Um - at the time photography was invented your right to vote could be checked pretty easily in most places - just by checking whether you were a male white landowner.
Now, our nation certainly survived that, and while none of us want to go back to this state of affairs, this just points out how lousy your argument is. Times have changed, and a broader franchise requires a bit more administration to make it function well.
If you do not understand this shit, do me a favor and keep reading here, so that you may come to understand it.
ETA: err… Not directed at Mr Moto, but to BigT.
On a whim, I did a search for fake drivers’ licenses and clicked on the first link. I could get a driver’s license for my state, complete with picture, signature, and magnetic encoding for $29. Possibly less than the cost of doing it the legit way. Can you tell me again how this is supposed to eliminate fraud?
Well, most states now use holograms for security, and most fake ID sources cannot reliably duplicate holograms, in my understanding. Am I wrong?
And airlines accept driver’s licenses as ID, don’t they? Does this also have zero effect on fraud? For that matter, banks accept them too. Odd that they would embrace something with no measurable effect.
It made a difference for her in that she ended up being convicted of a crime. The question is whether, undiscovered, it would have made a difference in the outcome of the election.
Look, I don’t think anyone here is claiming that it NEVER happens. The question is, does it happen often enough, and in a way that changes outcomes, to make it suddenly worthy of so much coordinated state by state attention?
The question this thread raises isn’t whether or not it happens, the question raised is what is the Republican motivation for the sudden flurry of voter ID laws?
Does it really happen often enough to merit this type of activity? Are they really that concerned about this particular type of fraud, or is it something else?
If they are so concerned about election fraud, then why haven’t I heard anything about the black boxes we vote on. They provide a more reliable and harder to prove way to change outcomes. Whether or not they’ve ever been actually subverted is an open question, but certainly the possibility is there. Don’t they deserve at least as much attention? Aren’t verifiable vote counts at least as important as verifiable voters?
Why isn’t ALEC on the warpath about that? Why aren’t the Koch brothers funding verifiable vote movements?
There appears to me to be a misplaced emphasis on one particular and unlikely type of fraud. That makes me wonder about real motivations.
You guys are making it so fucking complicated for no good reason - just dip the voter’s index finger in purple ink and be done with it. Is it really that hard?
Moto, who’s case are you trying to make here, mine or yours? First off, you had to go back nine years. To a mayoral election, big whoop. And it didn’t work, they got busted.
So tell me again how we need new! improved! laws when you only have the one case in nine years and it was a total failure, applying existing laws.
I would wager photo IDs were not in use on driver licenses and/or voter IDs till after WWII at the earliest.
17 seconds into thw video is a claim that you need all the ID to get a voter ID in Wisconsin. As the information in the links I provided that is a lie. As the links I provided prove, the whole part about bank records is a red herring. The documentation on the registration site and the voter registration show that aren’t required to produce any documentation to register to vote. Just fill out the form and check the box that say you don’t have a driver’s license or a social security card.
Nope. Can get them with holograms too. Not sure about the site I first visited, but when I specifically searched for holograms, plenty of sites popped up, though they were more expensive ($45-$130 for the sites I checked).
Well, let’s see. Are they just making it a little harder, a little less convenient, to cheat(vote)? Perhaps we should way the cost/benefit for banks and airports (polls) to check IDs as opposed to not to see if it’s worthwhile to take that route? Perhaps they’re just trying to discourage the lazy from even trying to cheat (vote).
So the workers there were making it a hassle because…why?
But someone might cut off their finger so they could vote multiple times! Think about it man, we each have 8 fingers and 2 thumbs - that’s 10 chances for voting in one election! FRAUD!! 
That’s not even counting swapable prosthetics or latex coverings.
Bolding below is mine:
I would respond to that, except that I already pre-responded to it, with post #247 in this thread.
If he can convince you that somewhere ,at some time, there actually was a case of election fraud that mattered, then he can pretend that is proof that election fraud must be dealt with an a massive scale. You have to be a right winger to buy the logic ,because there will be likely lots of Dem voters prevented from voting due to some strange questionable case. They would not be collateral damage in the push to make voting more difficult and expensive. They are the point of it.
OK, so lets make a deal.
We’ll stipulate that voter ID with picture is required. It has to be free, of course. And there has to be a serious outreach program to ensure that such documentation is not only available, but easily obtained for shut-ins, etc. Like ACORN, but can’t be shut down my some pimply little turd with a video camera. Shirley nobody has an objection to registering voters, right? Well, actually, they do, but they want to pretend they don’t, so that works.
What do I want in return? Equality in the voting place. If a guy in a gated community only needs an hour to arrive at the polling place, sign in and vote, then the guy in the inner city should have equal facilities, equal access, equality in the voting place. Federal money, federal standards, federal enforcement. We give on strict procedures for identification, you give us equality of voting places.
Sounds fair. Anyone want to guess which political party will find this objectionable. Bueller? Bueller? Bricker?
No one wants to address my points in post #325?
Why the enormous emphasis on this one type of mostly unproductive fraud?
I agree with that post.
These new measures have almost nothing to do with protecting the sanctity of our voting system. There is nearly zero problem in this regard. Yes it may happen here or there but this type of fraud is very limited in its effect and scope.
The new rules are wholly unnecessary. They clearly fall most heavily on making it harder to vote for voters who tend to vote for liberals. It is nothing less than an attempt at voter disenfranchisement.
First of all, I was just rebutting what I saw as a weak argument. Secondly, mayoral elections are plenty important - local elections have more direct impact on a voter than state or national elections will, and often a vote here will be decisive as elections can be close.
Third, please look above and tell me specifically where I was advocating for new laws. I don’t think I got quite that far.