The Voter Fraud That ‘Never Happens’ Keeps Coming Back
 

http://www.nationalreview.com/cor...-john-fund


Democrat Melowese Richardson has been an official poll worker for the last quarter century and registered thousands of people to vote last year. She candidly admitted to Cincinnati’s Channel 9 this week that she voted twice in the last election.

According to county documents, Richardson’s absentee ballot was accepted on Nov. 1, 2012 along with her signature. On Nov. 11, she told an official she also voted at a precinct because she was afraid her absentee ballot would not be counted in time.

“There’s absolutely no intent on my part to commit voter fraud,” said Richardson. . . .

The board’s documents also state that Richardson was allegedly disruptive and hid things from other poll workers on Election Day after another female worker reported she was intimidated by Richardson. . . .

During the investigation it was also discovered that her granddaughter, India Richardson, who was a first time voter in the 2012 election, cast two ballots in November.

Richardson insists she has done nothing wrong and promises to contest the charges: “I’ll fight it for Mr. Obama and for Mr. Obama’s right to sit as president of the United States.”






Why should the people not crack down on these fiends?

it's what they want.

touchy subject.... in before this one get deleted too. :lol:

well what the discussion usually breaks down to is - voter fraud does exist, but what's the cost/benefit to prevent it, and how effective would it be?

Requiring a valid I.D. and logging it in the system would help a lot.

oh, wait....

I wonder if she managed to keep a straight face when she said that.

So we have some dipshit who voted twice, was caught and is being prosecuted. Isn't that how this is supposed to work?

Now if Obama won by only 1 vote, i'd see a problem. But even if this happened a 1,000 times (which isn't even remotely possible), it still wouldn't have an impact.


And YES, if we started NOW to implement voter ID laws in accordance with a system designed to make sure people are given enough time to ensure they're registered, lets do it. But pushing it through right before a major election is bullshit.

Number of people turned away or not voting because of ID laws > number of voters fraudulently voting

Pres. Bush the first even used the ridiculous "voter fraud" argument as a reason for not signing the Motor Voter bill, which lets people register to vote when they get their driver's licenses. The GOP just doesn't want to allow a fair fight anymore by letting people participate in elections. It's the same reason they seek to stamp out or shorten early voting. Pathetic.

What a bunch of nonsense. The Indiana Democratic party produced 0 such persons in a court of law.

Pathetic.


The bulk of voter ID laws have been passed several months before a major election.

The left wing spent those several months whining like babies, and then turned around and claimed it was 'right before a major election'.

Well, the Democratic party has a history of cheating.


http://www.nytimes.com/1994/02/19...enate.html

Judge Newcomer ruled that the Democratic campaign of William G. Stinson had stolen the election from Bruce S. Marks in North Philadelphia's Second Senatorial District through an elaborate fraud in which hundreds of residents were encouraged to vote by absentee ballot even though they had no legal reason -- like a physical disability or a scheduled trip outside the city -- to do so.

Yeah, they should charge her twice.

OP, the entire thread is a straw man. I can't recall anyone ever claiming that voter fraud doesn't happen or "never happens."

Rather, voter impersonation is virtually nonexistent, and is the only type of fraud that would be affected by voter ID laws.

I feel like everyone in TP must know this by now, but maybe it's just more fun for some to tilt at windmills.

well that's one. if you guys can find 3476774 examples of this, you may be right about this being an "issue".

And for turning a blind eye... Acorn, Black Panthers outside of polling places, etc....

People would scream bloody murder if it was a republican candidate.

That's not really the issue.

Voter suppression is voter suppression whenever it happens. There is a long and storied history of it happening in our republic. Voter fraud, on the other hand, not so much.

Is there even any evidence that this woman misrepresented who she was when she voted in person? The OP cite does not say.


And it does not even say they involved voter impersonation.

I think the questions are whether organized voter fraud exists, and whether voter fraud is widespread enough to have any significance.

Ann Coulter was also charged with voter fraud. I think she was living in one district and voting in another.

But the big question, in my opinion, is not whether they found one poll worker somewhere who cast one extra vote. The question is, how common is voter fraud?

Of course it is the issue. If such suppression actually occurred among millions of people in Indiana, they would have proven it in a court of law.

Instead, they lied and spewed BS. The judge in Crawford v Marion County called them out on it and ruled for the state and for voter ID, because you can't spew lies in a court of law like you can on the internet.

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/...tion-19000

In an exclusive report, Barry Horstman wrote in the Cincinnati Enquirer that “more than two dozen subpoenas” have been issued in Hamilton County, which includes the city of Cincinnati, all having to do with election fraud allegedly committed by voters and poll workers alike. The Enquirer story said:

By a unanimous vote, the four-member county Board of Elections decided Tuesday to issue 28 subpoenas and scheduled two hearings later this month at which voters will be given a final opportunity to provide explanations before the cases are turned over to prosecutors for possible criminal charges. Pending further investigation, several other subpoenas may be issued later.

Some of the cases involve attempted double-voting in Walnut Hills, Westwood, Silverton and elsewhere. One deals with a Florida resident who attempted to use her old Greater Cincinnati address to vote in Hamilton County last November. And in another episode, someone who voted at an Avondale polling place on Election Day claimed to be a woman who already had cast an absentee ballot.

“She did not attempt to vote twice,” elections board chairman Tim Burke told the Enquirer. “Someone apparently voted in her name.”

Another unusual circumstance involved the case of a 75-year-old woman who died before her absentee ballot was even mailed out to her.

“There’s no way this person voted that ballot,” elections board member Alex Triantafilou told the Enquirer. “On its face, it looks like the husband voted for the deceased wife.”


Yep.


http://news.cincinnati.com/articl...ck_check=1

One of the more intriguing Hamilton County cases also is arguably the most troubling, because it involves a longtime poll worker from Madisonville who apparently voted twice and may have had a hand in falsifying four other votes.

The girl told officials that her grandmother had filled out an absentee ballot request in her name and then voted it, “because she didn’t think I would go do it.” The granddaughter, however, cast a provisional ballot – used when there are questions over a voter’s eligibility – on Election Day, which caught officials’ attention because two votes in her name had been cast, one of which was later disqualified.

The woman’s questionable actions did not end there. Officials found that not only had the granddaughter’s absentee ballot been sent to her grandmother’s Whetsel Avenue address, but that three other absentee requests – in the names of men – also originated from the same address.




The law does not permit one to go vote on behalf of one's granddaughter.

Voter suppression mostly takes on a passive form -- the voter does not show up. In voter fraud, on the other hand, there is always an affirmative act to deceive, something the defendants in the case that you cited were not able to show a single instance of.

The case went all the way to the Surpreme Court where it was decided by a split bench. I don't think "spewing lies" is the usual standard for the Court when it decides to accept a case.

Obviously you didn't read the district court case of Crawford v Marion County.

Not a single instance of 'not showing up' was established. Some claimed that they would not be able to vote. The judge noted that they were liars.

Could you point out the parts which are evidence of voter impersonation fraud (not absentee voter fraud)?

ktnx.

Krazen, how would I prove that you didn't mow the lawn this morning when you never showed up in court to testify to that fact?

If you claim there are tens of thousands of such people in the state in Indiana, like the Indiana Democratic party did, and you can't find a single one and produce him in court, the judge is going to be inclined to think that you are making crap up.

Of course, that is precisely what the Indiana Democratic party did. They found 12 named individuals for which they claimed suppression under the law. Unfortunately, all 12 of them were able to vote.

What?

When you sign a ballot claiming you are someone, and you are not that someone, that is voter impersonation.

I like this one: Roxanne Rubin, Nevada Republican, Accepts Plea Deal After Committing Voter Fraud [huffingtonpost.com]

The woman get arrested for voter fraud while trying to show how easy it is to commit said fraud.

Of course its easy.

http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/election...dgment.pdf

The State has also produced evidence of published books and media reports
discussing allegations and instances of in-person voter fraud in several other states. See
Larry J. Sabato & Glenn R. Simpson, Dirty Little Secrets 292 (1996) (noting that
documentation of in-person voter fraud often occurs only when a legitimate voter at the
polls hears a fraudulent voter trying to use her name, as happened to a woman in
California in 1994); John Fund, Stealing Elections 64 (2004) (noting in the St. Louis
fourteen dead people “voted” in the 2000; State’s Ex. 2, p. 23 (describing recent U.S.
Department of Justice investigations into election fraud, which, as of August 2005, had
resulted in 52 convictions); State’s Ex. 3, pp. 4-5, 19 (court findings that in the State of
Washington’s 2004 gubernatorial elections more than 1,600 fraudulently cast ballots,
including 19 ballots cast by dead voters, six double votes, and 77 votes unaccounted for
on the registration rolls); State’s Ex. 4, pp. 2-4 (joint task force findings describing
instances in the 2004 elections in Wisconsin where individuals voted twice by using fake
names and addresses and citizens who told investigators that they did not vote, even
though the report showed that someone voted in their names); State’s Ex. 6, pp. 42-43 and

State’s Ex. 7, pp. 3-6 (describing an investigation by the Missouri Secretary of State after
the 2000 elections of two of counties which revealed over 1,000 fraudulent ballots,
including at least 68 multiple votes, 14 dead person votes, and 79 vacant-lot voters, with
another 200 sites requesting further review); State’s Ex. 10, pp. 1-2 (newspaper reports
that dozens, possibly hundreds, of people who lived outside the city limits illegally cast
votes at the polls in Miami’s mayoral elections in 1997); State’s Ex. 11, p. 1-2 (Johns
Hopkins University study which found that in Maryland at least 63 votes were cast in the
name of deceased individuals between the 1980’s and 2004). The State has produced
newspaper reports recounting that in recent elections votes were cast in the names of dead
people in Georgia, Illinois, and Pennsylvania. See State’s Exs. 12-14, 18. The report
from the Commission on Federal Election Reform (known as the Baker-Carter
Commission) recently concluded that “there is no doubt that [in-person voter fraud]
occurs.”

Sure. But where in your cites does it say that happened?

I only see allegations of absentee voter fraud.

Yes, this woman engaged in both types of fraud. First, absentee voter fraud by voting twice, second, voter impersonation fraud by voting on behalf of another.

This here is another instance of voter impersonation.



The woman died Oct. 1, but the elections board on Oct. 11 received a signed absentee ballot in her name dated Sept. 29.

What makes that timetable impossible – and legally problematic – is that her ballot was among roughly 60,000 absentee ballots countywide that were not mailed to voters until Oct. 5.

“There’s no way this person voted that ballot,” said elections board member Alex Triantafilou. “On its face, it looks like the husband voted for the deceased wife.” The husband also cast an absentee ballot, in an envelope also signed and dated Sept. 29.

Several months doesn't give all voters enough amount of time to make sure people are properly notified and given a chance to ensure the steps are taken to be able to vote.

They need to act NOW and include proper measures to ensure people aren't disenfranchised. When you're dealing with a problem that is microscopic (at best), you better be damn sure people who are eligible to vote are able to vote. Let the cure fit the disease. You don't cut someone's arm off over a hang nail.

But the right wing doesn't care, so long as those who are being disenfranchised are mostly democratic voters. But the funny thing is, despite the shenannigans, you guys STILL got your asses handed to you in the election.

If it was so easy she wouldn't have been caught. :bulb:

That's a funny bit of mythology.

Penndot issued mailers, flyers, TV advertisements and waivers to ensure that people could get ID. The main plaintiff leftwinger in the case screeched for months about being unable to get an ID before obtaining one in about 12 hours after actually trying to do so.

It's 4 years before November 2016 and the leftwingers are still screaming like toddlers.


Want another example? Nikki Haley signed South Carolina's voter ID law in May 2011. For 1.5 years, the left wing screamed. Nikki Haley volunteered free transportation to anyone in South Carolina who requested it. Less than 30 people asked. Voter ID went into effect this January and leftwingers are still screaming like toddlers.



Of course, that's the way liberals are. Screech about 'disenfranchisement' yet unable to find a shred of proof of it actually occurring. And Godzilla is secretly lurking in the Hudson river.

actually I'm from Pa so I'm pretty familiar with this..

the argument went on and on and on.. the complaints morphed from one to the other to the other.

-First it would cost money (voter ID).. so they made it free
-Well what if the person did have a Birth Certificate? so they started accepted numerous other forms
-Well what if they didn't have those forms? They would assign someone to help you and get the forms for you.

There were even complaints to throw it out b/c the DMV workers weren't educated enough on the rules.

The final argument was that it was to difficult for people without transportation to get to DMV at some point within a year.

At that point they realized that even if they bused people to the DMV for free it would't be good enough.. Pa voter ID law now takes effect in 2016.

I'm from PA as well. I do credit the lead plaintiff in avoiding perjury for telling the same lies that the leftwingers here are doing.


PA voter ID is in effect starting a month ago actually.

Precisely. The only ones who are actually crying and whining about it are those on the left. The ones who are for it are logically and unemotionally trying to resolve a problem and all those on the left do is throw their arms up and scream "ohhhhhhhhhhhh, but what about the disenfranchised". Seriously, some people need to look in the F'ing mirror.

It's clear that voter fraud exists. That is a well documented fact. The problem is identifying how much of a problem it is or isn't. If there is no method in place to calculate how much of a problem it must be the left's whole argument is that it isn't a problem. It's like asking a dumb, deaf, blind, and quadrapalegic person who is up in the international space station to determine the structural integrity of Hoover dam. It could be completely sound or it could be leaking like a sieve but they wouldn't know and if you don't know it must be all good right :thumbup:

I'm from PA too :whee: Actually I think DJ and I are within a stone's throw of each other.

How many incidents of voter fraud will be stopped by a Voter ID law? Until you can answer that question and prove it, I don't want the government to waste money and effort on this.

Until you can prove that it would do any good, don't spend my tax money on it.

How many incidences of gun violence are going to be stopped by the new gun laws?

Stawman. I do not advocate for new gun laws.

At least 1.

noting that documentation of in-person voter fraud often occurs only when a legitimate voter at the polls hears a fraudulent voter trying to use her name, as happened to a woman in
California in 1994)

In 2004 a boy named Mark Lacasse voted under his father's name in the Presidential primary. Naturally he would have been prevented from doing so with a photo voter ID law.

But these people have been cheating for decades.



http://www.nytimes.com/1984/09/09...-vote.html

'Vote early and vote often'' was not just an election-year gag in Brooklyn last week as a grand jury disclosed that cemetery voting and other forms of stuffing the ballot box were not buried with Tammany Hall. Only days before this Tuesday's state primary elections, the jury said it had uncovered systematic and widespread fraud in the primaries in two of the borough's Congressional Districts - or half of Brooklyn - between 1968 and 1982. In one state legislative race, up to 2,000 bogus registrants were discovered; in another, there were 1,000. The results of at least one race were affected, the jury said, and very likely others, because the turnouts in primaries are generally low.


http://www.heritage.org/research/...ersonation

The grand jury report revealed extensive voter registration and voter impersonation fraud in prilmary elections in Brooklyn between 1968 and 1982 that affected races for the U.S. Congress and the New York State Senate and Assembly. Accordling to Holtzman, "[t]he grand jury investigation has uncovered a systematic attack on the integrity of elections in Brooklyn." Holtzman warned that unless there were immediate changes in proceldures, there was "a danger that serious fraud could occur in connection with the upcoming election."[9]
This 14-year conspiracy was detailed by witlnesses who participated in the fraud and were able to describe in great detail how it was accomplished. The grand jury found evidence of fraudulent and illegal practices in "two primary elections for Conlgress held in 1976 and 1982, four primary elecltions for the Assembly in three different assembly districts, three primary elections for the State Senlate in one senatorial district and two elections for state committee in two different districts."[10] For 14 years, the conspirators engaged in practices that included:
the forgery of voter registration cards with the names of fictitious persons, the filing of these cards with the Board of Elections, [and] the recruitment of people to cast multiple votes on behalf of specified candidates using these forged cards or the cards of deceased and other persons.[11]
The grand jury explained that "the ease and boldness with which these fraudulent schemes were carried out shows the vulnerability of our entire electoral process to unscrupulous and fraudlulent manipulation."[12]

But, what about the poor and disenfranchised!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sorry, couldn't resist :D

Which one are you talking about?

This?

It doesn't say which vote was fraudulent. If it was the absentee vote, then it's not voter impersonation.

No, that's absentee voter fraud. VoterID will not fix that.

there's a couple articles out there.. and to be honest.. this is pretty ridiculous.

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/...al_on.html

http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/...n-the-law/

To be honest.. this just pisses me off.. why? Because liberal groups want to block verifying whether is legally allowed to vote or not. There's not even a cost to them if they can't afford it. To only excuse is again.. They don't feel like going to the DMV. But at the same time these same liberal groups support more difficult regulations on gun ownership. The same should hold true for both arguments.. It is fair to make it to difficult to exercise one's constitutional right to own a firearm? We should be able to just walk in and purchase it, with no form of identification whatsoever. I'll give you my name.. but that's all.

During the 2012 presidential election it was decided all everyone would be asked for ID but no required to show it. Why? To get people used to the notion that it's going to be brought up next time. I saw numerous people go ballistic on people at the polls when asked this question (even though they had ID in their pocket). The amusing part was some people refused to show ID, then we told they couldn't vote.. Then they screamed more. But neglected to realize that when it's your first time voting you must show ID. oops.. suddenly the idea they refused to show, was now readily available to view.

Both of these are voter registration fraud, or based on registration fraud.

VoterID will not stop registration fraud.

then you too must be a bitter person, "clinging to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like you or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain your frustrations"

now sure how you can win a state after making a comment like that.. remember though that we're the same place that the black panther voter intimidation, the poll watchers kicked out in Philly and 10x30 ft murals of Obama in voting areas. If voter fraud is occurring, it's no secret which city to visit first.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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

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.

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.

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.

Didn't you know?!?!


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

(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.

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]


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.

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.

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

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..

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.


Those things which require IDs are not Constitutional rights.

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.

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.

There's already a nationwide ID for workers. Social Security number.

I meant one that works.

no you need the name. I've not once gave my address in 15 years..

arrest and conviction by whom?? LOL. There aren't on duty police officers at polling areas watching for people trying to use a fake name. It isn't even illegal to give them an incorrect name.. it's illegal to vote illegally (aka to finish act).

What check again? The can't vote for someone that already voted that day? Or do you mean the fact that they ask your name and cross it off on a list?

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

thus why they have a scan strip on the back.. it's the same strip they use to verify validity in alcohol distributors.


The constitution mentions it several times.. but there is no "right to vote" amendment. Although there is one that guarantees the right to bear arms. So can one buy a gun w/o photo ID. Maybe just a name and address, I'd even throw in SS#?

As it has been spoon fed in my state.. the burden is ... going to a DMV? By that argument voting should come to you.. or grocery stores should guarantee delivery.. b/c we can't survive without food.

Spoon Fed: the counter argument is so paper thin and weak.. that it's basically nonexistent. If you're poor and do not have the means to live.. The government will not magically show up at your door raining food and clothing down on upon you.. you have to get off your a$$ and apply (oh and they want verification of identity also??)

After all of the various threads and endless discussion of the subject, for which you've taken an active part, i'm actually stunned that you can actually type such a statement. Willful ignorance is a powerful drug.

They always ask for my address. You have to at least know in which district that name is registered.

Still doesn't mean you aren't subject to arrest and conviction if the verification process does not work. However, I would favor video monitoring of voters to further discourage voter impersonation.


Both. If they have video monitoring, they can find out who voted before you.

And you think a mag strip is hard to fake? :lmao:




And yet the courts have repeatedly ruled that undue burdens cannot be applied to voting.

Except there are practical reasons for not allowing that right unfettered, as has been repeatedly ruled by the courts. None for placing undue burdens on voting rights.



Other states have heavier burdens. Enough to discourage certain voters.

No, you just want to ignore the burden cause it serves your agenda.

Starvation is a much more powerful motivator. Believe it or not, there are people who would be discouraged from voting that are not wards of the state. And if they already have ID for government services, they won't be burdened at all, right? As long as the voterID requirements are not more stringent.....

You mean one that's not subject to willful ignorance by employers who pay under the table? Good luck with that.

actually in my state the counter argument was clearly defined, which I stated. Apparently the trip to the DMV is a "hardship". But in my state is was absolutely amusing, every complaint was met with "fine we'll fix that". They ran out of valid complaints and where left with.. it's to difficult to make a trip to the DMV. People were basically laughing when it finally got to this point.. it was publicly pointed out that if they offered to drive individuals homes, the Liberal groups would be complaining about needing to call and schedule an appointment, and having to be home a certain time of the day waiting.

Strawman characterizations like this ^ are easy to invent about your ideological opponent.

Any additional burden should be justified by proof that there is a problem which needs to be addressed. Zero tolerance is the argument often put forward, but like your unsubstantiated contention above, that is a laughable standard.

If you're going to promote a standard which favors one Party over another, you need proof there is a significant problem with the current system.

I gave an obvious example previously.. If one leave's a basket outside outside for Halloween that says "Take one" it is virtually impossible to prove who takes one and who takes more. i.e. that current system is so pathetically open and unregulated that it's virtually impossible to catch people.

just an example that I know off the top of my head, ACORN voter fraud:

State	Year	Details
AR	1998	A contractor with ACORN-affiliated Project Vote was arrested for falsifying about 400 voter registration cards.
CO	2005	Two ex-ACORN employees were convicted in Denver of perjury for submitting false voter registrations.
	2004	An ACORN employee admitted to forging signatures and registering three of her friends to vote 40 times.
CT	2008	The New York Post reported that ACORN submitted a voter registration card for a 7-year-old Bridgeport girl. Another 8,000 cards from the same city will be scrutinized for possible fraud.
FL	2009	In September, 11 ACORN workers were accused of forging voter registration applications in Miami-Dade County during the last election. The Florida Department of Law Enforcement and the state attorney’s office scoured hundreds of suspicious applications provided by ACORN and found 197 of 260 contained personal ID information that did not match any living person.
	2008	Election officials in Brevard County have given prosecutors more than 23 suspect registrations from ACORN. The state's Division of Elections is also investigating complaints in Orange and Broward Counties.
	2004	A Florida Department of Law Enforcement spokesman said ACORN was “singled out” among suspected voter registration groups for a 2004 wage initiative because it was “the common thread” in the agency’s fraud investigations.
IN	2008	Election officials in Indiana have thrown out more than 4,000 ACORN-submitted voter registrations after finding they had identical handwriting and included the names of many deceased Indianans, and even the name of a fast food restaurant.
MI	2008	Clerks in Detroit found a "sizeable number of duplicate and fraudulent [voter] applications" from the Michigan branch of ACORN. Those applications have been turned over to the U.S. Attorney's office for investigation.
MI	2008	The Detroit Free Press reported that “overzealous or unscrupulous campaign workers in several Michigan counties are under investigation for voter-registration fraud, suspected of attempting to register nonexistent people or forging applications for already-registered voters.” ACORN-affiliate Project Vote was one of two groups suspected of turning in the documents.
MO	2008	Nearly 400 ACORN-submitted registrations in Kansas City have been rejected due to duplication or fake information.
MO	2007	Four ACORN employees were indicted in Kansas City for charges including identity theft and filing false registrations during the 2006 election.
MO	2006	Eight ACORN employees in St. Louis were indicted on federal election fraud charges. Each of the eight faces up to five years in prison for forging signatures and submitting false information.
MO	2003	Of 5,379 voter registration cards ACORN submitted in St. Louis, only 2,013 of those appeared to be valid. At least 1,000 are believed to be attempts to register voters illegally.
MN	2004	During a traffic stop, police found more than 300 voter registration cards in the trunk of a former ACORN employee, who had violated a legal requirements that registration cards be submitted to the Secretary of State within 10 days of being filled out and signed.
NC	2008	County elections officials have sent suspicious voter registration applications to the state Board of Elections. Many of the applications had similar or identical names, but with different addresses or dates of birth.
NC	2004	North Carolina officials investigated ACORN for submitting fake voter registration cards.
NM	2008	Prosecutors are investigating more than 1,100 ACORN-submitted voter registration cards after a county clerk found them to be fraudulent. Many of the cards included duplicate names and slightly altered personal information.
NM	2005	Four ACORN employees submitted as many as 3,000 potentially fraudulent signatures on the group’s Albuquerque ballot initiative. A local sheriff added: “It’s safe to say the forgery was widespread.”
NM	2004	An ACORN employee registered a 13-year-old boy to vote. Citing this and other examples, New Mexico State Representative Joe Thompson stated that ACORN was “manufacturing voters” throughout New Mexico.
NV	2009	Nevada authorities indicted ACORN on 26 counts of voter registration fraud and 13 counts of illegally compensating canvassers. ACORN provided a bonus compensation program called “Blackjack” or “21+” for any canvasser who registered more than 20 voters per shift, which is illegal under Nevada law.
NV	2008	Nevada state authorities raided ACORN's Las Vegas headquarters as part of a task force investigation of election fraud. Fraudulent registrations included players from the Dallas Cowboys.
OH	2008	ACORN activists gave Ohio residents cash and cigarettes in exchange for filling out voter registration card, according to the New York Post. Some voters claim to have registered dozens of times, and one man says he signed up on 72 cards.
OH	2007	A man in Reynoldsburg was indicted on two felony counts of illegal voting and false registration, after being registered by ACORN to vote in two separate counties.
OH	2004	A grand jury indicted a Columbus ACORN worker for submitting a false signature and false voter registration form. In Franklin County, two ACORN workers submitted what the director of the board of election supervisors called “blatantly false” forms. In Cuyahoga County, ACORN and its affiliate Project Vote submitted registration cards that had the highest rate of errors for any voter registration group.
PA	2009	Seven ACORN workers in the Pittsburgh area were indicted for submitting falsified voter registration forms. Six of the seven were also indicted for registering voters under an illegal quota system.
PA	2008	State election officials have thrown out 57,435 voter registrations, the majority of which were submitted by ACORN. The registrations were thrown out after officials found "clearly fraudulent" signatures, vacant lots listed as addresses, and other signs of fraud.
PA	2008
PA	2004	Reading’s Director of Elections received calls from numerous individuals complaining that ACORN employees deliberately put inaccurate information on their voter registration forms. The Berks County director of elections said voter fraud was “absolutely out of hand,” and added: “Not only do we have unintentional duplication of voter registration but we have blatant duplicate voter registrations.” The Berks County deputy director of elections added that ACORN was under investigation by the Department of Justice.
TX	2008	In Harris County, nearly 10,000 ACORN-submitted registrations were found to be invalid, including many with clearly fraudulent addresses or other personal information.
TX	2008	ACORN turned in the voter registration form of David Young, who told reporters “The signature is not my signature. It’s not even close.” His social security number and date of birth were also incorrect.
VA	2005	In 2005, the Virginia State Board of Elections admonished Project Vote and ACORN for turning in a significant number of faulty voter registrations. An audit revealed that 83% of sampled registrations that were rejected for carrying false or questionable information were submitted by Project Vote. Many of these registrations carried social security numbers that exist for other people, listed non-existent or commercial addresses, or were for convicted felons in violation of state and federal election law.
VA	2005	In a letter to ACORN, the State Board of Elections reported that 56% of the voter registration applications ACORN turned in were ineligible. Further, a full 35% were not submitted in a timely manner, as required by law. The State Board of Elections also commented on what appeared to be evidence of intentional voter fraud. "Additionally,” they wrote, “information appears to have been altered on some applications where information given by the applicant in one color ink has been scratched through and re-entered in another color ink. Any alteration of a voter registration application is a Class 5 Felony in accordance with § 24.2-1009 of the Code of Virginia."
WA	2007	Three ACORN employees pleaded guilty, and four more were charged, in the worst case of voter registration fraud in Washington state history. More than 2,000 fraudulent voter registration cards were submitted by the group during a voter registration drive.
WI	2008	At least 33,000 ACORN-submitted registrations in Milwaukee have been called into question after it was found that the organizations had been using felons as registration workers, in violation of state election rules. Two people involved in the ongoing Wisconsin voter fraud investigation have been charged with felonies.
WI	2004	The district attorney’s office investigated seven voter registration applications Project Vote employees filed in the names of people who said the group never contacted them. Former Project Vote employee Robert Marquise Blakely told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that he had not met with any of the people whose voter registration applications he signed, “an apparent violation of state law,” according to the paper.

But voter fraud isn't relevant. Doh.

:shake:

You don't in New York State.

Looks like those are voter registration fraud. If I'm mistaken, could you point out the ones which are voter impersonation fraud? You know, the ones which voterID is supposed to fix.... ktnx.

That can be fixed w/o voterID.

IINM, NY has other methods of verifying eligibility for registration.

But you are mistaken, which is why you linked to another state in the first place after not reading the entire article about those cheating Democrats.


And of course, given your party's cheating, its not surprising to see the goalposts move again. States have taken on the responsibility of preventing your party's cheaters from cheating as best as they can.

Wow, that's a lot of voter "fraud" registration that has nothing to do with voter ID laws. Can you keep the argument to actual voter ID issues? You know, where people vote pretending to be somebody else.

Is it really so hard to fathom that one could lead to the other? I mean in these particular cases if they weren't caught wouldn't the likely next stop be a fraudulent vote of some sort in atleast some of the cases?

again.. I could go back to the argument of the whole Halloween candy basket.. Or i'll simplify this even further. I'll say my name is Bob Jones. You must take my word for it. But, you have 10 seconds to prove to me wrong. Then you will never see me again.

The system is so lose and carefree, it's virtually impossible to have impersonation instances. Because they're virtually impossible to catch.

I could on and on with similar scenarios.. say someone borrows my credit card (after all we'll only talking about a single case of impersonating). If it goes unnoticed by the consumer and it's a small charge in the same city you live in.. how often does your credit card company find it for you.

You mentioned video cameras.. something schools have.. So let's say someone else picks my child up from school (even for me). Brings my child to me. How often without a complain does the school realize later that someone unauthorized took their child? Obviously those actions are again driven by individuals. Strict regulations because people want their children safe. And, yes some schools do require valid photo ID to pick up a child. Is that discrimination?

Wrong. The list is entirely voter registration fraud instances.

I wonder how they were caught, w/o voterID.... :rolleyes:

Quit pretending like Dems are the only ones who cheat. There have been numerous instances of Republicans cheating, only they prefer effective methods such as voter suppression, vote counting fraud, and voter roll scrubbing, etc. Not the ineffective and highly risky (and phantom) voter impersonation fraud.

Nope. The facts found by the grand jury dictate that your party voted under those fictitious registrations. That is voter fraud. Your party's cheating would be more difficult if they were required to show valid photo ID at the polls.

The Democrats cheating is not merely limited to New York either.

http://electionlawblog.org/wp-con...ctment.pdf

IN THE NAME AND BY AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
THE GRAND JURORS OF TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS,
duly elected, tried, empaneled, sworn, and charged to inquire of offenses committed in Tarrant County, in the
State of Texas, upon their oaths do present in and to the
of the said County that HAZEL BRIONNE WOODARD, hereinafter called Defendant, in the County of Tarrant
and State aforesaid, on or about the 18th day of June 2011, did

THEN AND THERE, WITH INTENT THAT A FELONY, TO-WIT: ILLEGAL VOTING BE COMMITTED, AGREE WITH MARK JAMES, JR. THAT THEY WOULD ENGAGE IN CONDUCT THAT WOULD CONSTITUTE SAID OFFENSE, AND THE SAID DEFENDANT OR MARK JAMES, JR. DID PERFORM AN OVERT ACT IN PURSUANCE TO SAID AGREEMENT, TO-WIT: VOTE IN AN ELECTION IN WHICH THE SAID MARK JAMES, JR. KNEW HE WAS INELLIGIBLE TO VOTE AND IMPERSONATE HIS FATHER, MARK JAMES, SR. AND VOTE AS THE IMPERSONATED PERSON.






What happened? Mark James Jr. is a teenager and his mother is a Democratic precinct chair in Ft. Worth. Mark James Sr. later showed up to vote and the poll workers said he had already voted.

You can "go back to it" but that won't make your analogy any more comparable.

For instance, no one keeps a record of who takes candy from that basket. Unlike who voted.....

But there are checks. If you're not Bob Jones, they will know it when Bob Jones shows up to vote. And here, you need to know Bob Jones address.

As I said, security could be enhanced w/o voterID; just keep video evidence of who voted.

They are easy to catch statistically; when people show up to vote and someone else voted for them. The fraudsters have to know who won't vote in order to hide any mass fraud effort. Minimal fraud efforts are so ineffective, they are not worth organizing. And then there is the problem of getting large numbers of impersonators to keep their mouths shut. It is just not practical.

I regularly get calls from my CC company inquiring about legitimacy of charges.

No. There is no right to pick up a child which is not yours.

And there is an immediacy of harm to a child which does not exist with voting.

Another invalid analogy.

No conviction?

No one said it never occurs. This guy was caught w/o voterID, so it proves the opposite of the point you're trying to make.

Voter impersonation fraud is rare and ineffective. Republicans know that, which is why they use other methods to cheat elections.

There is no grand jury finding posted with that list of ACORN voter registration fraud.

In fact ACORN reported the workers they hired who committed fraud.

You claimed it was phantom not more than a few minutes ago.


Of course, Mark James Jr. could claim to be anyone, including any of those thousands of false registrations your party keeps filing. It's part of the state's responsibility to prevent crimes before they occur.

A grand jury indictment is not a conviction nor proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

In fact they are most often a rubber stamp.

You mean the ones which were reported to authorities by ACORN?

No, I'm referring to the hundreds of thousands of fictitious registrations of non existent people that exist in states like Indiana, which they demonstrated in a court of law.



The standard of proof is of course amazing. The state has proven voted fraud to a grand jury which demonstrates that a crime was probably committed. Those screaming about disenfranchisement don't have to back up their lies and drivel with facts validated by a neutral third party.

The cost of implementing, maintaining, and enforcing an ID law costs more money than it's worth. Period. Stop wasting my money on your silly witch hunt.

You know what they should use instead? Just ink the people like they did/do in Iraq. No ID law and nobody can vote twice and it's cheaper. Done.

Now just prove that significant numbers voted using those fictitious registrations....

Grand juries do not determine evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. They are most often just a rubber stamp cause they only hear what the prosecutor wants them to hear.

Ironic that you rely on this in a rant about "standard of proof."

False.

The words 'rubber stamp' do not appear in Texas's criminal procedure for the rules of a grand jury. They exist only in your mind.


What actually exists is probable cause. [texasdefenselaw.com]


An indictment is the charging instrument for felony crimes. An indictment must be voted on a by a grand jury. The grand jury consists of twelve persons. To get an indictment, the prosecutor must persuade nine out of the twelve grand jurors that probable cause exists that the defendant is guilty.




The state of Indiana already met their burden of proof in court. Your side decided not to. Instead, they spouted lies about disenfranchisement.

It's far smarter to use voter ID to catch Mark James Jr. when he is committing his crime rather than spend a 5 month investigation to try to catch him.

Of course they never admit that's what happens when the GJ only hears the prosecutor's case.

Which is a very low level of proof....




Undue burdens on voters = disenfranchisement

Look it up.

Not very smart to claim he committed a crime without a conviction....

Innocent until proven guilty.

I did look it up. The judge in Crawford v Marion County specifically stated that no such undue burden exists.


You can't meet even a minimal level of proof, which is why you create fiction like 'rubber stamping'.


I will simply quote the judge in question.

Plaintiffs (with one possible exception) became
engaged in this dispute while it was still being debated by the Indiana General Assembly
and, in moving to this judicial forum, in many respects they have failed to adapt their
arguments to the legal arena. Plaintiffs, for example, have not introduced evidence of a
single, individual Indiana resident who will be unable to vote as a result of SEA 483 or
who will have his or her right to vote unduly burdened by its requirements. Plaintiffs also
have repeatedly advanced novel, sweeping political arguments which, if adopted, would
require the invalidation, not only of SEA 483, but of other significant portions of
Indiana’s election code which have previously passed constitutional muster and/or to
which Plaintiffs do not actually object; indeed, they offer them as preferable alternatives
to the new Voter ID Law. In so doing, Plaintiffs’ case is based on the implied assumption
that the Court should give these Constitutional and statutory provisions an expansive
review based on little more than their own personal and political preferences

This ^ cite substantiates my assertion. -> "Undue burdens on voters = disenfranchisement"
The only difference is the judge's interpretation of "undue."

He is giving the Republican legislature latitude to place burdens on voters w/o proof there is a substantial voter impersonation problem.

He either does not understand or does not care that this was done to benefit Republicans by effectively suppressing Democrat's votes.

I agree that no one was prohibited for voting by this action; that is not the point.

The point is, it effectively suppresses voting, and that is why Republicans are doing it.

False.

Of course, your side could not provide proof. The rest of this was of course already addressed by the judge in his full piece, which I linked earlier in this thread. The left wing refused to provide proof of any sort of 'effectively suppressing votes'.

Repeatedly stating fiction does not make it true. The judge of course heard testimony from liars who claimed 'suppression' that such an 'undue burden' exists and found them without merit.

Your appeal to authority fallacy does not prove your case.

It is logically obvious that any time you present additional hoops to jump through, there will be a segment of the population which will not bother.

Fortunately, the Republicans' efforts backfired and only served to motivate the affected groups; thanks to the word getting out about their strategy.

So in the end, thanks to the publicity, the judge was right, but not for the reasons upon which he based his decision. :D

It isn't logically obvious at all. Merely stating such doesn't make it true. Naturally, the judge isn't going to take your word for it but rather look at the facts presented. That's why we have judges in the first place, especially when one side insists on stating falsehoods.

So you're claiming what? That if you throw up roadblocks, more people will put in additional effort? :lmao:

Generally that's not the case; this is an exception in which voters recognized Republicans were trying to screw them.

Your repeating the same canard over and over does not make it true. Judges get it wrong all the time; esp conservative judges helping Republicans.

In the US legal system, we have judges to evaluate what is an undue burden and what is not. The judge in this case heard the evidence, and found that the Democratic party was lying its rear off. It's quite curious for you to repeat the same batch of nonsense rather than provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt, which is of course what you wanted in the first place.

The US legal system does not allow random individuals to scream and throw tantrums and ignore the law when they lose before a neutral authority.. They require proof. You simply repeat the same discredited statements over and over again rather than provide proof because your side has no proof to begin with.


This judge was upheld on appeal, twice.

Same reason the Democrats in Rhode Island did it, right?

Yeah, when a judge's ruling defies logic, I'm gonna go with logic.

I'll bet you believe corporations are people, too. :lmao:

They had their own reasons; still haven't read the article I cited explaining that situation, eh?

Probably not. IIRC, the reason why these mass fraudulent registrations happened was because ACORN was having some kind of quota system where people were getting paid for each person they registered. There was never any intention of these fake people then voting. If there was, as most college kids can attest to, it's not especially hard to get a fake ID. You would also see news of at least some of them getting caught doing that.

It doesn't defy logic at all. You simply keep fabricating this, which is why your party cannot come up with a single example of such a person.

There is no such roadblock as established by the judge.

You can of course fabricate whatever you want. States will continue to pass voter ID and will succeed because your party is full of liars and cheats. Why should they care about liars?

Care to comment?

How is that going to prevent Mark James Jr. from voting under the name of Mark James Sr., and what happens when Mark James Sr. comes to vote?

How is a voter ID law going to stop that either when their ID just says Mark James.

How do multiple "Bob Smith's" vote now?

Mark James Jr. is a teenager. Mark James Sr. is a middle aged man. Mark James Jr's photograph on his ID does not look like a middle aged man.

Repeating your appeal to authority fallacy does not make it any more true.

Additional requirements will discourage voters, benefitting Republicans which is why they do it.

The judge is wrong. Impeding rights requires justification, evidence of which does not exist.

Again, you're pretending that Republicans don't cheat in the face of ample evidence to the contrary. Only you and other die hard partisans believe that.

As shown in the last election, when Republicans are perceived to be suppressing the vote, it will only serve to motivate the opposition and they won't be in office anymore, nor able to suppress the vote.

The funniest thing about this nonsense is that you claim suppression without evidence while simultaneously claiming that suppression isn't happening. And of course you appeal to authority on a frequent basis. Almost as frequently as this nonsensical lies that you keep repeating.


It was justified in court by your party's cheaters and liars. Like those claiming suppression. Voter ID is tremendously popular with the public because they know your party is cheating and lying.




What's really funny is that you appeal to authority all the time.



I'll take the review of a Senate confirmed judge who has heard the evidence over the nonsensical rantings of someone defending liars and cheats.

Now answer this

Uhm, the picture? Wow, did you really mean to ask that? What's next, you're going to suggest they have some Mission Impossible style mask that makes them look like the other guy? :lol:

I guess I wasn't clear enough. It was attempted suppression that backfired.

What is nonsense is your contention that erecting additional barriers will not discourage voting.

Show me where the judge said voterID requirements will not discourage voters.


Show me where it was proven that there is significant voter impersonation fraud.


You have that option just as I do. Just don't pretend it's a convincing argument when it flies in the face of logic.

Because they couldn't look alike? I bet the 90 year old ladies at my polling place could get many people mixed up.

Since the other guy doesn't want to seem to answer, maybe you can....

?

Both of those were already linked. You just refuse to read just like you refuse to tell the truth, and just like you refuse to prove your claim of 'suppression' or 'discouraged'. The plaintiffs in this case actually claimed such, but the judge rejected their argument because they like you refused to provide proof.


It is unclear from Ms. Oakley’s deposition why these individuals will be discouraged
from voting. She suggests a variety of explanations, including offense over SEA 483's
requirements, as well as, the hassle in obtaining and presenting a photo identification at the polls.
Oakley Dep. 17-19. As we previously mentioned, however, Ms. Oakley has testified that no
members have actually told her they do not already possess the requisite photo identification



It's convinced a landslide majority of the US public who have no vested interest in cheating and lying. Not a single person was willing to step up and spout the nonsense you are spouting here because its utterly foolish from top to bottom.

No need to prove the logically obvious.

If you make voting more difficult, more voters will be discouraged.

Appeal to popularity fallacy. Plus that "landslide majority" voted for our guy, not yours.

No one has an interest in cheating nor lying.

You have no evidence there is any significant cheating nor lying in the form of voter impersonation fraud.

:shake:

More voters = 0. You have no evidence of a single such voter.

You're confused. There was no evidence presented in court of a single voter who was prevented from voting. But I'm not saying anyone who really wanted to vote was prevented from doing so. You're just dishonestly conflating prevention with discouragement.

Prevention is not the same as discouraging voters, which happens on a statistical basis.

It is a truism if you make voting more difficult, more voters will be discouraged and less likely to vote.

Unless as happened last November, it backfires and ends up motivating voters. Plus the courts stayed a number of voterID laws.

I'm not confused at all. 5 plaintiffs claimed the same laughable nonsense. None of them could find a single example of 'discouragement'.

There are also no such 'statistics'. Another falsehood.


Here are the facts on 'discouraged' voters. Swing and a miss, 5 times! Nobody wants to perjure themselves.



IRCIL asserts that many of its members “may not have . . . valid
photo identification” and “will be discouraged from voting” by SEA 483. However, IRCIL has not identified any such member to the Court.

However, CCI asserts that some of its members have indicated that they would be discouraged from voting because of SEA 483. Margie Oakley, CCI’s designated deponent, conceded that no CCI members have indicated to her that they do not have photo identification and that no CCI members have told her that SEA 483 will prevent them from voting.


CHHI states that it is aware that “many homeless and impoverished persons do not have valid driver’s licenses and state identification cards” and that SEA 483 “will prohibit members of ICHHI from voting because they will not be able to timely satisfy the identification requirements.” However, ICHHI has been unable to identify any such affected
individuals members.

The NAACP alleges that SEA 483 will “make it more difficult for NAACP members . . . to participate in elections.Roderick Bohannan, the NAACP’s designated deponent, testified that he has heard some members say, “I don’t think I’ll be able to vote the way the statute is construed,” but he could not identify anyone in particular who had made such assertions.

USA states that it has received complaints from its members to the effect that SEA 483 would prevent people from being able to vote or will discourage people from voting; however, USA has not identified any specific members and USA does not have any records identifying members who have or do not have driver’s licenses or non-license photo identification.


No, its a flat out lie.

Is that a trick question? Well, they vote.

Having a photo ID however would greatly substantiate you are who you say you are. It won't guarantee it 100% of the time but at the same time can you tell the difference between these two James Brown's??

Or are you suggesting that a photo ID wouldn't more accurately identify someone than a document that has no photo?

This is what I don't get. Is providing a photo ID really soooooooooooooooooooo difficult? I mean, my god, it's like we're asking people to run a marathon and then vote. Having and being able to show an ID is something every adult should be able to do for this and many other reasons.

It may just be me but I just bought some stuff at the store and I didn't sprain my arm pulling out my ID. I guess I should pat myself on the back as many people here thinks that's quite an accomplishment. Oh wait, I main sprain my arm doing that. Better not :D

Lack of evidence in that court hearing does not prove the evidence does not exist.

Examples [lawyerscommittee.org]


If you accuse me of lying again without evidence you will be MA'd.

Mere stories on the internet of people not under oath to tell the truth who can fabricate whatever they want does not constitute proof.


0 voters in a county of 359000 voters constitutes proof. That is in fact statistical proof. As the plaintiff the left wing demonstrated such proof themselves under sworn testimony.


Tiger Woods also claimed that he was a faithful man. :lol: I can't help that the judge utterly trashed your argument.


I have to laugh at this, as well. The dead are voting!



But she can add her story to family lore that includes her aunt's going to a Chicago polling site years ago and being told that her mother had voted earlier that day.

"She said, 'My mother's dead,' " Hiss said.

Ironic that you don't even supply links to "stories on the internet of people not under oath."

Evidence of people who swore under oath that no one was discouraged from voting?

You're really laughing your ass off when you're saying that additional requirements are not discouragement, right?

At this point, I'm convinced you're not even serious. :wave:

Well, the only response to the 'Santa Claus must exist because I said so' argument is to laugh your ass off at the person making the argument.

Margie Oakley claimed the same. Then retracted under oath.

Some people grow up.

:wave:

Are you seriously equating the burden of acquisition of an ID that you don't have to Santa Claus? That burden is not a fantasy, no matter how much you want to pretend it is.

Please tell me you're joking.

Oh look, a childish ad hominem.

No, but that's not the point. The amount of "fraud" that an ID law would prevent is extremely minimal. My point is that it's a waste of money. No one can even quantify the amount of "fraud" that happens now.

This is what I don't get. Republicans pine and haw about having a smaller government, yet given the opportunity, have no problems expanding and expanding the government.

Why not use the ink/marking method? I haven't heard a good argument as to why not. Keep the name/signature book and add a semi permanent marking to all who voted.

If the amount of gun crime "universal" background checks would prevent is minimal (because criminals generally obtain their guns via illegal sales, or through family members illegally) would you oppose the extra cost of these universal background checks to legal buyers? Isn't that a waste of money?

Ink doesn't work in Oregon and Washington because we all vote by mail.

The amount of voter fraud in reality isn't known. Just because something isn't caught in the act of happening doesn't mean it isn't happening. If there is no mechanism to catch someone you can't claim it isn't happening as a result of it not being caught... I can't say whether it's a problem or not but something so seemingly simple as providing an ID, something which I do multiple times a day, seems like an extremely easy way to solve the problem.

How is requiring people to prove who they are the Republicans going after more gov't? What, do you blame the Republicans for having to show an ID when you pay with a CCard, when you get pulled over for speeding, when you board an airplane, etc..?

Fine, let's ink people. Ohh, but wait, that will make the supermodels and actors not vote because they've got a gig and can't show this ink. Additionally, couldn't the ink be washed off or is this the type of ink that would be on them for a week or so? Again, I don't care but you better believe some people will huff and puff over it. I imagine a lot more than those who huff and puff over showing an ID.

You may not catch every fraudulent vote with the current system, but you can determine how much it happens with statistical sampling. Just like with polling.

Some of the perpetrators will be caught. It is a simple matter to extrapolate to find the totals from the numbers which are caught.

I would install video monitoring at polling stations so the fraudulent voters can be ID'd, to further discourage voter impersonation.

Then how would a voter ID law have any affect in those states? You're going to mail in your license?

You're right. It just means that it's probably statistically insignificant.

Multiple times a day? I haven't shown my license to anyone in months.

Invisible ink that lasts for days/week. Like a bank bags dye. I'm fairly certain those can't be washed off though I don't know whether bank bags could use invisible ink or not.

You would have to present ID to register to vote rather than just a utility bill with your name and address.

But that doesn't stop me from putting someone else's vote in the mail, right?

Since you seem to be big on calling people out for not answering you can you why didn't you answer the questions posed to you?

Can you not distinguish between the two James Browns I posted?

Probably insignificant? So we now want to accept probablies?

WTF, you live in the boonies and eat canned beans every meal? I on the other hand go out to eat, go to the grocery store, hit up retail stores, get documents notarized, pick up packages, etc..

What about the health risks with the ink!

No it would not.

Sure. Right after you tell me how two people with the same name vote today.

Those two people are not father and son. The example that you're trying to expand upon was about a father and son with the same name.

Apparently you do, why can't i? You think there's probably enough voter fraud to necessitate an ID law; I do not.

Not really. I eat out and shop and use my card all the time. Every day, in fact. Some of the time I use an NFC card (which they never ask for ID with) or I swipe with my other card but I'm never asked for ID; only to sign the slip (and that's only if it's over $25).

What about the health risks of getting my picture taken?!? I don't want them to take my soul!!!

I'm just gonna stop right here. You asked a question regarding a Jr. and a Sr.. That was already answered by someone else. You then went on to ask how two Bob Smith's would vote. I gave you the answer. If you're running a circle back to father and son, something which has already been answered, I can't help you other than to say I'm pretty sure the father is going to look a lot older than the son. How many 50 yr olds after all could vote using an ID that says they were 30.

If you can't keep your stuff straight there is no point in talking about it...

It is you who is not keeping things straight here. The question was "How do multiple "Bob Smith's" vote NOW", not after an ID law, now, today.

I already answered that. Jeeeeeeeeeeeeeese!

"They vote"? Is that your answer? How does the polling place tell them apart?

Their voter registration card? Ya know, the thing that doesn't actually really positively identify them at all :confused:

Odds are based on address and the assumption they are telling the truth.

Right, they can't.

Anyway, this discussion has seemed to have run it's course. I don't want the gov't to waste the money; you don't care if they do. We're never going to agree. An ID law will never get rid of 100% of voter impersonation. Personally it won't really affect me other than making the polling lines take that much longer.

:cheers:

So even you agree that if you were required to show a photo ID that it would help reduce the possibility of voter fraud :thumbup:

I've never said otherwise. I've continually argued that the amount of "fraudsters" is so incredibly minuscule that the cost of implementation far outweighs the benefits. Come, come, now, I thought we were back on track. :D

how so? you believe the number is that large?

that would be a lot that do not drive or have bank accounts.

they should require and ID to vote, just as they should require an ID and drug test when applying for welfare.

I posted several situations in an earlier post. I personally know a few people who were denied the right to vote--they had IDs, but had recently moved. They didn't realize the ID had to show their current residence. They also came at the end of the day after work. They didn't have time to go home and get a utility bill before the polls closed.

There are tons of old folks in nursing homes who never drive, don't go to the bank and have no need for an ID. They also don't have the stamina to deal with hours at the DMV/BMV.

Then there are people who lose their IDs close to an election. Others who may have a different address than their ID (renters tend to move more often within a given area) and their utilities are in a roommates name. There are lots of situations where it is beyond getting an ID--it is the factors rendering that ID sufficient in the eyes of the person working the polling location. Again, most conservatives don't seem able to look beyond their own situations. Not everyone lives their life in the exact same way you do.


I pesonally think there are enough controls in place--you need to know the exact place a person is to vote, you need to hope the person working the polling place you're trying to impersonate doesn't KNOW the voter (which is common since local volunteers work these locations), then you need to hope that person hasn't already voted and that they won'e eventually vote later. And finally, you need to sign the book in a way that matches your preprinted signature. And then, of course, if you wanted to make this worthwhille, you'd need tons of peopel to repeat that hundreds/thousands of time, which is virtually impossilbe to pull off.