Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

More voter disenfrancise goodness


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
47 replies to this topic

#41 Catalyst

Catalyst

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 04-May 10
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 4,107
  • Reputation: 612
HUDDLER

Posted 14 March 2012 - 02:01 AM

And your argument is flawed because it assumes that the voters who are legally eligible to vote won't go get ID or don't have it already.

If it is a stipulation that you have to present ID to vote (like it is in over a dozen states), then make sure you have ID if you want to vote. It's that fuging simple.

My daughter turned 18 a week ago... what was the first thing she did? Literally, she woke up and went and got her State ID. Took 3 hours. You idiots act like getting ID is some fuging mammoth undertaking. It isn't... unless you are not a legal citizen of the U.S.

Posted Image



Voter Fraud has happened, and has proven to have happened in this country. That's all the evidence anyone needs to prompt a change. If you need more compelling evidence than that, you're a moron.

The only people affected are those who are ineligible to get ID, and they have no right to vote in this country in the first place.



Lol.. wow... do you really think this?

Its only a matter of time before there is a national program for Voter Identification and Verification. And it will probably be a Democrat that suggests it.


My argument isn't about people not having ID's, it's about those that do being turned away because of problems WITH the ID. Faded photos, cracked ID's, photos that don't "look enough" like them because they've aged, etc.

What these laws are doing is asking the poll workers to use their best judgment to decide what is and isn't an appropriate form of ID. And by introducing human judgment into the equation you're inviting personal and political bias into the voting process and that's just asking for trouble.

The whole process is based on the notion that the poll workers can be trusted to not turn voters away who may "look" like they won't vote for the party/candidate they want to win, so they could then use some technicality to turn them away.

Poll workers are people, too. Flawed and selfish and capable of corruption just like the rest of us. We're putting the entire electoral system in the hands of a handful of poll workers who will decide who should and shouldn't be able to vote based on state ID's that are rarely a perfect form of identification anyway. And I speak from experience there, having held a job where I checked ID's dozens of times every day. It's NOT anywhere near the straight-forward process you guys seem to think it is.

I just don't like the idea of applying that process to people's right to vote is all.

Edited by Second City Panther, 14 March 2012 - 02:05 AM.


#42 dos poptarts

dos poptarts

    Member

  • Joined: 15-August 11
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 1,018
  • Reputation: 529
HUDDLER

Posted 14 March 2012 - 09:42 AM

2nd city panther: the texas law allows the person to place a vote even w/o id. U just have 5-7 days to confirm ur identity. Seen it used all the time because people move around in texas.

#43 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • Joined: 17-March 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 19,063
  • Reputation: 458
HUDDLER

Posted 14 March 2012 - 10:23 AM

It's called the provisional ballot process.

#44 Catalyst

Catalyst

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 04-May 10
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 4,107
  • Reputation: 612
HUDDLER

Posted 14 March 2012 - 12:26 PM

Which still relies on the poll workers to do their job in an unbiased way. I wonder how many college students will see their provisional ballots go straight into the trash?

#45 blackcatgrowl

blackcatgrowl

    Trolls live here

  • Joined: 06-January 10
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 6,944
  • Reputation: 3
HUDDLER

Posted 14 March 2012 - 03:15 PM

My argument isn't about people not having ID's, it's about those that do being turned away because of problems WITH the ID. Faded photos, cracked ID's, photos that don't "look enough" like them because they've aged, etc.

What these laws are doing is asking the poll workers to use their best judgment to decide what is and isn't an appropriate form of ID. And by introducing human judgment into the equation you're inviting personal and political bias into the voting process and that's just asking for trouble.

The whole process is based on the notion that the poll workers can be trusted to not turn voters away who may "look" like they won't vote for the party/candidate they want to win, so they could then use some technicality to turn them away.

Poll workers are people, too. Flawed and selfish and capable of corruption just like the rest of us. We're putting the entire electoral system in the hands of a handful of poll workers who will decide who should and shouldn't be able to vote based on state ID's that are rarely a perfect form of identification anyway. And I speak from experience there, having held a job where I checked ID's dozens of times every day. It's NOT anywhere near the straight-forward process you guys seem to think it is.

I just don't like the idea of applying that process to people's right to vote is all.


So... let me get this straight...

You are disapproving of the idea that ID is required to vote because the election poll workers might be biased.

You do realize... that the same poll workers (or often the same group of volunteers) count the ballots cast...

So if someone is going to go to the trouble of trying to throw an election their way... wouldn't it make more sense to be worried that they would do it in more direct ways... like throwing out ballots... or adding double counted votes, or disqualifying ballots (hanging chads anyone)?

And again... your concern about "preventing the right to vote" is precluded by the more pertinent need to ensure each eligible citizen gets one vote.

Also, one thing that the anti-ID people aren't mentioning....

In almost every state, you have to REGISTER to vote. This is to prevent people near state lines or with multiple addresses from voting in more than one district or precinct.

http://www.declareyo...ate_info_2.html

Registration process almost always requires a Social Security or Driver's License number AND ID..

So... WHAT THE fug is the problem with these ID laws? It's mind-bogglingly stupid to say these laws are racist or disenfranchise anyone.

And now the NAACP is taking the ID issue to the U.N.. Which is absolute hilarity. The day the U.N. dictates U.S. election processes is the day this country needs to have a REAL 2nd Revolution.

#46 Catalyst

Catalyst

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 04-May 10
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 4,107
  • Reputation: 612
HUDDLER

Posted 14 March 2012 - 06:06 PM

A good percentage of votes are counted by machine these days unless a re-count is needed. There's also a big difference between actively manipulating the vote count (which is plainly illegal) and turning someone away at the poll on a legal technicality.

Registration process almost always requires a Social Security or Driver's License number AND ID..


Exactly. So why are these ID laws needed then? This is why I say that the amount of actual fraud is overrated. And all this debate doesn't change the fact that voter fraud isn't the primary motivation behind these laws being passed in the first place. It's not even just the ID laws either, it's the laws that say college students can't vote in the town where they attend school if they live on campus, but have to vote in their parent's hometown.

That's blatantly aimed at reducing a growing democratic voter base. And very many of these laws have such provisions in them.

#47 blackcatgrowl

blackcatgrowl

    Trolls live here

  • Joined: 06-January 10
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 6,944
  • Reputation: 3
HUDDLER

Posted 15 March 2012 - 10:58 AM

A good percentage of votes are counted by machine these days unless a re-count is needed. There's also a big difference between actively manipulating the vote count (which is plainly illegal) and turning someone away at the poll on a legal technicality.


Machine voting is not immune to election staff manipulation.

http://caef.us/elect...lectoral-fraud/



In the case of machine voting, the election staff has, if properly equipped, easier ability to grossly change vote counts.

So... yeah... if you're really worried about disenfranchisement because of Election staff bias... I'd say you should be much more concerned about the integrity of the election process on much more wider levels than telling a guy who can't produce ID he can't vote.

Exactly. So why are these ID laws needed then?


Because the more accurate our election process can be, the more it represents the will of the people, rather than the will of those who would see the will of the people subverted.

And in this case, THE PEOPLE, are legal Citizens of the voting precinct.

This is why I say that the amount of actual fraud is overrated. And all this debate doesn't change the fact that voter fraud isn't the primary motivation behind these laws being passed in the first place. It's not even just the ID laws either, it's the laws that say college students can't vote in the town where they attend school if they live on campus, but have to vote in their parent's hometown.


And this is the problem. Saying "Fraud is Overrated" means you are willing to accept election manipulation. ONE case of Fraud destroys the integrity of an election's results. Why?

Because the losing party has the right to say the election was a farce, and in some cases, this can be actionable.

As far as your college concerns... If they aren't going to be home or can't be during the election... they can fill out an absentee ballot. Why is that a problem?

That's blatantly aimed at reducing a growing democratic voter base. And very many of these laws have such provisions in them.


No... it isn't.

It's paranoid racism to think a whole political party is trying to keep an ethnic group from voting. However it's a fact that both political parties have had grass-roots groups commit fraud in elections on their behalf.

And that's what is completely stupid about the liberal argument here... in the long run this benefits BOTH parties. You would only be arguing against this if you are TRYING to defraud elections.

#48 cantrell

cantrell

    secular progressive bogeyman

  • Joined: 16-May 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 4,447
  • Reputation: 3
HUDDLER

Posted 15 March 2012 - 06:48 PM

Oh yeah I keep forgetting the one case of voter fraud justifies it. The process is completely screwed up because of it. That's why the Voting Rights Act was passed - if the process worked that would not have been needed.

Your argument is based on nothing. Nothing at all.
My argument is based in pure statistics. I've proven over and over, to the point where I'm pretty sick of it, that the evidence shows clearly that voter fraud is much, much less of a disenfranchising activity than the mechanics of voting itself. It's not an arguable point, the two are so out of whack.

You go on and feel good about yourself and your desire to make sure that people can't vote because they don't vote the way you want them to - I'll stick with the evidence, the statistics, and the law, since they all point my way.

Thanks for the ACORN reference, been what? A week?


lol he still posts about ACORN like it was a thing