I still don’t see why there has to be a conspiracy. People routinely steal office supplies because they can and it’s easy to do so. No need for a conspiracy. In the same way, illegals could learn that, with lax voter ID laws, it’s easy to vote. And the downside is virtually nil since poll workers aren’t going to turn into Inmigración.
Voter ID Laws: Necessary to combat rampant fraud or subtle subjugation of the Democratic demographic
Illegals are making the votes that Americans won’t… 
More than your side has:
Number of people disenfranchised through voter fraud - at least one.
Number of people who cannot get a voter ID for non-monetary reasons - unknown although acknowledged that some may not get photo ID for ideological reasons e.g. Amish
Number of people that have been categorically shown to be unable to get photo ID purely for financial reasons - zero
You may call it a tu quoque fallacy but you cannot reject my arguememnt because my experience was not documented thus making it data I suppose and yet still support a side that refuses to give any data supporting their side. So where are your data showing how many people cannot get photo ID due to monetary reasons i.e abject poverty?
This is the statement you made and have since developed amnesia over:
How are those laws different?
And yet again: the citations you have presented are very persuasive for the points they make, but the points they make are different than the point I made. To help you understand, I asked you to restate my argument in your own words. Amnesia again?
You steal office supplies, you may get fired. Get busted as an illegal alien, you get arrested, at the very least deported. In most cases, illegals are here to work, because they have families back home who are dependent upon them. And they take huge risks to do it. Get busted, they go back to their families empty handed to watch what happens to people with no money.
So, what you think is, they’ll take that risk for the sheer pleasure of voting illegally?
Good question. Why don’t you go ask the known 600 or so that voted here in California in just one race? You can follow-up with INS about the other questionable 4,700 if you are bored.
See, California does not check citizenship status. They ask on the form for either a California driver’s license number or the last 4 digits of a social security number.
"How can a person prove his or her citizenship?
California Elections Code section 2111 permits a person to prove they are a citizen who is eligible to register to vote by signing the affidavit of registration under penalty of perjury."
So - we have had non-citizens vote in the past, no reason not to suspect that there would be some now and in the future. Perhaps while we are worrying about ID laws, we could also do another check of citizenship status of all votes cast in a couple of precincts to see what we find?
I submit, my previous post, and the question. If the people who would have their voting rights violated by ID requirements is so low, why don’t more states have programs to help people get IDs to vote? Surely it wouldn’t need to be used that much, if the numbers are low. If they aren’t low than it is sorely needed. Voting should be for everyone, not just those who can afford the Poll Tax, right?
The PA system sounds like a start in the right direction, but it needs to cover everyone. Even out of state borns. Why haven’t Republican dominated states even attempted a PA like system? Please fight my ignorance if I’m wrong.
Anyway my post. I know for a fact you can be a place to not meet the ID requirements. I was almost one…
To be ruthlessly fair, Tao, anecdotes are still anecdotes. Nothing personal, mind you, but if I can’t take the ones I don’t like, I can’t take the ones I do.
Actually, no. That’s not the standard at all.
They protest, openly, in the streets, for the DREAM Act. Are they doing that for the sheer pleasure? And that has a much higher chance of causing them to be caught, since news crews film the protests.
Explain that.
Every state offers free IDs to people for voting. What other aspects of PA’s system do you want to see widely adopted?
Oh, they do, do they? You can prove this? The people who demonstrate about the DREAM act, they are largely illegal aliens? More than half? Gotta be more than half, at least, otherwise you can’t use a word like “they”.
Not quite sure what you are trying to say, and more importantly sometimes, what you are trying to imply without actually saying. And its not because you are flowery, its because you are slippery.
They send their kids to school. They protest for immigrant rights. They get drivers licenses. They stand around outside Home Depots all over the United States.
This is not to denigrate illegal immigrants, per se. I know many of them, and most are hard working, good people. But they shouldn’t be voting. And they don’t need to be organized by some master conspirator to do so.
elucidator, point taken.
Is this in error?
If not, I call that a good start, and bless PA’s heart, but what you can do about about that? Particularly the Social Security Card issue?
Man, you got some weird ideas. makes me wonder how many other words you’ve redefined in your assertions without telling us. Nowhere in this defintion of “they” is the idea that it must be used only of a majority:
They:
plural pronoun, possessive their or theirs, objective them.
1.
nominative plural of he, she, and it.
people in general: They say he’s rich.
(used with an indefinite singular antecedent in place of the definite masculine he or the definite feminine she ): Whoever is of voting age, whether they are interested in politics or not, should vote.
They may be used at a minimum if there are two.
Are they voting, John? Sez who?
I was responding to your hypothetical. You claimed that significant voter fraud was im possible because it required a conspiracy that would be too big to not to fail, to put a different spin on a recently invented saying.
Maybe we need a bit of work on that word “significant”. My meaning is that such voting is reasonably likely to sway an election. Yours is different?
You did notice that I used numbers in my hypothetical, yes? A thousand votes, yes? Is there something inherently vague about one thousand?
You know, when I think of fundamental rights, I think of how I had one ancestor and two other relatives die fighting the revolutionary war, and yet another risk his life and that of his sons, as well as draining his personal fortune to protect eastern Tennessee/Kentucky/western North Carolina. I don’t take their sacrifice lightly.
it seems to me that any right worth having is worth fighting for–but long before I’d fight for it, I would do the basic responsible things to secure them that I could.
Part of the idea, as I understand it, with the limitation of voting to landowners only as was originally implemented in the United States was the idea that this would ensure the voting pool was comprised of responsible citizens. It’s not a perfect position (what is?) but it has some merit.
Of course other people are basically responsible without having ownership of land, today especially so. But how many people don’t lift a finger to do what little things they can do to secure rights that might become unexercisable if they do not? How far do we go in securing the rights of people who can’t be bothered themselves?
Responsible people take steps to make sure that the process of getting I.D. is not so onerous.
I had my billfold stolen once, I’ve been inconvenienced by that, but guess what? I think I.D. for voting is important enough, that knowing I might not be able to vote sometime as a result, I’m willing to chance it!
I have ALWAYS kept a copy of my birth certificate in a safe place. I have always kept a second copy at my mother’s. When she dies, my broithers and sisters will all do the same for each other; a familial agreement. Immediately after going through the process of a new D.L., and social security card, I claimed to have lost them again. I went back to the driver’s license station the same day!
And now I keep duplicate copies. When they expire, I “lose them” again. I’m responsible enough to take me seriously when I claim a right to vote. But I was raised that way by an ultra-liberal mother who taught me that some things are really really important, like being able to identify yourself, and set a good example of such responsibility that every citizen worth their salt ought to do.
I hear a lot about democrats speaking on behalf of the so-called disenfranchised. I don’t see so much the disenfranchised themselves doing so much to protect their right to vote.
I don’t have much partisan interest as a Libertarian. If you ask me, the Republicrats are a single party system agreed to business as usual distracting us with squabbles while they ruin us. But that’s my view. I really don’t care so much who is in control if it’s got to be “one” of the “two.”
Fair elections are far more important to me than a system that allows fraud to occur with a blind eye in the name of preserving voting for people who do little to nothing to preserve it for themselves. The libs are getting bent out of shape protecting it for a guy who, for all we know, loses his billfold every time he gets drunk laying in an alley in some inner city, about how horrible it is for irresponsible people like that to have some problems in exercising their rights. Cry me a river. I’m willing to give up a missed election in the event I don’t have I.D. Everyone should be.
Still there are going to be those disenfranchised through no fault of their own. They are so few, it’s not going to matter much. I conceive it could matter, perhaps, in very tight races of just a vote or two difference. I’m not too upset, if it’s that close to a “majority” either way, seems honest enough to me.
Getting I.D. from scratch can be a bitch, but if you’re responsible, even poor people can take steps to ensure it’s really a once in a life-time event. Let them learn from the school of hard knocks. If they can’t or won’t, I have little sympathy. My proof of identity is reasonably secure from natural disasters, fire, etc.
The only reason to care about the alleged disenfranchised is if my side loses votes.
There are 11M illegal immigrants in the US. A thousand is less than .01%.
There are about 3M in CA. A national election would only need for about .3% of them to vote to get to 1,000.