voter id laws - pros vs. cons

looks like the chart came from the DNC according this link it was part of a PDF file on anti-voter Id.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002169143

go to the DNC link under the chart which takes you to the pdf file.

here are some statistics supporting their argument that vote fraud is rare.

http://www.brennancenter.org/content...of_voter_fraud

http://www.truthaboutfraud.org/pdf/T...VoterFraud.pdf

here are some statistics supporting their argument that vote fraud is rare.

http://www.brennancenter.org/content...of_voter_fraud

http://www.truthaboutfraud.org/pdf/T...VoterFraud.pdf Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

Dilbert,

From page 13 of the Brennan document:

There were 14 alleged reports of voters casting ballots both absentee and in person; at least 12 were caught, and the absentee ballot was not counted. There were no substantiated reports of any intentional double voting of which we are aware.

"Double-Speak 101": 12 were caught voting twice, but they didn't intentionally vote twice! Seriously?


In Michigan in 2005, 132 votes were alleged to have been cast by deceased voters.93 The allegations were premised on a flawed match of voter rolls to death lists. A follow-up investigation by the Secretary of State revealed that these alleged dead voters were actually absentee ballots mailed to voters who died before Election Day; 97 of these ballots were never voted, and 27 were voted before the voter passed away. Even if the remaining eight cases all revealed substantiated fraud, that would amount to a rate of at most 0.0027% (pp 14 & 15).

Here the report admits there is fraud, and then discounts it as insignificant.


Many close elections have also featured allegations that waves of ineligible people with felony convictions have deliberately overtaken the voting system. There are, however, only a handful of known cases in which people rendered ineligible by convictions cast ballots despite knowing that they were not permitted to do so (16).

This Brennan report was written in 2007, yet the statement above completely ignores the findings in Florida during the 2000 election:

Both the Miami Herald and the Palm Beach Post found that, if anything, county officials were too permissive in whom they allowed to vote, and that this largely benefited Al Gore. An analysis by the Palm Beach Post found that 5,600 people whose names matched the names of convicted felons who should have been disqualified were permitted to cast their ballots. "These illegal voters almost certainly influenced the down-to-the-wire presidential election," the Palm Beach Post reported. "It's likely they benefited Democratic candidate Al Gore. Of the likely felons identified by the Palm Beach Post, 68% [an estimated 3,800 votes] were registered Democrats."


The Brennan report is pure BS.

The Brennan report is pure BS. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

looks like the crickets are very quiet.

Ok, I'll chime in. The Brennan Report is pure BS. Happy now?

looks like the crickets are very quiet. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

. . . or the "ignore" button has been "liberally" used.

Yes they are.

Everybody eligible to vote should be able to vote.

You should not have to jump through hoops to do so.

Everybody has a SS number, that should be all you need.


That is just one aspect that makes you a fool. There are just to many others to list. Originally Posted by WTF

dude, dont call people fools so readily. doing so could come back to haunt you.

non citizens obtain social security cards all the time, the only ones who dont are illegal entries....the illegals have sometimes thrown a ss number out there, made up out of thin air, and then about two years later the IRS is after some grannie in maine for $22,356 dollars of unreported contract labor received from a painting contractor in nevada.

maybe you wish them, non citizens and illegal entries, to vote, probably so

http://www.ssa.gov/immigration/

"One citizen; one vote."

Honorable citizens shouldn't submit to having their votes perniciously devalued by crooks and thieves.

No man's right to vote exceeds another man's right to vote. When elections are stolen through voter fraud, it is the man who voted honestly who is disenfranchised. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

No different than the legal citizen who is not allowed to vote.

That is what we have to weigh and that is where we differ.

It is an honest question that has no right or wrong. But we should try and discuss both all aspects of cause and effect.

what about the poor souls who wish to not have a social security number? what about them? oh no!

dude, dont call people fools so readily. doing so could come back to haunt you.



http://www.ssa.gov/immigration/ Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

They should be allowed to vote!

Let us go through the process after the election and prove them illegal. Not just assume them illegal. That is what we have and it has worked well.

They should be allowed to vote!

Let us go through the process after the election and prove them illegal. Not just assume them illegal. That is what we have and it has worked well. Originally Posted by WTF

i'll let the american people read that. it stands on its own. no comment required.

i'll let the american people read that. it stands on its own. no comment required. Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

Yes this is where the American people get their news they can use!

You guys act as if in a close election, there is no such thing as recounts...

Gore would have been elected had people not mistakenly voted for Pat Buchanan. But if you are to dumb to figure out a ballot , then tough shit. I have no problem with the election of Bush in 2000. I do find it strange that folks that cry about state rights, seem ok with the SC shutting down a State court in regards to the recount.

Every time I've ever voted I've had to show positive ID - no exceptions. I see no reason the voters registration card shouldn't have a photo ID on it. We are far beyond what the founding fathers could imagine with regard to technology and identities / identity theft. It seems to me that in the day of identity theft everywhere, it is completely reasonable to have a photo ID confirming the voter.

Every time I've ever voted I've had to show positive ID - no exceptions. I see no reason the voters registration card shouldn't have a photo ID on it. We are far beyond what the founding fathers could imagine with regard to technology and identities / identity theft. It seems to me that in the day of identity theft everywhere, it is completely reasonable to have a photo ID confirming the voter. Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

During the Colonial period there were frauds (usually relating to property ownership and residency), but positive ID was not among them. The candidates sat or stood on a podium and the voters came forward and shook the hand of the man they preferred. Everyone was a neighbor (there were no voting strangers), and everything was open for all to see. In the same manner, the people elected 'electors' - people they personally knew and could trust to represent them to select a president. U.S. Senators were picked by the state legislatures. Ending property requirements and a burgeoning population introduced 'strangers' to the mix and subsequently voter identity fraud became standard fare.

Yes, that is what I was referring to. No one NEEDED positive ID because everyone knew each other. I don't even know the names of half of my neighbors and I've lived on my street for years. Identities weren't easy to hide or steal back in the Colonial days.

I see no reason why asking someone to identify themselves to vote is unreasonable. You have to do that to drive, open a bank account, cash a check, get on a plane, enter the country or enter another country. I just can't understand the push back.

Yes, that is what I was referring to. No one NEEDED positive ID because everyone knew each other. I don't even know the names of half of my neighbors and I've lived on my street for years. Identities weren't easy to hide or steal back in the Colonial days.

I see no reason why asking someone to identify themselves to vote is unreasonable. You have to do that to drive, open a bank account, cash a check, get on a plane, enter the country or enter another country. I just can't understand the push back.
Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

They're afraid of Personal Accountability:



Ron Klain: How hard is it to punch a paper ballot?


Michael Whouley: It's pretty God damn hard when you're eighty something years old, you're arthritic, and you're blind as a fucking bat. Unfortunately for us, blind fucking bats tend to vote Democratic.




Recount (2008)