Yes, voting is a state issue. There are nationwide issues as well. Florida’s scrub, for example, is looking for felons. These can be felons from any of the 50 states, plus Federal crimes. Pulling all of that data together is not easy, and is open to problems. Having that handled at the Federal level, leveraging the existing investment for NICS, could reduce the false positive problem.
My point is that the Federal government is ALREADY pulling together most of the information necessary to determine is someone is an eligible voter - why don’t we use it? There is no reason that we can not solve the registration and identification problem, except that there are people who either don’t see a problem or don’t want to solve it. The solution itself does not necessarily have to be one that benefits one side over the other - if it is handled appropriately.
Yes. We elected representatives to represent us. We expect them to write Constitutional laws. Expecting any voter to pay anything (other than the taxes that pay for the entire voting process. The money has to come from somewhere.) is a waste of time and effort. It’s been decided. The voter photo ID’s and their replacements must be provided at no cost to the individual voter.
And how does a voter challenge a Federal registration? It’s difficult enough to deal with State or City bureaucracies. I seem to remember that a FLA newspaper began investigating why potential jurors were refusing their request to report for jury duty because they weren’t citizens. Their names had been selected from voter rolls. If they weren’t citizens, why were they voting?
The FLA scrub is looking for illegal voters. That includes felons, non-residents, illegal aliens. Either “one person, one vote” means something or it doesn’t. If it doesn’t, let’s all go to NYC and vote Bloomberg (I) out of office or go to Indianapolis and vote Mayor Greg Ballard (R) out or even come to Chicago and vote Mayor Rahm Imanuel (D) out of office.
One person, one vote. Fraudulent voting is illegal.
So, then, to preserve the pristine purity of your motives, you renounce, denounce, and condemn any effort to bend this marvelous thing towards any partisan advantage? Which is, in case you haven’t noticed, the actual subject of this debate.
Conservatives favor a system that does not necessarily solve a problem that does not actually appear to exist, which would massively increase the size and cost of government, which could be used to facilitate a national firearms registry and would also link to medical records. Part of their thinking on the subject appears to be related to a belief that it is easier to accurately count one million things than it is to count one hundred things.
It is safe to say that not only are we through the looking glass, but that we’ve engaged with both the Mad Hatter and the Cheshire Cat at the same time.
The opening question of this thread is - Voter ID Laws: Necessary to combat rampant fraud or subtle subjugation of the Democratic demographic
What combat’s rampant voter fraud better than insuring that “one person, one vote” is the rule?
How does “one person, one vote” subjugate the Democratic process?
Who benefits by not having up-to-date voter rolls? Who benefits by allowing non-residents, illegal aliens, and felons to vote in U.S. elections. It’s certainly not the lawful constituancy.
Yes. Your post introduced an idea that is remarkable to me, in that I would have thought I would never hear a conservative endorse it. That is the idea of having a national firearms registry. I think a national database of mental health (or other medical) records is horrific as well, but I guess if you’re down with a natonal database for some personal info, then hell, you’re in for a pound.
Re-read my post - I said nothing about a firearms database. I was discussing existing Federal databases that could easily be used to determine voting eligibility. Since one of the issues in voting is whether or not you have been convicted of certain crimes - it sure would be nice to have a database from across the nation to check against.
The National Instant Criminal Background Check (called NICS) already exists. It is NOT a fireARMS database - it is a database to determine if someone is proscribed from owning a firearm.
Now, combine that with SSN and you have a system to check if someone can legally vote. This is combining a couple of data sets that already exist to make it easier for states to purge their voting rolls of those ineligible to vote.
Problem is, getting ID may be free in some states, but it requires documents that do cost money, or like the PA program, can have ridiculous road blocks.
One party seems quite hessitent to even go anywhere as close as the PA program. That’s the topic of the thread.
For instance, you cannot use an Indiana birth certificate issued before 2010 to get an Ohio ID card. Ohio demands that you show proof of your legal gender before you are allowed to have ID, and Indiana birth certificates did not list gender until then. People in that situation have to pay $40 extra or show additional documents required of nobody else just to satisfy the whim of the Ohio BMV.
Having worked, and managed, inventory both with pen-and-paper and computers, I can tell you that a system were every item has a code that is read as it arrives and as it leaves is much better, faster, and accurate than checking cards.
Accuracy does not increase in itself as population increases, but your ignorance of economies of scale is also disturbing. The idea that the most powerful nation in the world cannot accomplish what a poor country can, in a field were access to more money, personnel, and logistics per capita is essential is ludicrous.
I stopped posting here so I apologize for what will most likely be a hit and run, however Mike Turzai, the Pennsylvania GOP House majority leader, was nice enough to go on the record and state that the controversial Pennsylvania Voter ID law would… help address voter fraud? Increase voter confidence? Stop undocumented immigrants from voting?
This wasn’t just any Republican. This was the state house majority leader speaking to a throng who applauded when he said it. I want to congratulate the representative. He was far more honest about this than most of his ilk - and those supporting Voter ID laws in this thread, for that matter.
Let me state that having an elected official in my state make a statement such as this certainly does undermine my confidence in the process. Anyone else?
Jon Stewart is a “comedian” who hosts a half-hour “news satire” that pokes fun at politicians and professional journalists who cover them. He can’t be held legally responsible for anything he says during his “shtick”. His dozen(s) of writers edit their scripts for comedic effect, not facts.
Jon Stewart is not and never has been a journalist. Stewart himself says that he is just a comic. The Daily Show describes itself as a fake news program. This isn’t rocket surgery. Stewart isn’t a news reporter but some people still think he is.
