Not necessarily. Someone could vote in the place where they were entitled to, and show ID, then cast a second vote somewhere and be fingerprinted. If you’re only looking for duplicate fingerprints, this wouldn’t be detected.
Technically, I’m not sure if fingerprint matching software is up to the task. And poll workers would need to be trained to take proper fingerprints.
Which is also true for the number of people affected by Voter ID laws. Except that side insists that we accept their word that it is somewhere an assload and a humongoid number.
And I’ve actually give the Lefties on this board some ideas of how that study could be done. Look at the public records for how many in your county are on SSI, welfare, timed out of unemployment, etc to get a baseline for how many households fall below the minimal cost of living in the area.
Cross reference that with the number of people who do not have ID currently. Actually, that would make a great starting point because if 100 people in your county don’t already have ID, then you know the number of people affected by Voter ID is 100 or less. It’s hard work but surely it’s possible to at least get an estimate of the numbers available.
Until the anti-voter contingent can come up with something more substantial than “These laws are passed by Republicans” then the arguments that an election armaggedon will occur deserves to be ignored. And if the Left truly cared about the sanctity of election, then why no uproar over a law where the over 20 million illegal immigrants could vote simply claiming to be citizens. Very simply, these votes would be for Democrats. So what side is really trying to manipulate election laws for their own gains? I’ll give you two hints: they’re not Republicans and their emblem is an ass.
Heck, I forgot to add dip their finger in ink after they show I.D.
As far as the fingerprint matching technology, I think we are able to match fingerprints, the police do it all the time. Technology is currently up to the task.
But do you really mean that you think it would be too slow? So what if it’s a few extra days before the fingerprint ballots are counted and added in. Or is instant gratification the pollstar in vote counting?
(I of course am just being punny with “pollstar.” It’s correctly spelled “polestar,” of course.)
Because if you are a registered voter, you have already confirmed you met all the requirements. You’re just swearing that the new law has placed you newly in a position where you can’t vote.
Excelent idea. How about votes by non-citizens?
And to sumarize, Bricker feels that it’s fine to disenfranchise voters in order to address a problem that doesn’t currenty exist because one day it just might. He feels this way because of public confidence, even though this is untenable and there is evidence - a Harvard Law Review study, the 2000 election debacle, the fact that people like myself feel less confidence when voters are suppressed - that it is at best unrelated to this issue and at worst, Voter ID laws undermine the confidence some of us have in the process - myself included.
While you favor letting anyone be allowed to vote under any name on the rolls (whether or not they are a citizen) just so someone who may or may not exist doesn’t need to get identification. Hard to believe there’s no middle ground here
Yes.
And just so I’m clear, you now acknowledge that your claim that there was substantive difference between Rhode Island’s law and Indiana’s law was absolutely untrue?
So, there is an urgent crisis in the confidence of the electorate. Which we cannot actually define, nor offer any means to measure, but trust us, there is an urgent crisis, one so urgent that it must be met immediately, before the next set of voting occurs. Or it could become a crisis, but we don’t know when, since we have no actual means of measurement. But when it does become a crisis, it will be an urgent crisis, which is why we must act at once. That’s what you do in an urgent crisis. You act at once!
It may be true that some legally entitled voters may be stymied. Collateral damage. Darn shame, but we have a crisis to deal with here! And it may well be true that some impediments are placed in the path of the disadvantaged potential voter. But the Constitution says nothing about making voting easy for the lazy! These laws don’t deny them their rights, it simply makes it more tiresome and difficult. Which is not the same thing, not the same thing at all, so stop saying its the same thing, even when you don’t.
It is possible that the net result of this emergency procedure will be to somewhat dampen the number of Democrat votes. It never occurred to us, never crossed our minds, we are as lambs, gamboling innocently amongst the daffodils. Certainly we are open to considering means to remedy these minor drawbacks, but we are terribly, terribly busy right now. Perhaps after the next election, when the voice of the people has been heard. Most of the people, at any rate.
Some may carp and complain that this tilts the electoral field in favor of Republicans, and then presumes that the Republicans will correct any imbalances, even if it results in a substantial loss in power, or even office.
Yes. Trust us.
You miss the obvious point: Even detractors know that there is a number above zero of disenfranchised voters. There is no way to quantify this “voter confidence” thing and the one study that even approached the subject said it was a non-factor.
Good. I find that abhorrent and illogical and the antithesis to the American way. But by all means, subjugate all you want for your admittedly non-existant problem on the basis it might become a problem one day and persist in believing that this makes people more confident.
Yeah and so? There is a substantive difference between those and several other states. And none of this changes the fact that Republicans are still the driving force behind these bills a majority of the time. Nor does it change the fact that Democratic voters are more likely to be disenfranchised.
If it’s never been a problem before…
Well, I’m assuming that is an issue dealt with at registration. I agree with you that fees for underlying documentation to prove citizenship themselves aren’t poll taxes. Make all registrants prove citizenship.
You keep asserting that it’s “not a problem” even though you have been shown links. I have seen plenty of news stories about certain state officials claiming it IS a problem.
You have utterly failed to address this evidence, and keep repeating your mantra that it’s “not a problem.”
Noting that “not a problem” isn’t quite the same as “not happening” I guess you’re just approving of voter fraud because it helps the side you favor.
I’d also like you to answer the question of how the system we have is supposed to catch fraudulent voters to begin with? Look at my bank analogy for instance.
The one study did not, as I explained above, ask any question that would test the hypothesis I proposed.
Did you know this, and post anyway? Were you not clear on the differences between my claim and what the study purported to measure?
If more extensive voter fraud did exist, can someone explain to me and to david42 by what current process it would be detected?
Might we use the same metric as you use to analyze the dread crisis in electoral confidence?
It doesn’t happen for one reason, in two words: im possible. Can’t be done.
Set a modest goal, say, a thousand bogus votes in a precinct of a hundred thousand. Tell me how.
Do you recruit one thousand dedicated fanatics to the Dark Side? Darth Voters? Then your conspiracy has a thousand weaknesses, right off the bat. Loose lips, and all that. And even then, you have to create a thousand sets of whatever flimsy documentation is needed. A thousand utility bills? Forged convincingly? Or maybe a thousand actual bills of people you know exist, but are certain aren’t going to vote? How?
OK, maybe a hundred voting ten times each. Solves some problems! Except the logistics. You still got the document problem, and in addition, you have to set an impossible schedule. Most polling places are open about twelve hours, give or take. So now you provide the documentation, advise each co-conspirator of their ten fakes, and get them to the first polling place on their list. Bright and early! Because they are going to have to register to vote, wait to vote, vote, get the hell out and off to the next one in…what? An hour? Hour and a half? Better have the car warmed up and waiting to zip them off to…
Its ridiculous, D-Day was less a logistical problem than this. The reason you are not detecting any such thing is the same reason you don’t detect unicorn stampedes.
This is not news to you, Bricker, we’ve discussed this before. If you have a plausible scheme for doing even this modest effort, tell us. You might want to consider giving up on law and taking a position with SPECTRE. Always looking for a few bad men.
Except it has been done. How many times would you like me to point out the problematic ballots from the Sanchez Dornan race? Over 600 votes by non-citizens discovered after the fact - not quite enough to tip the scale - but the race was a close one. A further review by INS found another questionable 4,700 ballots - but at that point the House dropped it.
So there HAS been a problem with people voting who do not have the right. It might have even swayed an election.
I’d like to see what your reasoning is that the only source of voter fraud can be the general public. Suppose I’m a poll worker, I have the access to the information of who’s voted and who hasn’t; and the guy I want to win is losing by a couple hundred votes.
maybe I call a few friends and we all vote a few times in the last few minutes, maybe I can vote a bunch of times…
Even if that’s “im possible” too, why does everyone here handwave or worse, ignore things like S.C.'s A.G.'s claim of 900 dead voters, 600 of whom were outside the window of time allowing a person to vote then die? Is he a liar? I haven’t found any debunks.