote.
Now, I’m not opposed to the idea of tightening up things further. I’d like to see a nice tamper proof national ID put into place for instance. Or, we could simply use the existing system and force all voters to get passports. This would probably be more secure than having all the different states drivers licenses.
However, at the very least, who can be opposed to a simple ID being required to vote? It’s required to get on a plane. It’s required to drive a car. It’s required to leave the country. It should be required to vote.
I thought I did already with this cite in another thread. The number of people without birth certs is in the millions. Getting a new one issued is not free. Hence even if the state ID is free - obtaining the [new] identification required to get a state ID isn’t - hence still a poll tax 
Thats covered in one of BG’s linked threads already. Go read it 
It boils down to: No one is opposed to requiring the ID as long as its free and easy to get for everyone - which we demonstrated is not the case as things currently stand.
Doesn’t the system of voter registration help prevent this? You’re telling me that 4400 illegals will be persuaded to register to vote 30 days prior to an election for the express purpose of manipulating an election?
Wouldn’t it be easier to buy the votes of 4400 legal, registered voters who could care less who the Georgia Secretary of Minor State office is?
And how is this supposed to be a problem? You haven’t demonstrated that those millions lack birth certificates because they are unable to obtain them.
I obtained a replacement birth certificate many years ago, and have kept it locked in my desk at home ever since. I don’t recall that it was a major hassle or expense to get it. If someone isn’t motivated enough even to get a birth certificate, do we really want them voting in the first place?
And now we’re back to that old argument. It doesn’t matter if we want them voting or not, its their constitutional right to do so unencumbered by excessive taxes or beauracracy.
If you just turned 18 and your parents never kept your birth certificate, you have to go obtain one in order to vote. Getting a duplicate issued to you is not free. Hence they have to pay to vote through no fault of your own.
If legitimate voters are so easy to buy, why has there been so much registration fraud over the years?
Did you not read the interesting little fact I put in a small font at the end of the post?
For this problem to be solved, they need to start issuing a free national picture ID at birth, grandfather everyone who has a current ID, then institute the requirement in 5-10 years, when everyone will have one.
Too bad for them. I don’t see that requring secure identification means that they’ve been encumbered by excessive taxes or bureaucracy, even if it does mean that they have to pay a small fee and fill out a form. It just isn’t that hard.
And if anybody can’t get his act together enough to do even that, then I don’t want him voting.
Okay, that means there are about 8.5 million legals in Georgia. Let’s assume the same percentage are of voting age. If only 1% of the legals were kept from voting by restrictive measures, that is 85,000, far more likely to swing an election than your illegals.
That’s precisely the problems. Since there are so many more legitimate voters than potentially illegitimate ones, the procedure to keep illegal voters out has to be very, very unlikely to also exclude legal ones - or you’ve created a worse problem.
Again, it doesn’t matter what you think or feel - it matters what our constitution and supreme court say - and they say making people pay to vote is wrong.
Get real. I am immensely skeptical that anyone who really wants to vote would be stopped by this requirement. Anyone who cared at all about voting would not be stopped by this requirement. Your objection is no more substantial than insisting that the state should provide free transporation to the polls for people without cars.
Having sufficient documentation to prove that you are who you say you are is a basic adult responsibility. If the standards for documentation were unrealistic, you might have a point. But you simply haven’t shown that the required standards are an unreasonable burden.
(And all 8.5 million would not be eligible to vote; many would be underage, and some would be considered incompetent due to mental illness or incapacity.)
(shrug) It doesn’t matter what you think or feel, either–and the constitution doesn’t say that states may not require identification at the polls.
These 440,000 are registered to vote?