The Voter Fraud That ‘Never Happens’ Keeps Coming Back

Lets be brutally honest.

Voter ID as it's being pushed lately is intended to tip the scales in favor of one political party.

Nothing more.

Quote from politicaljunkie : When voter fraud happens rarely, why the hell do we employ measures to fixt that problem that results in a TON more disenfranchised voters? But these states employing these draconian measures (which are primarily republican led) don't care because it doesn't affect their voting base. That is bullshit and completely undemocratic.

You've answered your own question.

But this pales in comparison to Republican led states in which polling places have been greatly reduced in Democratic dominated districts resulting in long waiting lines.

Waiting Times at Ballot Boxes Draw Scrutiny [nytimes.com]

Quote : Several recent polls and studies suggest that long waiting times in some places depressed turnout in 2012 and that lines were longest in cities, where Democrats outnumber Republicans. In a New York Times/CBS News poll taken shortly after Election Day, 18 percent of Democrats said they waited at least a half-hour to vote, compared with 11 percent of independents and 9 percent of Republicans. A Massachusetts Institute of Technology analysis determined that blacks and Hispanics waited nearly twice as long in line to vote on average than whites. Florida had the nation’s longest lines, at 45 minutes, followed by the District of Columbia, Maryland, South Carolina and Virginia, according to Charles Stewart III, the political science professor who conducted the analysis.

When it comes to voting rights, Republicans have no shame.

Quote from politicaljunkie : Free ID? What about the birth certificate needed for that ID? What about the time from work and family obligations to sit at the DMV? Sure, i bet the working poor who have multiple jobs and don't have help at home for their kids have TONS of time to deal with that BS. Sure, most people can get it done, but some cant--and you guys just don't care about them. You're more concerned about the isolated asshole who succeeds in voting twice. Screw the thousands who don't get to vote because of these stupid effing laws. What pisses me off is that republicans can't think even a bit beyond their own personal circumstances. If they don't have that particular problem, then that problem doesn't exist, and screw everyone who is too lazy to jump through the additional hoops you want placed in front of them. Fact is, i support voter id laws--but only if they are done in a way to not impact the ability of everyone legally entitled to vote. When voter fraud happens rarely, why the hell do we employ measures to fixt that problem that results in a TON more disenfranchised voters? But these states employing these draconian measures (which are primarily republican led) don't care because it doesn't affect their voting base. That is bullshit and completely undemocratic.

http://www.dmv.state.pa.us/voter/...dlaw.shtml

Quote : The applicant must fill out a Department of State application form and sign an oath/affirmation that they are a registered voter and have no other form of identification that can be used for voting. While the person waits, staff at the Driver License Center will contact the Department of State to validate that the person is registered to vote. Once verified, the person will receive the free Voter ID, which is only valid for voting and will be good for 10 years.

I just took your entire argument (actually a rant) and tore it apart with the current process. You sign an affirmation and the state does all the work for you. All you need to do is show up.. You've already been aware for about a year now. Are we about to argue why you need to show ID to get welfare? Or maybe argue about proving one's qualifications.. maybe we should just let people do it online.. On second though.. why not just a big bag of money outside the office and let those who are eligible take what they should take.. Oh wait.. that wouldn't be fair to those who need to drive. So I guess we'll put bags of money on each street corner only for the poor to take their designating portion. Oh but what if they're ill and can't reach in.. hmm.. how about we just throw money up in the air and tell only those that qualify to catch it. Or maybe put money into everyone's bank accounts and don't qualify to please send it back. mmhhmm sounds like a plan.

Quote from 124nic8 : When it comes to voting rights, Republicans have no shame.

When it comes to gun owners rights, Democrats have no shame.

Quote from DJPlayer : When it comes to gun owners rights, Democrats have no shame.

Suggesting equivalence here is dishonest.

No one dies from exercising voting rights, but the possession of guns by dishonest or negligent citizens, arms criminals and the mentally ill, resulting in tragic deaths.

These two kinds of rights are not remotely similar.

Quote from 124nic8 : Suggesting equivalence here is dishonest. No one dies from exercising voting rights, but the possession of guns by dishonest or negligent citizens, arms criminals and the mentally ill, resulting in tragic deaths. These two kinds of rights are not remotely similar.

are you sure? Obama attacked Libya without approval from congress. That is one single elected official who now has the right to order attacks (which kill) others.

To unfairly sway the election process could place anyone in office with hostile intentions.

Let's take it to the extreme. Candidate A runs for president. Mass fraud occurs and he wins (through the intensely mass fraud). He wins and attacks another country (via airstrikes) just as Obama did Libya. Later it ends up to a possible nuclear war.

So now I pose to you the question.. which is worse? the tiny percentage of people that somehow get illegally get their hand on guns or even the remote threat of a nuclear war?

the right to bear arms is an amendment. You want to make it increasingly difficult for law abiding citizens to purchase or own guns. But when it comes to voting.. you want it to be a "take your word for it" system. It's easier to illegally vote than it buy cigarettes underage. Half the time I hand someone a credit card w/o my signature on it they ask for ID. I honestly cannot think of a single system less secure and open to fraud as the voting system here. It's about as secure as placing a bag of treats on your porch for Halloween with a sign that says "take one". And much like the Halloween example, I can't prove how many people take more than one.

Quote from DJPlayer : are you sure? Obama attacked Libya without approval from congress. That is one single elected official who now has the right to order attacks (which kill) others. To unfairly sway the election process could place anyone in office with hostile intentions. Let's take it to the extreme. Candidate A runs for president. Mass fraud occurs and he wins (through the intensely mass fraud). He wins and attacks another country (via airstrikes) just as Obama did Libya. Later it ends up to a possible nuclear war. So now I pose to you the question.. which is worse? the tiny percentage of people that somehow get illegally get their hand on guns or even the remote threat of a nuclear war? the right to bear arms is an amendment. You want to make it increasingly difficult for law abiding citizens to purchase or own guns. But when it comes to voting.. you want it to be a "take your word for it" system. It's easier to illegally vote than it buy cigarettes underage. Half the time I hand someone a credit card w/o my signature on it they ask for ID. I honestly cannot think of a single system less secure and open to fraud as the voting system here. It's about as secure as placing a bag of treats on your porch for Halloween with a sign that says "take one". And much like the Halloween example, I can't prove how many people take more than one.

This ^ is not true. The only significant effective voter fraud is vote counting.

Effective voter impersonation fraud takes a large number of people who must keep their mouths shut in order to be kept secret and therefore successful. That is highly unlikely.

The more people that know about a fraud, the less likely it will remain undiscovered.

Quote from 124nic8 : This ^ is not true.

Didn't you know?!?!


http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bufTna0WArc

Quote from DJPlayer : http://www.dmv.state.pa.us/voter/...dlaw.shtml I just took your entire argument (actually a rant) and tore it apart with the current process. You sign an affirmation and the state does all the work for you. All you need to do is show up.. You've already been aware for about a year now. Are we about to argue why you need to show ID to get welfare? Or maybe argue about proving one's qualifications.. maybe we should just let people do it online.. On second though.. why not just a big bag of money outside the office and let those who are eligible take what they should take.. Oh wait.. that wouldn't be fair to those who need to drive. So I guess we'll put bags of money on each street corner only for the poor to take their designating portion. Oh but what if they're ill and can't reach in.. hmm.. how about we just throw money up in the air and tell only those that qualify to catch it. Or maybe put money into everyone's bank accounts and don't qualify to please send it back. mmhhmm sounds like a plan.

(1) Do you honestly think posting ONE state's policy means every state operates this way? You shouldn't, because that isn't the case. Once again, you think "well, thisnis what I need to do, therefore everyone else is the same!!!". You guys can't think past your own personal circumstances.

(2) And I'm not talking people on welfare. The poor aren't just those on public assistance.

And the rest of your entire argument (actually a rant) really shows you just don't give a shit about the disenfranchisement and you think these people who can't get ID are just more lazy poor people looking for a handout. It's pathetic.

Quote from 124nic8 : Both of these are voter registration fraud, or based on registration fraud. VoterID will not stop registration fraud.

Bull. When you go to vote under that registration you won't have a picture ID.

You did not bother to read the whole article.


In 1970, the witness voted at least 10 times, at 10 different polling places, using bogus regisltration cards. He was part of a crew of five perlsons, each of whom was paid $40 for the day's activities.

In the 1972 Democratic primary election, he received a promotion to crew chief, running a crew of five members.

By 1974, his crew had grown to eight members, each of whom voted in excess of 20 times, and there were approximately 20 other crews operlating during that election.

In 1976, the grand jury witness led a crew of five people who cast at least 100 fraudulent votes.

Moreover, the same witness had been present at a meeting prior to election day that was "attended by twenty crew chiefs."[21] If the other crews averaged as many fraudulent votes, then there would have been at least 2,000 phony votes cast in that election without detection by precinct poll workers or election officials.

By 1982, the witness "was to have provided twenty-five workers to vote in a Congressional primary election again using bogus voter regisltration cards."[22]

Quote from politicaljunkie : First, if you actually want to engage in a discussion, quit acting so farking condescending. If you want to be a prick, you can go bitch about everything liberal to someone else. Second, here are a handful of problems with the voter ID issue: 1) even if free, there are issues with time off from work/family to obtain ID. In places where people rely on public transportation, ID isn't a necessity. Can they do it? Yes. But there will be some who can't/don't want to jump through the hoops. Every discouraged voter is a win for the republicans. 2) old folks who don't go out have increased difficulty getting out to obtain an id they don't need for anything else. Can they do it? Yes. But there will be some who can't/don't want to jump through the hoops. Every discouraged voter is a win for the republicans. 3) poor people tend to move more often (apartments, etc.). Their address on the voter roles may not match their ID. Then they need to show utility bills or some other---problem is, some don't have the utilities in their names if they live with other people. 4) each state has different requirements for getting a birth certificate--some of which cannot be satisfied by the requesting party. No BC, no ID, no vote. http://www.aclu.org/blog/voting-r...ter-id-law 5) free ID? Well what about the birth certificate? That isn't always free.

Monstrous lies and bull told on the internet to fool the stupid.


Vivian Applegate of PA spouted the same lies. There is no compelling reason to discuss anything with someone not being honest about the law.

Quote from DJPlayer : http://www.dmv.state.pa.us/voter/...dlaw.shtml I just took your entire argument (actually a rant) and tore it apart with the current process. You sign an affirmation and the state does all the work for you. All you need to do is show up.. You've already been aware for about a year now. Are we about to argue why you need to show ID to get welfare? Or maybe argue about proving one's qualifications.. maybe we should just let people do it online.. On second though.. why not just a big bag of money outside the office and let those who are eligible take what they should take.. Oh wait.. that wouldn't be fair to those who need to drive. So I guess we'll put bags of money on each street corner only for the poor to take their designating portion. Oh but what if they're ill and can't reach in.. hmm.. how about we just throw money up in the air and tell only those that qualify to catch it. Or maybe put money into everyone's bank accounts and don't qualify to please send it back. mmhhmm sounds like a plan.

Yes, South Carolina does the same, more or less. So does Indiana and Georgia.


That's why these people have to lie.


The Tennessee statute says:

A voter who is indigent and unable to obtain proof of identification without payment of a
fee or who has a religious objection to being photographed shall be required to execute an
affidavit of identity on a form provided by the county election commission and then shall
be allowed to vote. The affidavit shall state that:
(1) The person executing the affidavit is the same individual who is casting the ballot; and

(2) The affiant is indigent and unable to obtain proof of identification without paying a fee
or has a religious objection to being photographed.





The Tennessee election code also permits an individual over the age of 60 can vote absentee. That hasn't stopped a bunch of 90 year olds from Tennessee from telling lies.

Quote from Krazen1211 : Bull. When you go to vote under that registration you won't have a picture ID.

Because you don't need a picture ID to register?

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=...A8drINAQjA

Articles about voter fraud from 1970 are ancient history and not necessarily still relevant.

I am completely dumbfounded when this entire argument surfaces. We are talking about either proving one's entity.. or merely the government taking your word for it.

I'm trying to think of a single scenario in the private or public sector where they just take your word for your identity. If this is all so why not get rid of birth certificates, DMV photo ID etc.. we all can just be exactly who we claim we are..

I'm not even sure what the counter argument to Photo ID is..

Quote from DJPlayer : I am completely dumbfounded when this entire argument surfaces. We are talking about either proving one's entity.. or merely the government taking your word for it.

This ^ misrepresents the situation. There are several checks on your identity when you vote.

For one, you have to know the name and address of a registered voter.

For another, you have to know that they have not already voted.

If you violated either of these requirements, you are subject to arrest and conviction.

All of these factors greatly discourage voter impersonation fraud.

OTOH, fake IDs are not very hard to get....if you know the other things listed above.

Quote : I'm trying to think of a single scenario in the private or public sector where they just take your word for your identity. If this is all so why not get rid of birth certificates, DMV photo ID etc.. we all can just be exactly who we claim we are..

Those things which require IDs are not Constitutional rights.

Quote : I'm not even sure what the counter argument to Photo ID is..

Amazing how you've managed to grasp these misconceptions but failed to understand the counter arguments.

Spoon fed: there is a segment of the population for which acquiring the required photo ID places an undue burden, effectively discouraging them from voting. When that benefits one Party over another, the motive is highly suspect in the absence of proof of any significant voter impersonation fraud.

Quote from DJPlayer : I am completely dumbfounded when this entire argument surfaces. We are talking about either proving one's entity.. or merely the government taking your word for it. I'm trying to think of a single scenario in the private or public sector where they just take your word for your identity. If this is all so why not get rid of birth certificates, DMV photo ID etc.. we all can just be exactly who we claim we are..

Soon the government will try to have a nationwide I.D. program for workers. I wonder if there will be a similar nationwide I.D. program for voters.