Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 91

Thread: Voter ID Law

  1. #41
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    7,954
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz View Post
    Even if 90% of the people committing in-person voter fraud got away with it, we'd only have 100 instances of in-person voter fraud over 12 years, with a 150 million registered voters voting in multiple elections over that time.

    I don't know how they calculate in-person voter fraud, but lets first make sure there is a problem before we create a barrier between registered voters and their right to vote.
    lolwhut

  2. #42
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,481
    Post Thanks / Like
    Voter fraud. Not really an issue in American history.

    Voter disfranchisement. An American tradition.

  3. #43
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,179
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Ciaran View Post
    I agree, good sir, I'll actually go one step further and say that corporations are the only Americans who really need a vote.

    Luckily, thanks to the five fellows responsible for the Citizens United decision we're one step closer to living the dream
    If you're going to tax the crap out of them they might as well get representation.

  4. #44
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,179
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz View Post
    Devastatingly cynical.
    You can make it as easy as you want to vote but if we keep putting up the Obama's and Romney's of the world voter turnout is going to continue to suck.

    You want voter turnout it's like giving away free stuff. Make sure the free stuff doesn't suck.

  5. #45
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    1,194
    Post Thanks / Like
    How the heck is asking someone for ID a shady practice? There is no excuse for an adult not to have photo ID.

    What am i going to hear next from the left? We should allow illegals to vote?

  6. #46
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Farmingdale, NY
    Posts
    2,521
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by doggin94it View Post
    Actually, I'd say the odds of catching in-person voter fraud without checking ID are closer to 1 in a million than 1 in 10, considering that without an ID check, the only way to get caught is to have someone who actually knows the voter hear the impersonator claim to be the voter. If it's even 1 in 10,000, then you are talking about 100,000 fraudulent votes.

    But the bottom line is, there's really know way to know how large the problem is, and it's a reasonable and not particularly demanding restriction.
    Who's making the larger assumption about this issue?

    Me, when I cite a study that says there have been only ten cases of in-person voter fraud in 12 years or you for assuming the odds of catching in-person voter fraud without, I imagine, studying the matter or citing information yourself?

    Am I wrong in assuming that you don't know how simple or difficult it is commit in-person voter fraud without being caught? You might imagine or reckon something, but you probably are not an expert or have spent much of your time researching it?

    And on a broader level, if the foundation for our justice system is innocent until proven guilty, and the philosophy behind it rests with the notion that it's more just to let ten guilty men free than it is to convict one innocent man, am I wrong to carry over the same standard to voting?

    Until we know for sure that there is a problem with in-person voter fraud, why are adding a barrier that can prevent otherwise eligible, registered voters from exercising their right?

  7. #47
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    19,560
    Post Thanks / Like
    Make state issue IDs free. Problem solved. No more excuses from minorities that can't afford them.

    But don't most the people complaining about this law have the picture on their state benefit card?

    You should need an ID to vote. Voting is a serious responsibility.
    Last edited by DDNYjets; 08-20-2012 at 12:06 AM.

  8. #48
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Farmingdale, NY
    Posts
    2,521
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs View Post
    You can make it as easy as you want to vote but if we keep putting up the Obama's and Romney's of the world voter turnout is going to continue to suck.

    You want voter turnout it's like giving away free stuff. Make sure the free stuff doesn't suck.
    Candidates aside, I don't think we should be making it more complicated for anyone to vote.

    Until it's proven in some way or another that photo ID is necessary or even reasonable, this is just a watered down version of poll tests. The people that are less likely to have a license or passport are the young and the poor. Those two groups lean Democratic and it's quite clear that this was the motivation.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuOT1bRYdK8

  9. #49
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    1,903
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by MCBNY View Post
    Who do you think is poor? Blacks and Hispanics are mostly poor. There are millions of poor whites too. Who do you think will vote (D)? Poor people.
    Yup.

    People on public assistance commit majority of tax refund fraud, police say

    TAMPA — Last summer, the state sent a notice to a felon's apartment, reminding Jerry Myea Lee that his food stamps would dry up if he didn't reapply.

    The form letter spit out other offers. Did he need child support? A telephone discount? How about an Earned Income Tax Credit?

    Lee, then 36, kept the paper.

    As a teen, he had grown 10 inches eating state-paid food in prison. Each time he got in trouble and pleaded poverty — robbery, then drugs and guns — the public paid for his lawyers. His state and federal incarcerations cost taxpayers almost $300,000.

    He was a free man on July 6, 2011, cruising around Tampa in a rented Dodge Charger, when, during a traffic stop, a police dog got a whiff of weed.

    In a bag behind the driver's seat, officers found Lee's food stamps letter — and $30,980 in cash. Eleven days later, he was caught in Orlando with a U.S. Treasury check made out to someone else.

    Tampa police suspect his cash had roots in tax refund fraud, which has drained billions of dollars from the U.S. Treasury.

    If so, it came from the same beleaguered source that has paid to feed, house and defend Lee all these years. You.

    • • •

    Tampa police estimate that 80 to 90 percent of the tax refund fraud they encounter is committed by people on public assistance.

    "The people who are benefiting most from our taxes are the ones doing it," said police spokeswoman Andrea Davis.

    Tampa led the nation in refund fraud last year, with thieves duping the IRS out of $468 million. That's according to a recent analysis by a federal watchdog agency, which put the national loss at $5.2 billion. The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration said it detected characteristics of refund fraud in 88,724 paid Tampa returns.

    No one can say with certainty who took all the money.

    But police know where they find the evidence.

    Routinely, they see signs of tax fraud commingled with indicators of food assistance, rent assistance, Medicaid or Supplemental Security Income disability checks.

    Little hard data exists on a crime only recently entering the public consciousness. But the estimate of 80 to 90 percent is the consensus of a Tampa police attorney and three detectives who specialize in the cases, including Sal Augeri, who testified about fraud in March before a U.S. Senate subcommittee.

    Sheriff's deputies, too, have witnessed an overlap.

    "We do believe that a large number of people committing this crime are on public assistance," said Hillsborough sheriff's Cpl. Bruce Crumpler.

    Some, like Shawntrece Sims, triple-dip. Sims, 32, gained notoriety by using tax money for a fertility procedure. An early starter, she filed fake tax returns as far back as 2009, she admitted in a plea deal. Authorities believe she collected $672,887.

    For much of 2009, she also drew a monthly $660 housing subsidy, along with a $1,348 SSI disability check.

    In December, after she pleaded guilty to tax and mail fraud, a federal judge sent her to prison for nine years. She's at Waseca Correctional Institution in Minnesota.

    Cost to taxpayers: $73.57 a day.

    • • •

    More than 10,000 people remain on a waiting list for federally subsidized housing in Hills*borough County.

    Not LaSandra Gamble, 27-year-old mother of five.

    Last summer, between housing, utilities and food stamps, she drew benefits of $2,363 a month, Tampa Housing Authority files show.

    Yet, in August 2011, she put down $9,000 on a black 2006 Lexus GS430, police said. Three days later, they said, she put down another $9,000, this time on a red 2007 Lexus ES 350. Combined, the monthly payments were nearly $2,000.

    The car dealer told police that Gamble acted as if she had a lot of money and said she needed the second Lexus because her "boyfriend" was jealous, police attorney Laurie Woodham said.

    Gamble, in an interview, said police have it wrong. She said she got the cars because she was involved with the car dealer.

    "I didn't have to put nothing down," she said. "We were in a relationship."

    Legally, she was in a relationship with her husband, 33-year-old Angelo Juan Pedrosa, whom she had married a year earlier.

    Police got involved Oct. 8, when they stopped Pedrosa driving the black Lexus. Pedrosa is a convicted cocaine dealer. Along with marijuana residue, the officers reported finding $6,000 and a dozen debit cards in other people's names.

    Reloadable debit cards, sold online, carry Visa or MasterCard logos. Some people use them to shop on the Internet, control spending or get around poor credit. Tax thieves use them to collect refunds from the IRS.

    Pedrosa told police the money was his and he found the debit cards at a gas station. Gamble said the money was hers, that it came from a $7,982 child support payment.

    Pedrosa could not be reached for comment. Gamble said they are no longer together. She also said she knows nothing about tax fraud.

    "There's more to life than being materialistic," she said. "My children, bettering my children. To learn everything you can learn, and get it while it's free."

    Police seized the cash.

    And they did they what usually do in such cases.

    They sent a report to the IRS.

    • • •

    James Robnett has no control over the issuance of illegal refunds.

    He tries to extract justice afterward, as special agent in charge of the Tampa-based IRS-Criminal Investigation Division, where he started work in June.

    "Our mission is to protect the Treasury as best we can," he said.

    But it takes time to gather the evidence required to successfully prosecute a tax crime, he said.

    Operation Rainmaker, a multi-agency sting last year, pointed the finger at a long list of suspects, but few have been federally charged.

    Sims' plea deal was a significant victory, and the IRS played a big role in that investigation. This summer, the federal government also charged Danielle Denson, alleging the exotic dancer collected $1.6 million in returns, spending proceeds on a Mercedes-Benz, plastic surgery and a $300 thong from Gucci. She awaits trial or a plea deal.

    Other cases crawl through the bureaucracy, the custom paint jobs of seized cars baking in an impound lot near the city incinerator.

    The investigators are Tampa-based, from an array of agencies, but IRS criminal investigators can't refer a case directly to the U.S. Attorney's Office without approval from Justice Department attorneys in Washington.

    "Our cases are financially complex," said Robnett, who has an accounting degree and more than 20 years of IRS law enforcement experience.

    He said the process is being streamlined and people in Tampa should see results in the coming months.

    • • •

    The last time the government checked, Americans quietly cheated the Treasury out of $385 billion a year — an amount (called the "tax gap") six times greater than the net worth of Bill Gates.

    Most do it by hiding earnings or not filing returns.

    Refund thieves take the opposite approach. Using stolen Social Security numbers, they report imaginary earnings and then claim they are owed money.

    The IRS may not notice until the real taxpayer tries to file — or not at all, if the victim had no filing requirement.

    Mary Vincenzi, an 83-year-old Italian immigrant, expected no refund. Her working years, as an accounts clerk for Sears in New York, were behind her.

    In truth, she had avoided tax matters, shell-shocked by the back-to-back deaths of her brother, husband and son.

    Last summer, a letter came to her Riverview home. The IRS was rejecting her 2010 return.

    Return?

    "I didn't even do my income taxes," she said.

    Someone had used her name, date of birth and Social Security number to register a debit card and file for a refund.

    "They get all the information they want with these stupid computers," Vincenzi said. "They should destroy them all."

    The card issued in Vincenzi's name was registered to a house 7 miles away from her. It was sent to Ivy Flower Loop in Riverview, across from a citrus grove near Interstate 75.

    At least 18 debit cards or Walmart money cards were registered to that address from February to May 2011, Tampa police said.

    Some were used to collect tax refunds. The IRS sent at least $26,541 to the home, including additional payment by check, police said.

    That's not the only federal money that went to the house on Ivy Flower Loop.

    The woman who lives there, Michelle Rena Haywood, is a 25-year-old mother of three.

    State records show she has never been arrested in Florida.

    Last year, the public subsidized her rent by $1,040 a month and provided $526 in monthly food assistance, housing records show. Her current rent subsidy is $452.

    Federal grants for $6,057 helped send Haywood to Hills*borough Community College, where she enrolled in college prep reading, first aid, pre-algebra, algebra and sociology.

    The Tampa Bay Times asked her about allegations of tax activity at her house.

    "I don't really wish to talk about that," she said. "I don't want to relive that chaos I had to go through. I don't even know how to work a computer.

    "I just had moved into the house, actually. It was around the time when this all went down. I don't know what was going on before I got there. Today I get people's mail that don't live there."

    The Housing Authority started paying rent in her name in December 2010.

    Tampa police offer more to the story.

    They became interested in Haywood after discovering her name on the title of a 2010 Camaro seized during Operation Rainmaker.

    It was one of two cars Haywood bought within 17 days last year, police learned.

    She put $8,000 down on the Camaro on April 2, 2011, police attorney Woodham said. By month's end, someone had paid another $16,000.

    Police believe the car was used by Marterrence Q. Holloway, a central figure in Operation Rainmaker. Police characterized Holloway as the host of a party where people gathered to file fraudulent returns.

    Holloway remains under federal investigation.

    The car, police say, was also used by Terence A. Palmer, 27, the father of Haywood's first child.

    The two men have each been arrested more than 30 times, and they've each served two terms in state prison for crimes that included cocaine possession and selling cannabis.

    The day before Haywood bought the Camaro, police found Palmer in another car with two TurboTax debit cards and $5,700, the police attorney said.

    Haywood declined to discuss the automobile purchases.

    She said she doesn't know Holloway. She declined to say when she last had contact with Palmer.

    "I don't know if she got mixed up with the wrong person," Woodham said. "Is he using her address? I don't know. All the withdrawals are from banks and Publix stores by her house."

    • • •

    When Jerome Ryans hears about Haywood and Gamble, his agency's clients, he can't help but think of mothers who have waited years for a subsidy.

    He is president and CEO of the Tampa Housing Authority, which oversees public housing complexes and distributes federal vouchers.

    He learned about the women's car purchases from a Tampa Bay Times reporter and said the agency would look into them.

    "If any of that is true," he said, "they don't need to be on our program."

    But Ryans doesn't believe that people on public assistance are committing 80 to 90 percent of Tampa's tax fraud.

    Maybe others just aren't getting caught, he suggested.

    Tampa police Chief Jane Castor said that's entirely possible.

    "There are individuals that are flying under the radar and aren't being detected, no doubt," she said.

    The majority of people on public assistance obey the laws, she said, but criminals will take advantage of any system that lends itself to exploitation.

    Sgt. Kenny Norris, 47, who patrols east Tampa, said the gold and cars just draw more attention in low-income neighborhoods.

    By design, apparently.

    "They're putting it right in our faces," said Detective Augeri, who describes suspected tax thieves trying to one-up each other in a public show of possessions.

    The public pays for custom Camaros with notice-me paint jobs, high-end SUVs, big TVs, gold teeth, cosmetic surgery, Gucci handbags, cocaine, cruises and gambling.

    On YouTube, amateur rap videos immortalize women with newfound money. One opens with a "Welcome to Tampa, City of Champions" sign; another shows a scene outside King's Meat Market and a man with a mouth full of cash.

    If fraud begets rap videos, the reverse may also be true.

    As a mentor to kids, Sgt. Norris preaches the wisdom of working hard and avoiding trouble, but they're bombarded by images of musicians driving $80,000 cars.

    "These guys perpetuate the idea that gold and nice cars are what life is all about," he said.

    He doesn't believe the spending sprees satisfy the hunger that drives the crime. People only wind up wanting more.

    "They're seeking and searching for something, I guess, a legitimate feeling inside they won't ever find," he said. "It will never make them feel good no matter what they purchase because they'll always be ducking and hiding, trying to outrun the law."

    Or outrun each other.

    Increasingly, police get called to scenes of tax-fraud-related burglaries and robberies, as thieves wrestle over spoils.

    Local cops just wish the IRS would close the door.

    The agency — often constrained by Congress, denied resources and encouraged to keep filers happy — reports great strides, with $6.5 billion in fraudulent returns stopped last year.

    But the report from the IRS watchdog said the Treasury could still lose $21 billion to fraudulent tax refunds over the next five years.

    "You don't have to clean up the blood if you stop the bleeding," police attorney Woodham said.

    • • •

    Lee, the man found with the food stamps letter and $30,980, was sent back to federal prison, but not on tax fraud charges.

    He violated terms of his probation by getting caught with cannabis, associating with a felon and failing to report encounters with police. He's scheduled to be released Aug. 31.

    He did not respond to a letter from the Times that described how he would be characterized in this story. A prison official said Lee received the letter but declined an interview.

    He faces a state court drug charge when he gets out and lingering questions about the source of his cash, still in a police pending fund.

    In the Orlando case, police arrested Lee and a Tampa woman at an Amscot, alleging that he supplied her a fake ID and the $7,989 Treasury check, one of four the IRS sent to addresses he used.

    Waiting in the car, police also found Lee's girlfriend, Lucille Gamble, 48, kin to the Gamble who bought two Lexuses. Three days after she got back from Orlando, Lucille Gamble, who was not charged, closed on the purchase of her first house, records show. Like most people, she took out a bank loan.

    Lee, too, took important steps after his Orlando arrest.

    He declared himself indigent, qualifying again for public defenders. He reapplied for food stamps. And, early this year, he filed a motion in Hillsborough Circuit Court. He wants police to give back the $30,980.

    Times news researcher John Martin contributed to this report. Patty Ryan can be reached at pryan@tampabay.com or (813) 226-3382.



    http://www.tampabay.com/news/publics...ce-say/1246564

  10. #50
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,554
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quite a few of you should just be thankful there is no minimum IQ requirement to vote

  11. #51
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,179
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz View Post
    Candidates aside, I don't think we should be making it more complicated for anyone to vote.

    Until it's proven in some way or another that photo ID is necessary or even reasonable, this is just a watered down version of poll tests The people that are less likely to have a license or passport are the young and the poor. Those two groups lean Democratic and it's quite clear that this was the motivation.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuOT1bRYdK8
    How do you intend to give all that social welfare out to buy votes if you can't even identify who those Democrats are?

    Forcing people to have an ID is doing them a favor. It allows them to function in the real world. The entire point of social welfare is to help people function it isn't to create dependence and votes for a particular constituency. These voter ID laws are not only appropriate they are doing those in need a service, one they desperately need.

  12. #52
    All League
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    4,876
    Post Thanks / Like
    But the poor can't afford an ID so they can vote. But they can afford to buy booze, drive a car and so on with an ID!

  13. #53
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    4,850
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DDNYjets View Post
    Make state issue IDs free. Problem solved. No more excuses from minorities that can't afford them.

    But don't most the people complaining about this law have the picture on their state benefit card?

    You should need an ID to vote. Voting is a serious responsibility.


    They CAN be obtained free here in SC. Plus there is a standing program to take people FREE to the places to get them.
    SC is being sued because Eric Holder thinks we're bad guys. There is voter fraud in this state. It has been established. the Dems have even styated the electronic voting machines are rigged. The machines are newer and more advanced than when I lived in NJ.

  14. #54
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    14,480
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz View Post
    Who's making the larger assumption about this issue?

    Me, when I cite a study that says there have been only ten cases of in-person voter fraud in 12 years or you for assuming the odds of catching in-person voter fraud without, I imagine, studying the matter or citing information yourself?
    You. I've looked at the studies. It is not a study that says there have been only ten cases of in-person voter fraud in 12 years.

    It is a study that says there have been only ten cases of reported in-person voter fraud in 12 years.

    Tell me something, SB - if a new regulation, tomorrow, wiped out the SEC's or anyone's ability to investigate insider trading (while still leaving it a crime), and 12 years later, I said "hey, insider trading must not be a problem, since there've been only 10 insider trading cases in the last 12 years," how seriously would you take that argument?

    Am I wrong in assuming that you don't know how simple or difficult it is commit in-person voter fraud without being caught? You might imagine or reckon something, but you probably are not an expert or have spent much of your time researching it?
    I haven't personally tried it. But I haven't seen much research one way or the other. We've certainly seen the sensational videos of people trying it without any difficulty at all.

    For example:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-uVhhIlPk0&

    (Multiple people showing up and asking for ballots in the names of dead registered voters)

    The bottom line is, the poll worker in that video is right when - after the "voter" admits that she just handed a ballot to someone who had claimed to be a dead man - she defends herself by saying "how would I know he was dead"?

    Short of demanding ID, there is no reasonable way to catch in-person voter fraud. If you disagree, suggest one.

    And on a broader level, if the foundation for our justice system is innocent until proven guilty, and the philosophy behind it rests with the notion that it's more just to let ten guilty men free than it is to convict one innocent man, am I wrong to carry over the same standard to voting?
    Yes - obviously and self-evidently. I mean just think about it. If it is "better to let ten men vote fraudulently than to turn away one true voter", then you are advocating a system where fraudulent votes swamp the true ones - meaning that you've in effect rendered the true votes worthless. That can't be the principle.

    More fundamentally, the contexts are completely different. First, the hardship to the innocent in the criminal context - wrongful imprisonment - is far, far more injurious to the hardship to the wrongly barred voter in the election context. Second, the entire point of that principle is it exists as a check on government power, to prevent the government from obtaining convictions of innocent but inconvenient citizens (you only need to look to Russia and the recent ***** Riot trial to see how important that principle can be). It's got no application in the election context.

    Until we know for sure that there is a problem with in-person voter fraud, why are adding a barrier that can prevent otherwise eligible, registered voters from exercising their right?
    Because it is a sensible requirement, and the only way anyone has suggested to prevent in-person voter fraud. This is not a significant barrier by any stretch of the imagination.

  15. #55
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    14,480
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz View Post
    Candidates aside, I don't think we should be making it more complicated for anyone to vote.

    Until it's proven in some way or another that photo ID is necessary or even reasonable, this is just a watered down version of poll tests.
    The Supreme Court disagrees.

    BTW, experience shows it doesn't have a depressive effect:

    The Indiana law was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court and in place for the 2008 elections, as was the Georgia law. Democratic turnout surged in both states. Democrats say this reflected enthusiasm for Barack Obama, which is true but beside the point. The argument against strict photo-ID laws is that significant numbers of people who want to vote can’t obtain the required identification. If that were so, the Democratic vote should have increased less in Indiana and Georgia than in states without such laws. In fact, it was comparable.
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...ye_115132.html

  16. #56
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    1,903
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs View Post
    How do you intend to give all that social welfare out to buy votes if you can't even identify who those Democrats are?

    Forcing people to have an ID is doing them a favor. It allows them to function in the real world. The entire point of social welfare is to help people function it isn't to create dependence and votes for a particular constituency. These voter ID laws are not only appropriate they are doing those in need a service, one they desperately need.
    Democrats make sure The Poor™ get all the taxpayer cellphones they want, though. they don't seeme to have a problem getting those.


  17. #57
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Farmingdale, NY
    Posts
    2,521
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by doggin94it View Post
    You. I've looked at the studies. It is not a study that says there have been only ten cases of in-person voter fraud in 12 years.

    It is a study that says there have been only ten cases of reported in-person voter fraud in 12 years.

    Tell me something, SB - if a new regulation, tomorrow, wiped out the SEC's or anyone's ability to investigate insider trading (while still leaving it a crime), and 12 years later, I said "hey, insider trading must not be a problem, since there've been only 10 insider trading cases in the last 12 years," how seriously would you take that argument?

    I haven't personally tried it. But I haven't seen much research one way or the other. We've certainly seen the sensational videos of people trying it without any difficulty at all.

    For example:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-uVhhIlPk0&

    (Multiple people showing up and asking for ballots in the names of dead registered voters)

    The bottom line is, the poll worker in that video is right when - after the "voter" admits that she just handed a ballot to someone who had claimed to be a dead man - she defends herself by saying "how would I know he was dead"?

    Short of demanding ID, there is no reasonable way to catch in-person voter fraud. If you disagree, suggest one.
    You keep bringing up that this is a crime that is undetectable without voter ID laws yet when someone votes as a dead person - which is how one would commit in-person voter fraud as impersonating a live person is far more dangerous as they might show up to vote - it is quite simple for us to report after the fact.

    States can sift through voting records and see "Oh sh*t, this guy died in March of '08 and yet he voted, in-person, on election day in November of -08."

    "Tally that as in-person voter fraud. Call up the RNC, we've got our 10th case in 12 years."

    Furthermore, the risk - which is $10,000 fine and up to 5 years in prison - is not rationally worth one vote in an election. This is not insider trading, where the reward is far greater, the jail time a lot shorter and usually requires the subpoena of phone and computer records.


    Quote Originally Posted by doggin94it View Post
    Yes - obviously and self-evidently. I mean just think about it. If it is "better to let ten men vote fraudulently than to turn away one true voter", then you are advocating a system where fraudulent votes swamp the true ones - meaning that you've in effect rendered the true votes worthless. That can't be the principle.

    More fundamentally, the contexts are completely different. First, the hardship to the innocent in the criminal context - wrongful imprisonment - is far, far more injurious to the hardship to the wrongly barred voter in the election context. Second, the entire point of that principle is it exists as a check on government power, to prevent the government from obtaining convictions of innocent but inconvenient citizens (you only need to look to Russia and the recent ***** Riot trial to see how important that principle can be). It's got no application in the election context.



    Because it is a sensible requirement, and the only way anyone has suggested to prevent in-person voter fraud. This is not a significant barrier by any stretch of the imagination.

    First off, by bringing up innocent until proven guilty, I was not implying that we should allow ten fraudulent votes for each legitimate one but rather passing a law restricting the vote to those possessing a form of ID they are not legally obliged to have otherwise, is assuming guilt at the polls without cause. It is estimated that up to 10% of the voting population does not have a photo ID, and you're adding a barrier between them and their right to vote, without proving there is a problem.

    This is restricting the most fundamental right in our country - to participate in our democracy - without just cause. Google online how many times Mr Okeefe and ProjectVeritas has been denied or shut down trying that exact same stunt on the youtube video you posted.

  18. #58
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Farmingdale, NY
    Posts
    2,521
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by doggin94it View Post
    The Supreme Court disagrees.

    BTW, experience shows it doesn't have a depressive effect:



    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...ye_115132.html
    The next paragraph of that article.

    On the other hand, the Republican call for strict photo-ID laws to prevent fraud is a solution to a non-existent problem. News21, a Carnegie-Knight investigative reporting project, analyzed 2,068 alleged fraud cases in all 50 states since 2000 and found only 10 cases of voter impersonation -- about one for every 15 million prospective voters. But the analysis found 491 cases of alleged absentee ballot fraud and 400 cases of alleged registration fraud, none of which existing voter-ID laws would affect.
    You're citing a piece, which says the voter ID laws are completely unnecessary but constitutional.

    And their argument that this doesn't have a disenfranchising affect is - "well democratic turnout for the first black President was high in these two states, so -".

  19. #59
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    14,480
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz View Post
    You keep bringing up that this is a crime that is undetectable without voter ID laws yet when someone votes as a dead person - which is how one would commit in-person voter fraud as impersonating a live person is far more dangerous as they might show up to vote - it is quite simple for us to report after the fact.
    Only if you're cross referencing voter rolls with death certificates, which isn't done because the systems don't really interact (if it was done, it would be better done in advance of the election). There's no real incentive to do it after the fact, since you can't invalidate the vote anyway (no way to identify what the fraudulent voter did).

    States can sift through voting records and see "Oh sh*t, this guy died in March of '08 and yet he voted, in-person, on election day in November of -08."

    "Tally that as in-person voter fraud. Call up the RNC, we've got our 10th case in 12 years."


    Show me the study that's done that and found no incidents, and I'll agree. But nobody is spending money on it, because there's no incentive to do so. And in-person voter fraud is not only about dead voters.

    But seriously, you asked me why I thought in-person voter fraud would be difficult to detect absent ID, and I've shown you actual evidence of in-person voter fraud going completely undetected . . . and you ignore it to make side points.

    Tell me - short of asking for ID, what could those poll workers have done to prevent that particular fraud?

    Until you can come up with an alternative, requiring ID to vote - just as you need it to bank, make various purchase, drive, etc. - is just basic common sense, regardless of the impact or non-impact on voters.

    Furthermore, the risk - which is $10,000 fine and up to 5 years in prison - is not rationally worth one vote in an election. This is not insider trading, where the reward is far greater, the jail time a lot shorter and usually requires the subpoena of phone and computer records.
    There is no risk when the odds of being caught are infinitesimal, and most people don't even know what the punishment is.



    First off, by bringing up innocent until proven guilty, I was not implying that we should allow ten fraudulent votes for each legitimate one but rather passing a law restricting the vote to those possessing a form of ID they are not legally obliged to have otherwise, is assuming guilt at the polls without cause.
    No, it is not "assuming guilt" - any more than requiring ID to buy alcohol, gamble, smoke, bank, get on an airplane, etc. is "assuming guilt." It is a basic prerequisite: establishing that you are who you claim to be.
    It is estimated that up to 10% of the voting population does not have a photo ID, and you're adding a barrier between them and their right to vote, without proving there is a problem.
    Then they should get a photo ID. Again, experience shows it does not depress turnout. And even if it did, DI would be ok with that, because it is such a bare-minimum responsibility requirement that anyone discouraged from voting by that requirement have only themselves to blame.

    This is restricting the most fundamental right in our country - to participate in our democracy - without just cause. Google online how many times Mr Okeefe and ProjectVeritas has been denied or shut down trying that exact same stunt on the youtube video you posted.[/QUOTE]

    Googled it, found nothing. Feel free to link your own sources.

  20. #60
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Farmingdale, NY
    Posts
    2,521
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs View Post
    How do you intend to give all that social welfare out to buy votes if you can't even identify who those Democrats are?

    Forcing people to have an ID is doing them a favor. It allows them to function in the real world. The entire point of social welfare is to help people function it isn't to create dependence and votes for a particular constituency. These voter ID laws are not only appropriate they are doing those in need a service, one they desperately need.
    So you're willing to take away certain citizens right to vote until they accept your favor?

    And I fundamentally disagree with the notion that supporters of a welfare state are vote buying. I don't and have never needed any state assistance of any kind, and I support it because it's the moral thing to do. Doesn't mean we can't reform good ideas or eliminate waste, but the social welfare system is not a cynical ploy to acquire votes, rather a measure of decency and community.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us