freeman3 wrote:Well if you get everyone ID that would solve the problem. Why not do that first and then pass voter ID laws? I wonder why Republicans did not do it that way...You could pass a voter ID law contingent on certification that a certain percentage of registered voters had the ID necessary to vote (maybe 99% overall and 95% for black and Hispanic voters).

The Dems had two years and did nothing also.

Doctor Fate wrote:

My two real examples were people who managed to get to their 90s and survive, but did not have the "right" ID to vote.

And, of course, in all their years they never thought to solve the problem? They'd rather just post up on the sofa and kvetch?

One was a VETERAN who had ID. But the State did not recognise it. I bet the liquor store does, or the pharmacy, or Social Security.

The other had a driving license but it was expired. I guess at 92 she did not need to drive (and probably couldn't/shouldn't). I expect that she could have used it for more mundane purposes than voting though.

bbauska wrote:
In Estonia they have a digital ID card for everyone and you can vote online....or in person...

http://www.democraticaudit.com/?p=1499

Yay for Estonia...[/quote]
Yep. 30 years ago it was part of the Soviet Empire, and now it is ahead of the US on access to voting.

bbauska wrote:

freeman3 wrote:Well if you get everyone ID that would solve the problem. Why not do that first and then pass voter ID laws? I wonder why Republicans did not do it that way...You could pass a voter ID law contingent on certification that a certain percentage of registered voters had the ID necessary to vote (maybe 99% overall and 95% for black and Hispanic voters).

The Dems had two years and did nothing also.

The Democrats are not the ones trying to impose ID requirements to vote. So why would they?

Of course it might be a good bipartisan compromise, but the US political system is not really up for those at the moment.

danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:

freeman3 wrote:Well if you get everyone ID that would solve the problem. Why not do that first and then pass voter ID laws? I wonder why Republicans did not do it that way...You could pass a voter ID law contingent on certification that a certain percentage of registered voters had the ID necessary to vote (maybe 99% overall and 95% for black and Hispanic voters).

The Dems had two years and did nothing also.

The Democrats are not the ones trying to impose ID requirements to vote. So why would they?

Of course it might be a good bipartisan compromise, but the US political system is not really up for those at the moment.

And, it's the fault of both parties. In this case, it's the Democrats who only want the issue and not a solution.

Fate

Btw, Canada . . . Requires ID to vote, so there's that.

Yes. But if one doesn't have one of dozens of acceptable forms of ID there's this....

.3) If your ID does not have your current address, take an oath

Show two pieces of ID with your name and have someone who knows you attest to your address. This person must show proof of identity and address, be registered in the same polling division, and attest for only one person.

http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?se ... dex&lang=e

Which would solve almost any of the problems that have been identified in the anecdotal information presented in the original story and other examples linked...
But thats not whats on offer in Wisconsin is it?

Fate

And, it's the fault of both parties. In this case, it's the Democrats who only want the issue and not a solution.

Voting fraud is a non-existent problem. It didn't really need a solution. And especially not one that disenfranchises people. (I notice you doggedly ignore this comment and fail to respond in any way. I admire your ability to persistently deny reality...)

The level of evidence that convinces you that there is election fraud is your ability to imagine that it could happen. (Since the actual reported incidence approaches zero).
The level of evidence that you require to make you believe that some are being unfairly disenfranchised is, on the other hand, an insurmountable mountain.

Eventually the republican party will need to reach out to blacks and minorities as they are such a large portion of the population. The lasting damage that is being done to the republican brand through the use of obviously discriminatory practices like the implementation of voter ID laws that unevenly impact the minority populations will continue to ruin the republican brand with these minorities for decades.
Considering the impact the laws will have is really only for an election or perhaps two,... it is a really stupid strategy.
Plus there's the genuine potential for Scotus to over turn these laws as more liberal judges gain the bench.

rickyp wrote:Fate

Btw, Canada . . . Requires ID to vote, so there's that.

Yes. But if one doesn't have one of dozens of acceptable forms of ID there's this....

.3) If your ID does not have your current address, take an oath

Show two pieces of ID with your name and have someone who knows you attest to your address. This person must show proof of identity and address, be registered in the same polling division, and attest for only one person.

http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?se ... dex&lang=e

Which would solve almost any of the problems that have been identified in the anecdotal information presented in the original story and other examples linked...
But thats not whats on offer in Wisconsin is it?

Oh, the Wisconsin law ruled constitutional by the USSC? That law?

And, actually, yes, you dishonest and lazy person, provisional votes are accepted in WI. http://www.gab.wi.gov/clerks/provisional-ballots

Fate

And, it's the fault of both parties. In this case, it's the Democrats who only want the issue and not a solution.

Voting fraud is a non-existent problem. It didn't really need a solution. And especially not one that disenfranchises people. (I notice you doggedly ignore this comment and fail to respond in any way. I admire your ability to persistently deny reality...)

I have refused to address it because it's something we've discussed before. And, it's common sense: you can't detect voter fraud if you don't look for it, and you can't look for it if you don't KNOW who voted.

This brief article lays it out in a non-partisan way. I suppose it's too much to ask for you to actually think about something though. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/opini ... .html?_r=0

The level of evidence that convinces you that there is election fraud is your ability to imagine that it could happen. (Since the actual reported incidence approaches zero).

Hey, how many voter fraud cases do you want? How much fraud would you accept? How much should Americans accept? How do you find voter fraud unless you check ID?

Don't ignore my questions!!!!!!

The level of evidence that you require to make you believe that some are being unfairly disenfranchised is, on the other hand, an insurmountable mountain.

Bull. I've been poor. I've been busy. I didn't have proper documents.

So, what did I do? I scraped up the money I needed. I went through the process of applying for documents. I got them!

There is no one in the US under the age of 70 who cannot get this done. Further, if you're over 70 and don't have ID, how are you on Medicare? How are you getting your SSI check?

This is all a sham. Anyone can get ID if they want. The one thing they can't get? A truthful answer from a partisan liberal about voter ID.

As usual, rickyp, you're approaching this issue as if you know something. That's your mistake.

I have already outlined a way to measure voter fraud:

Sample those who have voted and check with them if they did.

WIthout knowing what the scale of the problem is, how can you know if the fix solves it? "Common sense" may tell you ID will do it, but what other consequences are there, and does it actually cut the
fraud. Was there much to cut in the first place?

Measure the problem. Don't assume it exists because you can theorize it.

danivon wrote:I have already outlined a way to measure voter fraud:

Sample those who have voted and check with them if they did.

WIthout knowing what the scale of the problem is, how can you know if the fix solves it? "Common sense" may tell you ID will do it, but what other consequences are there, and does it actually cut the
fraud. Was there much to cut in the first place?

Measure the problem. Don't assume it exists because you can theorize it.

Okay, why aren't Democrats suggesting that?

Even so, that's not a terribly effective way. What sort of response would you get? There's a reason they do door-to-door for the census: because nothing else is trustworthy.

There are cases of voter fraud already. There are circumstances that cause one top wonder if there is more of it (like more registered voters in an area than residents).

What is the "problem" with voter ID?

Answer: nothing that can't easily be overcome.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:I have already outlined a way to measure voter fraud:

Sample those who have voted and check with them if they did.

WIthout knowing what the scale of the problem is, how can you know if the fix solves it? "Common sense" may tell you ID will do it, but what other consequences are there, and does it actually cut the
fraud. Was there much to cut in the first place?

Measure the problem. Don't assume it exists because you can theorize it.

Okay, why aren't Democrats suggesting that?

Don't ask me, I'm not one. But why don't you guys who think there's a problem propose ways to measure it?

Even so, that's not a terribly effective way. What sort of response would you get? There's a reason they do door-to-door for the census: because nothing else is trustworthy.

So do door-to-door checks on a random sample of voters.

There are cases of voter fraud already.

Can you provide a handy link or citation?

There are circumstances that cause one top wonder if there is more of it (like more registered voters in an area than residents).

Can you provide a handy link or citation?

What is the "problem" with voter ID?

Answer: nothing that can't easily be overcome.

True. Fake ID is easy to produce.

Maybe ID is not much of a problem. But how do you know it is less of one than the voter fraud it is supposed to stop?

It reminds me of laws to deal with the theoretical problem of Transgender people using the "wrong" bathroom leading to abuse. How many cases of that are actually known?

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:I have already outlined a way to measure voter fraud:

Sample those who have voted and check with them if they did.

WIthout knowing what the scale of the problem is, how can you know if the fix solves it? "Common sense" may tell you ID will do it, but what other consequences are there, and does it actually cut the
fraud. Was there much to cut in the first place?

Measure the problem. Don't assume it exists because you can theorize it.

Okay, why aren't Democrats suggesting that?

Don't ask me, I'm not one. But why don't you guys who think there's a problem propose ways to measure it?

Even so, that's not a terribly effective way. What sort of response would you get? There's a reason they do door-to-door for the census: because nothing else is trustworthy.

So do door-to-door checks on a random sample of voters.

There are cases of voter fraud already.

Can you provide a handy link or citation?

There are circumstances that cause one top wonder if there is more of it (like more registered voters in an area than residents).

Can you provide a handy link or citation?

What is the "problem" with voter ID?

Answer: nothing that can't easily be overcome.

True. Fake ID is easy to produce.

Maybe ID is not much of a problem. But how do you know it is less of one than the voter fraud it is supposed to stop?

It reminds me of laws to deal with the theoretical problem of Transgender people using the "wrong" bathroom leading to abuse. How many cases of that are actually known?

I'm only going to do it for money. I've posted this stuff many times. Either google it or pony up the cash. Try "voter fraud conviction" for example.

Don't even start on transgenderism. It's crap. If you have a penis, you're not a woman. Sorry. I don't care what you imagine yourself to be--a daffodil, a crocodile, or a woman, if you can father a child, you're not one of any of those three. Stay in your own bathroom.

Thing is, I am not going to believe you simply because you say so. It's up to you of you want to substantiate your assertions or not.

On transgender, the question is not whether you like the idea of a transgender man-to-woman going to the bathroom. The question is whether there is evidence of the "problem" of perverts taking advantage of it. People who are not into "big government" I would expect to at least gather real evidence of a problem before legislating. And then there is the minor question of how do you enforce genitalia laws on toilet usage - penis/vagina checking on entry?

danivon wrote:Thing is, I am not going to believe you simply because you say so. It's up to you of you want to substantiate your assertions or not.

Do you believe it happens or not? If you say, "No, I don't believe voter fraud happens," then I'm willing to prove you wrong. Why aren't you willing to prove me wrong?

And, frankly, how do you detect voter fraud under the current system? They don't check ID's and they don't do follow up--as you suggest.

In other words, there is NO DETECTION SYSTEM whatsoever.

On transgender, the question is not whether you like the idea of a transgender man-to-woman going to the bathroom. The question is whether there is evidence of the "problem" of perverts taking advantage of it. People who are not into "big government" I would expect to at least gather real evidence of a problem before legislating. And then there is the minor question of how do you enforce genitalia laws on toilet usage - penis/vagina checking on entry?

Please prove to me that no pervert would take advantage of a law permitting anatomically-male people to use female facilities. You're making the claim. Back it up.

On over-registration, it is clearly wrong, but what is happening? Is it just that when people die or move they are not promptly removed?

I did find this link that lists 17 Illinois counties that have more registered voters than "eligible" adults. http://www.rebootillinois.com/2015/09/0 ... n=9/1/2015

Of those, one seems to be wrongly named. But 12 voted Romney in 2012, 4 for Obama. Cook County is not one of them.

Now, do we have any voter fraud in these places?

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:Thing is, I am not going to believe you simply because you say so. It's up to you of you want to substantiate your assertions or not.

Do you believe it happens or not? If you say, "No, I don't believe voter fraud happens," then I'm willing to prove you wrong. Why aren't you willing to prove me wrong?

And, frankly, how do you detect voter fraud under the current system? They don't check ID's and they don't do follow up--as you suggest.

In other words, there is NO DETECTION SYSTEM whatsoever.

So invest in detection.

On transgender, the question is not whether you like the idea of a transgender man-to-woman going to the bathroom. The question is whether there is evidence of the "problem" of perverts taking advantage of it. People who are not into "big government" I would expect to at least gather real evidence of a problem before legislating. And then there is the minor question of how do you enforce genitalia laws on toilet usage - penis/vagina checking on entry?

Please prove to me that no pervert would take advantage of a law permitting anatomically-male people to use female facilities. You're making the claim. Back it up.

That is not my claim. No more than I claim there is "No" voter fraud (there is some, but without knowing how much and of what type, solutions are just guesswork - and may not actually help).

My claim is that the scale of the problems is not known, and is being hyped up without evidence to get laws changed.

With toilet-based perversion, we do tend to get reports from victims. So let's see those, and whether a law against transgendered people using the "wrong" lavvy would have made a blind bit of difference.