# Voter ID Laws: Necessary to combat rampant fraud or subtle subjugation of the Democratic demographic **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 24, 2012, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-laws-necessary-to-combat-rampant-fraud-or-subtle-subjugation-of-the-democratic-demographic/622971 "2012-05-24T17:25:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 19
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2012, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-laws-necessary-to-combat-rampant-fraud-or-subtle-subjugation-of-the-democratic-demographic/622971/361 "2012-05-30T23:33:52Z")
> [@Airbeck](#): > > Doesn’t matter. Something can be improper without being fraudulent. That’s the point. Improper does not imply fraudulent at all. Improper ballots doesn’t mean that anyone committed fraud, or even that anyone knowingly did anything wrong. Could just be not filling it out correctly, or punching 2 holes instead of one. So the phrase “improper ballots” does not imply anything sinister having happened, and does not necessitate passing new laws. Unless you have something more that sheds light on what was meant by improper in this context, it can’t be used as definite evidence of voter fraud. Why must it be definite? I say it’s possible. Since it’s possible, it should be stopped. Tell me something. Honestly, what do you think, in your heart? Have there been illegal aliens voting? ---
**Author:** ![Airbeck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/airbeck/32/6574_2.png) [@Airbeck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airbeck)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2012, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-laws-necessary-to-combat-rampant-fraud-or-subtle-subjugation-of-the-democratic-demographic/622971/362 "2012-05-31T00:59:36Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Why must it be definite? If you’re going to use that as proof of voter fraud, then just the fact that the ballots were improper does not prove that. Do you disagree with this? > [@Bricker](#): > > I say it’s possible. Since it’s possible, it should be stopped. Just because something is possible doesn’t mean its then necessary to enact a law for it that will certainly adversely affect some of those that have done nothing wrong. If that was the case, why don’t we create laws to prevent every possible bad thing right now, just in case. > [@Bricker](#): > > Tell me something. Honestly, what do you think, in your heart? Have there been illegal aliens voting? In my heart, I can’t say definitively no, but I don’t think that its an issue. I haven’t seen any evidence that its an issue. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2012, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-laws-necessary-to-combat-rampant-fraud-or-subtle-subjugation-of-the-democratic-demographic/622971/363 "2012-05-31T01:39:39Z")
> [@Airbeck](#): > > If you’re going to use that as proof of voter fraud, then just the fact that the ballots were improper does not prove that. Do you disagree with this? No. And even if they were fraudulent, we don’t know which person they were cast for, so we can’t very well change the certified winner. > [@](#): > > Just because something is possible doesn’t mean its then necessary to enact a law for it that will certainly adversely affect some of that have done nothing wrong. If that was the case, why don’t we create laws to prevent every possible bad thing right now, just in case. Because we also have to consider the cost associated with the bad thing happening. In the case of elections, the cost is voter confidence in the outcome. Listen, you and others inveighing against these laws seem to be missing the fact that the general public doesn’t have a problem with them. Voter ID laws enjoy public support. They are constitutional. You can continue to insist that it’s “not an issue” but the problem is that it doesn’t take a genius to reason that if you don’t ID voters, there’s no way to prove whether or not it’s happened. You seem to be arguing that we don’t know for sure that it’s occurred, and therefore we should refuse to take steps to ever find out. ---
**Author:** ![BigAppleBucky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigapplebucky/32/178_2.png) [@BigAppleBucky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigAppleBucky)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2012, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-laws-necessary-to-combat-rampant-fraud-or-subtle-subjugation-of-the-democratic-demographic/622971/364 "2012-05-31T01:59:54Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So, again, what state’s laws require ID to vote but don’t provide free ID? If there are any, the laws would be struck down in federal court since poll taxes were outlawed as part of civil rights legislation back in the 1960’s. A requirement to pay for an ID in order to vote would be deemed a poll tax. As originated in Fitzwalkerstan early last year, the Wisconsin voter ID law would have required a fee for the state issued ID. When the issue was raised, the fee was lifted. Since then there has been some controversy about DMV offices being closed, and a current court ordered stay on the entire issue. Vote fraud recently by Republicans in Wisconsin? [http://www.livinglakecountry.com/lakecountryreporter/news/suspected-vote-fraud-reported-in-delafield-6q5jsfp-155762175.html](http://www.livinglakecountry.com/lakecountryreporter/news/suspected-vote-fraud-reported-in-delafield-6q5jsfp-155762175.html) > [@](#): > > The man said he did not recall applying for an absentee ballot. However, he said a couple of weeks ago a man came to his door and asked him to sign something, according to Gresch. > > “(He) said he was asked to sign something with other people’s names on it, but he wasn’t really sure what he was signing and that it seemed weird,” Gresch said. > > “**The guy at the door handed him Walker information and told (the man) the more signatures he got, the more commission he made**,” Gresch continued. > > “(The man) said he has a hard time saying ‘no’ to people that ask for stuff when they come to his house, so that’s why he signed something,” Gresch added. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2012, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-laws-necessary-to-combat-rampant-fraud-or-subtle-subjugation-of-the-democratic-demographic/622971/365 "2012-05-31T02:41:14Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > …Listen, you and others inveighing against these laws seem to be missing the fact that the general public doesn’t have a problem with them. Voter ID laws enjoy public support. They are constitutional. You can continue to insist that it’s “not an issue” but the problem is that it doesn’t take a genius to reason that if you don’t ID voters, there’s no way to prove whether or not it’s happened. You seem to be arguing that we don’t know for sure that it’s occurred, and therefore we should refuse to take steps to ever find out. For years and years, the general public had no problem with cigarette smoking. We learned better. And of course voter ID laws enjoy support, they were sold that way! Who could be against proving you have a right to vote? Put it that way, its like being in favor of puppies. I am not pissed about requiring identification. There’s all kinds of excellent ways to go about that, given patience and sincerity. My approval does not extend to using it as an excuse to legislate a partisan advantage. Observe the current Florida fiasco. Not the legendary Florida Fiasco that installed George the Dim Son, the current one. Note the numerous avoidable errors. The guy mentioned above, for a classic example. This promotes the confidence of the electorate? I submit to you something done this badly, with such an obvious partisan result (if you quibble with partisan _intent_), cannot help but erode the confidence of the electorate most likely to be impacted. They don’t count? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2012, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-laws-necessary-to-combat-rampant-fraud-or-subtle-subjugation-of-the-democratic-demographic/622971/366 "2012-05-31T02:44:11Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > Well if the salad contains arugula, we might have a case for fraud. But let’s not get into that whole mess! I’m too old for this shit. But in my salad days… But come: lettuce reason together! ---
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2012, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-laws-necessary-to-combat-rampant-fraud-or-subtle-subjugation-of-the-democratic-demographic/622971/367 "2012-05-31T03:00:48Z")
> [@Airbeck](#): > > Doesn’t matter. Something can be improper without being fraudulent. That’s the point. Improper does not imply fraudulent at all. Improper ballots doesn’t mean that anyone committed fraud, or even that anyone knowingly did anything wrong. Could just be not filling it out correctly, or punching 2 holes instead of one. So the phrase “improper ballots” does not imply anything sinister having happened, and does not necessitate passing new laws. Unless you have something more that sheds light on what was meant by improper in this context, it can’t be used as definite evidence of voter fraud. Something can indeed be improper and not be fraudulent. But unless you want to argue that fraud is proper, then I guess you need to rethink your idea here. My point isn’t that improper includes fraudulent, but that fraudulent includes improper. In other words, it is still a true statement to say “Hey look a fraudulent vote! That is certainly improper.” If you said “Improper ballots do not _ **necessarily** _ imply anything sinister,” I would agree with you. But if we are told that a ballot is improper, we ask what it is that makes it improper. If the reason it is improper is some technicality and its a duly registered voter who is entitled to vote and did so on their own behalf, we say it’s no big deal, we’re not worried about “improper” here. But if we’re told it is improper because it was someone else voting in the name of a dead man, well, we can call that a fraudulent vote. ---
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2012, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-laws-necessary-to-combat-rampant-fraud-or-subtle-subjugation-of-the-democratic-demographic/622971/368 "2012-05-31T03:06:16Z")
> [@BigAppleBucky](#): > > If there are any, the laws would be struck down in federal court since poll taxes were outlawed as part of civil rights legislation back in the 1960’s. A requirement to pay for an ID in order to vote would be deemed a poll tax. > > As originated in Fitzwalkerstan early last year, the Wisconsin voter ID law would have required a fee for the state issued ID. When the issue was raised, the fee was lifted. > > Since then there has been some controversy about DMV offices being closed, and a current court ordered stay on the entire issue. > > Vote fraud recently by Republicans in Wisconsin? > > [http://www.livinglakecountry.com/lakecountryreporter/news/suspected-vote-fraud-reported-in-delafield-6q5jsfp-155762175.html](http://www.livinglakecountry.com/lakecountryreporter/news/suspected-vote-fraud-reported-in-delafield-6q5jsfp-155762175.html) That sounds rather improper. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2012, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-laws-necessary-to-combat-rampant-fraud-or-subtle-subjugation-of-the-democratic-demographic/622971/369 "2012-05-31T03:18:49Z")
> [@David42](#): > > …But if we’re told it is improper because it was someone else voting in the name of a dead man, well, we can call that a fraudulent vote. With this point, you are on rock-solid ground! I expect universal agreement with this concise statement of the bleeding obvious. ---
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2012, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-laws-necessary-to-combat-rampant-fraud-or-subtle-subjugation-of-the-democratic-demographic/622971/370 "2012-05-31T03:34:02Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > With this point, you are on rock-solid ground! I expect universal agreement with this concise statement of the bleeding obvious. If you put it back into the context of another poster claiming “improper” is not included in fraudulent, it doesn’t sound dumb at all, unlike the way you make it look. The guy took a page out of your book though, redefining words again, like you did with “they.” Help me out, which is worse? A) “They” must be a majority B) “Improper” is not included within the meaning of fraudulent ---
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2012, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-laws-necessary-to-combat-rampant-fraud-or-subtle-subjugation-of-the-democratic-demographic/622971/371 "2012-05-31T03:48:57Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > I am not pissed about requiring identification. There’s all kinds of excellent ways to go about that, given patience and sincerity. My approval does not extend to using it as an excuse to legislate a partisan advantage. Please forgive me, but here’s where I don’t understand you. What I quoted above sounds to me like another way of saying you have **non-partisan support for Voter I.D. Laws.** if that’s not, I’d like to know why; but I can already see it’s probably another, umm, _creative_ definition for one or more words you used there. You do realize that I have non-partisan support for voter I.D. laws? And that you’ve been arguing against me? ---
**Author:** ![Airbeck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/airbeck/32/6574_2.png) [@Airbeck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airbeck)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2012, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-laws-necessary-to-combat-rampant-fraud-or-subtle-subjugation-of-the-democratic-demographic/622971/372 "2012-05-31T14:19:45Z")
> [@David42](#): > > If you said “Improper ballots do not _ **necessarily** _ imply anything sinister,” I would agree with you. Umm, that’s exactly what I did say. So you’re saying that you agree with me? > [@David42](#): > > But if we are told that a ballot is improper, we ask what it is that makes it improper. If the reason it is improper is some technicality and its a duly registered voter who is entitled to vote and did so on their own behalf, we say it’s no big deal, we’re not worried about “improper” here. > > But if we’re told it is improper because it was someone else voting in the name of a dead man, well, we can call that a fraudulent vote. The point is that we have not been told anything about these improper ballots. I’m saying that just the fact that they were improper does not prove that voter fraud occurred. You are assuming so, but there is nothing in the word improper that proves it at all. You just admitted that it could just be honest mistakes by legitimate voters, so you’ve proven my point. You are inventing a connection between the words improper and fraudulent that does not exist. Just because there is some overlap where there are certain things that are both improper and fraudulent does not mean that anything improper is therefore proven to be fraudulent just because it is improper. Where are you getting this relationship between the two words? I’m actually baffled that you can disagree with anything I’ve said. Something that is improper can possibly be fraudulent, yes, but being improper does not **necessarily** imply fraudulence. You are creating that relationship somehow when it doesn’t exist. ---
**Author:** ![Airbeck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/airbeck/32/6574_2.png) [@Airbeck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airbeck)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2012, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-laws-necessary-to-combat-rampant-fraud-or-subtle-subjugation-of-the-democratic-demographic/622971/373 "2012-05-31T14:24:03Z")
> [@David42](#): > > If you put it back into the context of another poster claiming “improper” is not included in fraudulent, it doesn’t sound dumb at all, unlike the way you make it look. > > The guy took a page out of your book though, redefining words again, like you did with “they.” > > Help me out, which is worse? > > A) “They” must be a majority > > B) “Improper” is not included within the meaning of fraudulent No, you are completely misstating what I said to make me appear to be stupid. I kindly ask you to not do that any more please. When did I state what you are saying in “B”. I would like a cite for this please. Also, when did I say or imply that proper and fraudulent have no overlap? I simply said that something that is improper need not also be fraudulent. How can you disagree with this. Do you think that the two terms are synonyms? That one means the other and vice versa? Where are you getting the idea that impropriety means fraudulence? Can you envision a case where something can be improper, but not be fraudulent? If so, then how can you say that I’m wrong? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2012, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-laws-necessary-to-combat-rampant-fraud-or-subtle-subjugation-of-the-democratic-demographic/622971/374 "2012-05-31T15:26:46Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > For years and years, the general public had no problem with cigarette smoking. We learned better. That’s fine. When we learned better, we modified our laws and policies. Before we learned better, we didn’t. Now we haven’t yet learned better on voter ID. so we have voter ID rules. I’m fine with that. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2012, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-laws-necessary-to-combat-rampant-fraud-or-subtle-subjugation-of-the-democratic-demographic/622971/375 "2012-05-31T15:45:55Z")
Oh, so its legal! And constitutional! Well, that certainly settles that! Why didn’t you say so sooner, save us all a lot of trouble and time arguing about such irrelevant details like “justice” and “equality”? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2012, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-laws-necessary-to-combat-rampant-fraud-or-subtle-subjugation-of-the-democratic-demographic/622971/376 "2012-05-31T16:12:42Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Oh, so its legal! And constitutional! Well, that certainly settles that! Why didn’t you say so sooner, save us all a lot of trouble and time arguing about such irrelevant details like “justice” and “equality”? One man’s justice is another’s injustice. There is no objective measure of justice for this issue. How many angels can dance on the head of a chad? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2012, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-laws-necessary-to-combat-rampant-fraud-or-subtle-subjugation-of-the-democratic-demographic/622971/377 "2012-05-31T16:35:05Z")
I see. So, all of your positions are objective, then? None of them are based on principles of religion or morality? Say, for instance, abortion? Based on nothing more than a clear and rational view, untainted by any principle that cannot be objectively proven? Certainly explains your forthright disapproval of liberal hypocrisy, you being so pure, and all. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2012, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-laws-necessary-to-combat-rampant-fraud-or-subtle-subjugation-of-the-democratic-demographic/622971/378 "2012-05-31T17:48:31Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > I see. So, all of your positions are objective, then? None of them are based on principles of religion or morality? Say, for instance, abortion? Based on nothing more than a clear and rational view, untainted by any principle that cannot be objectively proven? Certainly explains your forthright disapproval of liberal hypocrisy, you being so pure, and all. Not at all. I agree in particular that opposition to abortion is conditioned on a matter of definition which is not susceptible to objective analysis. But if you search through my postings on abortion, you won’t find me saying that the laws permitting abortion are invalid. Or that they’re unjust. Will you? Do you remember me, even once, saying that the abortion laws are a matter of justice? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2012, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-laws-necessary-to-combat-rampant-fraud-or-subtle-subjugation-of-the-democratic-demographic/622971/379 "2012-05-31T18:05:25Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Ohio will not have a voter ID law. Anarchy and cannibalism, no doubt, will result. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2012, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-laws-necessary-to-combat-rampant-fraud-or-subtle-subjugation-of-the-democratic-demographic/622971/380 "2012-05-31T18:07:21Z")
Wow, an invitation to spend the rest of my day re-reading **Bricker** posts! May I opt for lethal injection instead? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-laws-necessary-to-combat-rampant-fraud-or-subtle-subjugation-of-the-democratic-demographic/622971.md?page=18) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-laws-necessary-to-combat-rampant-fraud-or-subtle-subjugation-of-the-democratic-demographic/622971.md?page=20)