Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 14 Oct 2016, 11:52 am

Ok, yes, you have to register, Tom. But there is no impediment to registering. There is one if you deny the vote to people who do not have ID. And it's not a non-issue to also present ID for some. That is why Republicans have pushed these laws to lower minority voting to politically advantage Republicans. And Danivon suggested an easy way to check for fraud, indicating that if Republicans wanted to do so they could find out the extent of fraud. But they don't want to because it would be discovered that fraud is de minimis and their "modern" way to reduce the African-American vote (as opposed to the poll tax or testing that was done to inhibit voting) would be exposed for what it is.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 14 Oct 2016, 12:14 pm

bbauska wrote:I disagree on the premise that voter's rights are impinged upon by having to provide ID. Especially if that occurs in a location that provides free ID.
Please list which states do both.

There comes a time that people need to take initiative to achieve their desires. If you want to vote, then do the work. If you want to vote, then take the time off and go to the polling station. If it is not that important to do the need prerequisites, then there should be little basis to complain.

Of course that never does stop those who wish to complain.
Well, yes, what with it being a right. Mind you, if your boss does not give you the time off, what are you to do?
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 3405
Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am

Post 14 Oct 2016, 12:50 pm

I can see both sides of this argument. In theory it shouldn't be that much of a chore to get voter ID and obviously nobody wants to see voter fraud, so what's the issue ? The problem with this argument is that it cuts both ways. Since there's no actual evidence for widespread voter fraud actually happening and no real reason to suppose that a) it is happening or b) it would be effective even if it was, then the same 'what's the issue' ? question also applies. Is there actually a problem that needs to be solved ? I think it's incumbent upon those who wish to introduce a policy that might reduce voter participation to demonstrate that there's a need to do so.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7373
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 14 Oct 2016, 1:00 pm

danivon wrote:
bbauska wrote:I disagree on the premise that voter's rights are impinged upon by having to provide ID. Especially if that occurs in a location that provides free ID.
Please list which states do both.

There comes a time that people need to take initiative to achieve their desires. If you want to vote, then do the work. If you want to vote, then take the time off and go to the polling station. If it is not that important to do the need prerequisites, then there should be little basis to complain.

Of course that never does stop those who wish to complain.
Well, yes, what with it being a right. Mind you, if your boss does not give you the time off, what are you to do?


The polls open at 8AM and close at 8PM. If you can't meet that, then perhaps an absentee ballot could be procured. I will work the request for the states providing ID...
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 1087
Joined: 13 Feb 2000, 11:18 am

Post 14 Oct 2016, 11:08 pm

freeman3 wrote:Ok, yes, you have to register, Tom. But there is no impediment to registering. There is one if you deny the vote to people who do not have ID. And it's not a non-issue to also present ID for some. That is why Republicans have pushed these laws to lower minority voting to politically advantage Republicans.


The notion that Voter ID somehow targets "minorities" and non-whites seems patronizing and even racist, though in a way that I'm sure such critics do not intend. It's as if somehow these non-white groups are incapable of having IDs in the first place. Really? Last time I looked, minorities drive just like us Whities do. They fly on airlines. They interact with state and local social agencies now and then. All of these activities (and more) require local IDs. This line of argument is so contrived, that I'm surprised people can make it with a straight face. It's an argument designed to make people feel paranoid; it plays into the fears of minorities who are led to believe they are being systematically oppressed by White Republicans.

Oh, there are reasons to be concerned about requiring IDs for voting, and I certainly do not doubt that some groups would LIKE to use this as a way to control voting; but "lack of accessibility" is not a valid argument. And I think most Republicans are more concerns about "fraud" than about stomping on minorities, however minimal such fraud actually is (and without objective, systematic analysis, who can really say?). There are also reasons to be be concerned about federally mandated "Real ID"s required by Homeland Security in order to get onto airplanes.

I don't know why we don't adopt the simple, low-tech technique used in many "3rd world" countries of dyeing a finger of each voter to ensure that fraud does not at least involve voting more than once. Then the whole issue of an ID becomes moot. The real danger of voter fraud, in any event, is in the recording and tabulating of votes, not the charlatans running around pretending to be different people.

As for Early Voting: For all of its faults, it seems to take care of some concerns about find the opportunity to vote, though federal law (I believe) requires employers to give time off to vote. Frankly, I think early voting will increasingly affect the electoral process. Why not allow early voting as much as a year early? Perhaps the campaign season will even begin to shorten, as more and more people make up their minds early on. Who wants to see two-year campaigns? (For that matter, do we need to increase the number of basket ball games? Or baseball games? There are already too many. But I digress.)
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 15 Oct 2016, 1:20 am

Let's go to the most extreme example with regard to Voter ID laws: North Carolina. There, the State Legislature requested data on racial differences in voting behavior. They found out that African Americans disproportionately lacked a driver's license. They then amended the bill to exclude many of the alternative IDs that African-Americans tended to have. How blatant and disgusting is that?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washin ... ent=safari

It should be concerning that so many African- Americans are off the modern grid, which is a legacy of racism and segregation. But the way to solve that is not taking their ability to vote.

All these contentions that it's so easy to get ID miss the point. The central question is this: did the Republican Party promote voter ID laws to stop fraud or to reduce minority voting? I think the evidence is clear that the sole reason was to reduce minority voting. The North Carolina law was clearly designed to reduce minority voting. Of course we have had comments from Republican legislators and more importantly why would there all of a sudden be this concern about fraud pop up when there were no fraudulent voting cases that had any notoriety? And of course voter ID started at the same time Republicans were having trouble appealing to minorities such as Asians and Hispanics and this threatened them politically. And whether it is aggressively curbing felons from voter rolls, putting in too few polling places, or opposing early voting the Republican Party has been consistent in trying to suppress the vote. They put out that it was ostensibly about fraud but that wasn't the real reason. The North Carolina law clearly showed the purpose behind voter ID laws.

And if Voter ID was about suppressing the black vote that should be the end of the discussion.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 1087
Joined: 13 Feb 2000, 11:18 am

Post 15 Oct 2016, 9:07 pm

<duplicate removed>
Last edited by georgeatkins on 15 Oct 2016, 9:24 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 1087
Joined: 13 Feb 2000, 11:18 am

Post 15 Oct 2016, 9:22 pm

Freeman
As I indicated, I agree that any attempt to create a law that attempts to thwart voting is bad; and it is already illegal in the first place. I do not believe all such voter ID laws are designed to do that. I am sure that there are sufficient people who don't trust the voting process for a variety of reasons, and fraud being one of them. Sure, it might be sporadic and not as great as proponents make it out to be. I'd agree on the basis of common sense. After all, the REAL danger of voting fraud is not some foreigner turning up at 5 places in one night. The real danger to voting integrity is the voting process, itself. There are no national standards, equipment is often shoddy, and there is way too much politics in vote counting, as it is. I would be happy to see us adopt the "3rd World" approach of staining a finger in a long-lasting dye after you vote. At least that keeps the "vote and vote often" crowd outside. It doesn't solve the sloppy nature of the recording/counting process that can easily lead to fraudulent results, intended or not.

The argument that, somehow, blacks and other minorities cannot get IDs is diversionary and divisive. In spite of whatever account somebody wants to throw out about Uncle Joe stuck in his cabin, unable to walk or get out (except, it seems, to vote), it is difficult to see how anybody here legally can get along in society without an ID. Some or most states that have strict ID laws provide for free IDs (eg. George, Wisconsin). "People of color are more likely to be disenfranchised by these laws since they are less likely to have photo ID than the general population." (http://www.brennancenter.org/publication/challenge-obtaining-voter-identification). I find statements such as this inherently patronizing, if not racist. Blacks are no less capable than anybody else of getting around or getting things done.

The argument that a required ID can be used as an impediment or infringement to voting is a realistic concern and issue. But citizenship is also a requirement. As much as I'd like to not worry about IDs, they are an endemic feature of modern life. There is very little you can do without an ID: Can't fly, supposedly can't buy booze, can't cash checks, can't get your welfare/social services, can't get a library card, can't get a job in many companies, can't work for the government, etc. Hell, you shouldn't need a driver's license or passport just to get on a friggin' plane.

And what about poor white people? They can somehow get IDs, even if they subsist in the same economic malaise as people of other cultures? They don't matter?

Here in Minnesota, we have no requirement to show ID to vote. But you have to have an ID to register to vote (driver's license, state, ID or a SSN card). You mentioned the possibility that blacks still feel reluctant due to the "legacy of racism and segregation." Well, that's all fine in to mention at a political rally when you want to get the Choir all worked up. But it is a weak argument, all the same. This isn't the 1960s, though Democrats keep fanning the flames of intolerance as if it were. The current incarnation of the Republican Party has certainly done its share of allowing racial fear and distrust to become rampant. Both major parties are working hard to promote all manner of charlatans and opportunists eager to cash in on the White Supremacy bandwagon, spilling out the emotional fears that Whitey is still out to get the Darkies and put them in their place. That is NOT how most people feel. Unfortunately, mass media and social media love to play it up as if it were. There's money and power to be made in dividing the masses. Whether it is Trump, Clinton, Obama, BLM, or some basement drudge on Twitter, they all get want to grow power (and prestige) through making us feel threatened by others but reliant upon them for salvation.

Sorry. I think I drifted again. We were talking about IDs, right? Of course, voting is deemed by the Supreme Court (I believe) to be a privilege, not a right (the 15th amendment has to do with racial and social reasons). It can be taken away, if it is seen as not generally discriminatory, I believe, for example: felons. And surprisingly (to some), dead people. Having said that, I am totally against any political maneuver used to prohibit voting. I don't think gerrymandering should be allowed, either. As far as that goes, politicians should not be allowed to define voting districts, voting rules, etc. For example, I think the best modern solution is to use a computer program that arbitrarily defines districts based on equalizing population, not based on voting habits or economic levels.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 15 Oct 2016, 11:00 pm

It's not that requiring ID is inherently bad; as a society we could come together and reach agreement on switching over to requiring ID over a period of time. But this voter ID was a political maneuver at its inception. It was designed to reduce minority voting, particularly the black vote. Given the history in the South of inhibiting the black vote that is a particularly sore spot. So of course Democrats are going to vehemently oppose it. And I get that many Republicans have a good faith belief that they want to prevent fraud. But the party hierarchy came up with Voter ID as a means to reduce the black vote. One would have to be naive to think otherwise. Given that VoterID was conceived for the wrong reasons it should be done away with.

Now the way you do it it is to have a bipartisan commission make recommendations about implementing national requirements for acceptable ID to vote, finding ways to get the ID to those who have difficulty getting it, and coming up with a schedule of implementation. The idea would be to take it out of politics and make it so implementation does not help either party.

But right now voter ID is just a new way to reduce the black vote and it's very divisive. You say on the one hand that it's wrong to pass laws that restrict voting but then you say it's patronizing to say that blacks cannot get ID. Democrats are not saying any such thing; most African-Americans have a driver's license. We are making the observation that there a lot more blacks who don't have a driver's license than whites and that the small sub-set of African-Americans who do not have voters ID tend to be poor, probably not well-educated, many of them have transportation issues, might have not have birth certificates in their possession, and of course they never gotten a driver's license in the first place--all these factors might make it likely that a good number of them will not get ID. I mean, that's what Republicans are counting on, right? If there is a real concern about fraud let's do it in a bi-partisan way. The way it is currently being done is wrong.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 17 Oct 2016, 7:44 am

Freeman, any attempt to stop any group from voting is a disgrace, on that we agree. The problem you seem to be ignoring completely however is you must be registered to vote and anyone "off the grid' is incredibly unlikely to register to vote in the first place.

Now, if we did away with registering to vote, then you may very well be on to something but with this in place, the argument is pretty lame at best!

Those who want to argue about the actual number of illegal votes being made is statistically insignificant can not now ignore the statistical insignificance of those who do not have ID yet did register can they?
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 17 Oct 2016, 11:38 am

Wow. Gee, why do we have a problem at all if people who registered already had to show ID when they registered? This is just a totally made up controversy, right? Answer: the people who are having trouble voting are already registered and they did not have to present a government- issues ID to do it. Here are a few stories of why it is difficult for some to get ID.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washin ... ent=safari


Republicans admitting the real reason for Voter ID.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/09/17/us ... .html?_r=0

The effects of voter ID.

http://pages.ucsd.edu/~zhajnal/page5/do ... aletal.pdf

I took a look at this study and it appears that the study looked at voter participation in voter ID states versus non Voter ID based on surveying 50,000 people over the Internet and then validating that that people voted who said they did vote. They found that minority turn-out was lower in photo ID states. But since they were comparing turnout between photo ID and non photo ID states, I'm not sure they controlled for voting patterns prior to voter ID within states (in other words, there might have been lower minority turnout in photo ID states prior to passing the laws).
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 18 Oct 2016, 1:48 am

bbauska wrote:
The polls open at 8AM and close at 8PM. If you can't meet that, then perhaps an absentee ballot could be procured. I will work the request for the states providing ID...

You do realise that absentee ballots are more susceptible to fraud than early voting?

I thought you wanted to cut down on fraud, bbauska. You always pick up on inconsistencies in the positions of others.

And yes, the hours on the day are long. Some people have to work away from home, or have more than one job, or have patterns that involve long shifts.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 18 Oct 2016, 4:28 am

georgeatkins wrote:
freeman3 wrote:Ok, yes, you have to register, Tom. But there is no impediment to registering. There is one if you deny the vote to people who do not have ID. And it's not a non-issue to also present ID for some. That is why Republicans have pushed these laws to lower minority voting to politically advantage Republicans.


The notion that Voter ID somehow targets "minorities" and non-whites seems patronizing and even racist, though in a way that I'm sure such critics do not intend. It's as if somehow these non-white groups are incapable of having IDs in the first place. Really? Last time I looked, minorities drive just like us Whities do. They fly on airlines. They interact with state and local social agencies now and then. All of these activities (and more) require local IDs. This line of argument is so contrived, that I'm surprised people can make it with a straight face. It's an argument designed to make people feel paranoid; it plays into the fears of minorities who are led to believe they are being systematically oppressed by White Republicans.
Some cases I have seen are for elderly black people born in Southern States before Civil Rights, and who did not get proper documentation at birth.

And the North Carolina case was quite clear. This article details that the law was constructed by Republicans after having asked for evidence based on race, and then "surprisingly" changes that disproportionately hit black voters were in, but ones that might affect more white voters were not. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nati ... story.html

They also sat on the original bill for months, which only really covered ID at first, and then added in later on an omnibus of measures.

Oh, there are reasons to be concerned about requiring IDs for voting, and I certainly do not doubt that some groups would LIKE to use this as a way to control voting; but "lack of accessibility" is not a valid argument. And I think most Republicans are more concerns about "fraud" than about stomping on minorities, however minimal such fraud actually is (and without objective, systematic analysis, who can really say?). There are also reasons to be be concerned about federally mandated "Real ID"s required by Homeland Security in order to get onto airplanes.
One problem has been that States are doing this mandating, and sometimes even omit some federal documents (such as when Wisconsin did not allow Veterans ID). There are a lot of people who vote but never fly, by the way.

I don't doubt that many Republican voters are concerned about fraud. But it's the politicians that worry me - are they hyping up the issue for political gain? Are they - as in NC - even acting in a discriminatory manner on the back of fears of fraud?

I don't know why we don't adopt the simple, low-tech technique used in many "3rd world" countries of dyeing a finger of each voter to ensure that fraud does not at least involve voting more than once. Then the whole issue of an ID becomes moot. The real danger of voter fraud, in any event, is in the recording and tabulating of votes, not the charlatans running around pretending to be different people.
Most fraud issues are internal to a system, to be honest.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7373
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 18 Oct 2016, 8:17 am

How is it that Absentee balloting can involve fraud if you have to show ID to get a ballot, and your name is stricken from the rolls for getting a new one?

If John Smith gets a ballot and votes for person X, then there cannot be another ballot cast by that John Smith.

As to the ID kerfuffle, when ID is so not needed in society that this is an issue, then the lack of ID argument will have more credence with me.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 18 Oct 2016, 9:12 am

bbauska wrote:How is it that Absentee balloting can involve fraud if you have to show ID to get a ballot, and your name is stricken from the rolls for getting a new one?

If John Smith gets a ballot and votes for person X, then there cannot be another ballot cast by that John Smith.
I think you are greatly simplifying how absentee ballots work. As well as getting a key point wrong - ID.

You don't have to show ID to apply for it - you fill in a form, in North Carolina (where I was mentioning the Unconstitutional laws that restricted early voting).

You don't have to "show ID" later on to get one. It is posted out to you.

So the vote is posted out, and you fill it in. You don't need to show ID then. You may have to get a witness signature (in NC you need two), but you (and they) just sign declarations.

So. how could fraud happen. It would not be hard. Here are a few ways it could happen:

1) Someone applies for absentee ballots belonging to others, in NC they can get the mail sent to another address, so the voter themselves would not even know
2) a postal operative intercepts the absentee ballots on the way out
3) One person in a household intercepts the ballots for others when they arrive.
4) Someone involved in the election administration could generate a bunch of ballots

Sure, the signatures are checked, but these days it would not be too hard to forge. And you would, if doing this on an organised basis, look for habitual non-voters or dead people, so they would not even likely try to actually vote.

http://www.ncsbe.gov/Voting/Absentee-Voting

If there is a way to register to vote fraudulently, then you could register a bunch of non-existent people, apply for absentee ballots for them, and vote as many times as you like with no ID being shown at all (NC does not require ID to register either).

This is what has happened in the UK with postal absentee voting, in a few places (and pretty much all parties have been hit by the scandal).

This woman in North Carolina tried to do it, she sent in her dead husband's vote in the 2012 election - http://www.wsoctv.com/news/local/woman- ... /113467209 She nearly succeeded - only being detected in 2014 through an audit.

Or, if you live in more than one State, you could register in both, vote in person in one, and get absentee ballots for the other(s) - you can do this in person with early voting too, and it would appear unlikely that you would get caught as States don't check outside their own borders. ID checks would not make any difference with that one. You'd need a national-level check.

As to the ID kerfuffle, when ID is so not needed in society that this is an issue, then the lack of ID argument will have more credence with me.
Indeed. Every time I present evidence that people who even had ID did not have the "right kind" this does not resonate with you. ID is required for many things, but not everything and - and this may shock you - is not actually 100% checked.

Also, there is such a thing as "fake ID". People use it for the things they need/want it for, because they lack legitimate ID, or because they would not get it. Why not for voting as well?