Yes, but that’s quite the extreme case, wouldn’t you say?
How would slightly less egregious cases be uncovered?
For example, let’s imagine that an immigrant advocacy group encourages illegal aliens to vote, saying that it’s a good way to get the DREAM Act passed, and the chances of being caught are virtually zero.
And let’s say that several thousand illegal aliens register to vote, and then do.
How might this be caught?
He wasn’t.
Because for some people, this simply is not realistic to do. Those without drivers licenses will have to find a way to a photo studio for a biometric photo, then to the government bureau to fill out the necessary forms. This will generally need to happen over public transportation (which costs money) during business hours (when the very poor are generally working), and often this requires getting a birth certificate (which people often don’t have). Never mind that Around 11% of the populace as of 2006 did not have photo ID, and figures from 2009 show no change in the trend, and that those who don’t have photo ID are disproportionately minorities, the poor, the young, and the elderly – I think it is almost beside the point to point out that these are all strongly blue voting blocks. Almost.
Actually, there’s no hypocrisy here. Voting is a civic duty, but that doesn’t mean that barriers can be put in front of it. And time and money are generally in short supply among those who don’t already have photo ID. It’s like if you instituted a policy where a person must wait a minimum of 3 hours and pay a poll tax in order to vote. That wouldn’t make voting less of a civic duty, but it wouldn’t make any fucking sense either way. Voting is a civic duty at the absolute heart of our democracy. There is no reason why anyone who wants to vote shouldn’t be able to. Setting up hoops that we have to jump through is wrong, pure and simple.
They do around me. Hell, Henry Hyde was re-elected twice before anybody alive realized he was dead. The dead know their own.
Seriously? You honestly don’t see the glaringly obvious problem here?
If there is no significant amount of voter fraud, and the fix to prevent (the non-existent fraud) causes people to not vote, it is a solution that makes the problem worse.
Sometimes I honestly think I give conservatives too much credit.
It was a joke you silly bitch.
Do you believe in incentives? If you make it harder to vote, you’re creating an incentive for the marginal cases to not vote.
It’s not funny, you just don’t have empathy.
OK, then the only way you can be absolutely certain that each person only votes once is to do the finger dye thing. Sucks for shut ins, military stationed out of their home states and anybody living overseas that would normally get an absentee ballot though.
Nothing required other than a pulse and an ability to drag your body to the nearest polling station.
Eh. If loosening the restrictions means another 1000 people can vote, I’m not too concerned about the 2 fraudsters that can take advantage.
What kind of self-entitled bullshit is this?
Take the example of Texas.
The Voter ID law in Texas was poorly written and would have disproportionately affected minorities.
Beyond that, these thousands of people would have had to get to the nearest DPS office (about 1/3 of the counties in Texas don’t even have one) and even in cities like Houston, many people would be facing hours-long bus rides combined with hours long lines at the DPS office (you’re lucky if you’re “in and out” in under 4 hours at a Houston DPS). And there aren’t extended or weekend hours at DPS officers, to boot.
And the people affected would not exactly be the wealthiest folks around. They’d literally be choosing between getting an ID and working that day (usually low paying gigs). And heaven forbid you don’t satisfy the requirements of the lame-brained people who work at the DPS office. They can hardly tell their ass from a hole in the ground. So, should you screw up by not having everything you need (or you get a particularly idiotic DPS worker), you’re potentially out another day of work in the future and several hours of travel.
Sure, it’s important to be able to vote, but the way Texas tried to do it would have disenfranchised the poorest segment of the population. Maybe YOU can afford to lose a day’s pay, but a lot of these people can’t.
Bricker gets stuffed.
Texas, eh? No surprise. Florida too – but at least there’s some fightback.
When I vote, I sign my name in a book. Maybe, after an election, someone could look at the book?
If that were the case, Lyndon Johnson would never have been elected to public office.
I’m trying to look at this from another perspective and that is this: What is the motivation for someone to vote fraudulently? In any given election it’s only a percentage of registered voters who actually vote, less than 60% in the 2008 presidential election. What I’m trying to understand here is, given that almost half the population would rather sit home that get out and vote what motivates the ones that do vote to do so under false pretenses? It just seems unlikely and so it does seem like the requirement for voter ID (and what’s wrong with your voter registration card?) is solving a problem that doesn’t actually exist.
Suffrage is, IMO, is the linchpin of our democratic process. As such, voting laws that enable the largest number of people to vote freely and easily but might allow for instances of fraud are more democratic than laws that make it more challenging for people to vote but limit certain types of fraud. Illegal voting is better than restricted voting.
I said this in the other thread but it’s worth saying again.
In Ireland, if you go by official figures there was no fraudulent voting in the last election.
Unofficially, I am aware of multiple incidences of fraudulent voting, most notably the voting by the dead or the abroad or by people registered in multiple addresses.
We have ID voting, but it’s a joke - a student card from a university, or a bank card etc are accepted.
People can, and do, vote multiple times if they have the opportunity and it’s very very easy to get away with.
The one thing I’ll say is that the norm is voting for family for members; ie. Dad registers all the kids to vote and then uses their votes over the period of the day - chances are his ID won’t be checked, and if it is he just pats his pockets and walks away.
And very honestly, your system sounds much worse than ours, even going by the defences raised in this thread.
EDIT: Sorry, I don’t want to make it sound like Ireland doesn’t have fair elections. Most votes cast in an Irish election are genuine; our last review cleared nearly 80,000 people off the register. But I’m just trying to show that the fact that officially voter fraud doesn’t happen, doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen.
If we do end up with some kind of voter ID scheme, the one good thing is that it is impossible to fake an ID. Right?
Oh, it isn’t? It happens all the time? So you say we would end up with some trivial number of cases of people subverting the system with fake IDs?
…
You want to trade one instance where a trivial amount of abuse is occurring for another in which a trivial amount of abuse occurs PLUS lots of other people are disenfranchised.
Why is this a good trade off?
Hey, I’ve got a great idea, let’s look for references for a modern discussion in the political climate of 60 years ago! Never mind that that also would not have been prevented by voter ID laws.
Oh god, and he responds again:
Yep, and that’s in direct response to a post where I explain why I don’t care that it’s possible unless he can show it’s happening. Apparently the moron can’t even fucking read.
Well put.
This is a fundamental difference in the concept of democracy between those pushing for/decrying voter ID laws—that the ‘right’ people are voting is a higher priority element than widespread suffrage.
**Bricker **is on record stating he favours a poll tax. It’s non-Bricker racist origins aside (as well as its pedantically limited contextual definition), it is not philosophically devoid of value. It is, however, antithetical to the ostensible goal of enabling “the largest number of peopl to vote freely and easily.”
Many people would prefer that voters in certain (or all) contexts have a propertied stake in elections. There were many such requirements throughout history. This too has a philosophical value. Until I settled down a bit, I would not vote on purely local issues—I wasn’t staying in the jurisdiction, so in my mind I had no vested interest (and therefore no standing) in the long term outcomes or even optimal community-based short term outcomes. But personal choice aside, the desire to mandate “skin in the game” or whatnot is also antithetical to the idea that universal suffrage is inherent to democracy.
Note that similar to free speech, there are limits to the concept that avoid absurd results. But those pushing for voter ID laws are using the bugaboo of voter fraud to ensure only the right (pun?) people vote; to ensure the confidence of the electorate that good people are making the choices.
Cite?
I will copy and paste my reply to you in this thread:
It’s the fallout from you v. BrainGluten…
…searching…
…searching…
Thread: Get-out-the-vote and voter suppression are not equally legitimate political tactics;
Post:
Though I am aware of the semantical differences of legal terms of art (thank you, Georgetown Law), it matters not what you name the rose, a “price” on voting is walks and quacks; it’s a form of a poll tax.
Hence my contention that you seem to acknowledge that voter fraud of the sort ostensibly addressed by voter ID laws is not a actual problem (which is an assumption on my part based on other posts) but like the idea (a reading into the quoted post that you find value in voter ID laws that place a burden on people) of a poll tax (or call it whatever you will; all we’re doing is bickering over price) to keep the vote count lower (any price will necessarily reduce the number of people voting; hence the vote count will be lower).
Note that I do not necessarily disagree with you that voting should require more than, say, ticking a box on an Internet screen. We differ in the belief that the instant any method tends to favour one party over the other–or even the appearance of bias–it should be soundly rejected as inadequate to fostering a working democracy. If the bias is against *any *describable group is sufficient in itself to avoid such a requirement. If the bias is against a particular political party, the offence to democracy and its associated values is magnified.