Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 30 of 30

Thread: Federal court strikes down Texas voter ID law

  1. #21
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    nyc
    Posts
    11,570
    Quote Originally Posted by quantum View Post
    Don't know - wasn't there. Anything's possible. One would think that at some point after conviction that felons would be told that they're not allowed to vote anymore, and if they do, its a crime.

    Check this if you like: http://washingtonexaminer.com/york-w...3#.UEDOOCIn2sg

    As for voter ID: if you can positively ID a felon, then you can check to see if he is a felon. I see the connection.
    It's a good argument for being rigorous about voter fraud, but it's just not a good argument for voter ID - they already had the voters ID'd - if they had used the process used to 'catch' the felons prior to the election instead of after, the felons would not have been registered to vote in the first place. The only difference between 'catching' the Minnesota felons and 'preventing' them from voting is timing. The work done (cross referencing the registered voter DB vs. the felon db) is the same.

    So, since it wasn't necessary to avoid the "best case for reform out there", surely you can see why excluding the many, many more legit than fraudulent voters is not a rightous idea?

  2. #22
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    nyc
    Posts
    11,570
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    Thats funny, I was at a event once in NY, years ago now, and they were doing a voter registration drive that didn't do any of what you've listed here.

    Seriously, what kind of fool would register to vote at the various "registration drives", often staffed by teens or poli-wonks or interest groups, and hand back a piece of paper with their actual SSN or DMV number on it?

    And is there any check of that SSN or DMV number to ensure it actuallty belongs t that person at the time the form is submitted, or do they just thake the form-writers word on it? If so, it's not exactly worth much as a security check. Hell, I could register my brtohers, mother and dead father in New York without a problem then, I know all their SSN's.
    You're not registered based on filling out the form, it's all subject to verification:
    Verifying your identity
    We’ll try to check your identity before Election
    Day, through the DMV number (driver’s license
    number or non-driver ID number), or the last
    four digits of your social security number,
    which you’ll fill in below.
    If you do not have a DMV or social security
    number, you may use a valid photo ID, a current
    utility bill, bank statement, paycheck, government
    check or some other government document that
    shows your name and address. You may include
    a copy of one of those types of ID with this form—
    be sure to tape the sides of the form closed.
    If we are unable to verify your identity before
    Election Day, you will be asked for ID when
    you vote for the first time.
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    But it leads to a larger question.....if all the folks liberals claim will be hurt can do this and provide what you say is required to register, how is it that they suddenly cannot manage to obtain an ID and present it at the time of voting? Did they lose some large portion of theri adult functionality between time of registration and time of voting?



    Actually, I guarantee you that polling place staff cannot "see a botched side by side", nor would they ever call someone out on it if they suspected. Not only is it vastly harder than you assume it is to spot check if not a handwriting expert, there is an inherant hesitation to make a claim that someone is not who they claim to be. Trust me on this one.

    End of the day, I've yet to hear a good argument against ID check. Other than the usual
    poor minorities can't do what the rest of us do, we have to protect them for their own good" liberal logic, the expectation of an ID at the time of voting is both minimal, and reasonable, as long as the State offers a free ID for the purpose of ID/voting only, something I fully support.
    So you're saying all the fraudulent voters will have practiced the signatures of their dead/missing counterparts to the point where you'd need a handwriting expert to tell them apart? And I don't imagine they'd call them out, I imagine they'd flag them as suspicious and let them go in and cast their vote, pending verification. Every election, at many polling places, there are people who's registration is questioned - they are allowed to go in and vote, and their vote is subject to verification of their status. I had it happen to myself once when my polling place changed and the record didn't catch up to me, and I've seen it happen while waiting to vote, so I can't imagine that it's uncommon at all.

    I just think the instance of fraud is far smaller than the instances of citizens with the right to vote who will not be able to vote, and I don't think that's right.

  3. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by isired View Post
    You're not registered based on filling out the form, it's all subject to verification:

    "We'll try....."
    Thank you for the linked info. Says it all in the first line.

    So you're saying........
    I'm saying Voter ID Regulation is a reasonable, rational, equal way of ensuring that only those who posess the right to vote, get to cast a vote.

    I'm saying the excuse against it, minorities and women hardest hit, is both insulting, and a total fantasy.

    I'm saying that of all the trillions of pages of regulation of our rights in the United States....I do not, and can not, see Voter ID Requirements as anything more than a basic, mundane and expected part of any legitimate voting system suite of validity enforcement mechanics.

  4. #24
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    nyc
    Posts
    11,570
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by isired View Post
    You're not registered based on filling out the form, it's all subject to verification:

    "We'll try to check your identity before Election
    Day.....
    If we are unable to verify your identity before
    Election Day, you will be asked for ID when
    you vote for the first time
    .
    "
    Thank you for the linked info. Says it all in the first line.
    fixed for accuracy

    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    So you're saying........
    I'm saying Voter ID Regulation is a reasonable, rational, equal way of ensuring that only those who posess the right to vote, get to cast a vote.

    I'm saying the excuse against it, minorities and women hardest hit, is both insulting, and a total fantasy.

    I'm saying that of all the trillions of pages of regulation of our rights in the United States....I do not, and can not, see Voter ID Requirements as anything more than a basic, mundane and expected part of any legitimate voting system suite of validity enforcement mechanics.
    I'm not singling out anyone as the 'hardest hit' - I think that, whoever they are, the voter ID 'solution' will eliminate far, far more citizens that have the legal constitutional right to vote than it will restrict fraudulent voters. That makes it a non-starter for me.

    Let me ask you, do you see any merit to the indelible ink technique, or see it as even a part-solution to the problem of voter fraud? No barriers, no discrimination, takes away all of those arguments, though I realize it is not nearly the same as voter ID.

    But tbh, it's not a huge issue for me, I think I've managed to give it the appearance that it is via replying in this thread so often, but it's not...

  5. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by isired View Post
    But tbh, it's not a huge issue for me, I think I've managed to give it the appearance that it is via replying in this thread so often, but it's not...
    I feel somewhat strongly about it.

    Just not strongly enough to want to keep :headvsbrickwall: on it tbh.

    At this stage, I simply don't understand how anyone could be against it, especially those who'd happily regulate other rights in far greater excess (i.e. anyone whose ever voted Democrat).

    It's almost to the point of being a mouth-open-agape-eyes-staring-turn-walk-away-shaking-head thing at this stage.


  6. #26
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    nyc
    Posts
    11,570
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    I feel somewhat strongly about it.

    Just not strongly enough to want to keep :headvsbrickwall: on it tbh.

    At this stage, I simply don't understand how anyone could be against it, especially those who'd happily regulate other rights in far greater excess (i.e. anyone whose ever voted Democrat).

    It's almost to the point of being a mouth-open-agape-eyes-staring-turn-walk-away-shaking-head thing at this stage.

    Really? We can disagree, but you can't see my thinking at all?
    1. As illustrated by the Minn case (above), I just don't see how it helps (i.e., voter ID wasn't needed to prevent fraud, doing what should have been done with the info they already had was all that was needed).
    2. Even if it could help (i.e., if people voting under the wrong identity or without the right to vote were deciding elections and this was needed to prevent that), for each fraud case that it prevented, many legally qualified voters would not vote , and I think that price is too steep.

    Do you think voter ID was necessary to prevent fraud in Minnesota in 2008? Do you think it would have helped, without the cross-reference that could/should have been done against the rolls anyway?

    Do you think voter ID will prevent legal voters from voting, whether reasonably or not?

    Do you believe people voting under the wrong identity or people that do not have the right to vote are deciding elections too often (or do you think even 1 is too often), and that voter ID would fix this?
    Last edited by isired; 08-31-2012 at 02:49 PM.

  7. #27
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    LI
    Posts
    20,408
    Quote Originally Posted by isired View Post
    It's a good argument for being rigorous about voter fraud, but it's just not a good argument for voter ID - they already had the voters ID'd - if they had used the process used to 'catch' the felons prior to the election instead of after, the felons would not have been registered to vote in the first place. The only difference between 'catching' the Minnesota felons and 'preventing' them from voting is timing. The work done (cross referencing the registered voter DB vs. the felon db) is the same.

    So, since it wasn't necessary to avoid the "best case for reform out there", surely you can see why excluding the many, many more legit than fraudulent voters is not a rightous idea?
    I'm sorry - I missed the part where you knew the felons were ID'd properly?

    Perhaps felon A walks in and says his name is Eddie Smith, even though his official name is John Edward Smith. But everyone knows him as Eddie. Poll workers don't see Eddie Smith on the felon list, so they let him vote.

    You catch stuff like that with an ID. And maybe the the ID should have on their the reason they can't vote.

  8. #28
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    nyc
    Posts
    11,570
    Quote Originally Posted by quantum View Post
    I'm sorry - I missed the part where you knew the felons were ID'd properly?

    Perhaps felon A walks in and says his name is Eddie Smith, even though his official name is John Edward Smith. But everyone knows him as Eddie. Poll workers don't see Eddie Smith on the felon list, so they let him vote.

    You catch stuff like that with an ID. And maybe the the ID should have on their the reason they can't vote.
    From the article you cited - they matched the voter rolls against the criminal DB after the election and caught them.

    Replace "voter rolls" with "registered voter DB" and "after" with "before" = problem solved.

  9. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by isired View Post
    Really? We can disagree, but you can't see my thinking at all?
    No.

    It's not meant as a slight. I simply cannot come to any agreement on the positions you've taken. And the topic (like immigration) is starting to give me a headache every time it comes up, and frankly starts pissing me off.

    So I will respectfully withdraw before (as PK would put it) I get all "Wargarbly".

    But since I respect you, I'll give very brief answer to your specifics:

    Do you think voter ID was necessary to prevent fraud in Minnesota in 2008?
    I don't know the case, my view is not related to any specific case.

    Do you think voter ID will prevent legal voters from voting, whether reasonably or not?
    No.

    Anyone would would not vote would be not-voting by CHOICE, not by unequal treatemnt under the law, and that is all that matters. A voter ID Law is not a prohibition on legal voting anymore than registration is a legal prohibition on voting. They are, in fact, effectively the same exact thing. How one can support one, and denounce in the striongest terms the other, is ****ign mindboggling.

    Frankly, if someone chooses not to vote because they cannot and/or will not identify themselves....I do not believe they had the right to vote in the first place.

    The barrier for me is a legal one. Is a legitimate voter denied under the law for getting an ID, an ID they need to in turn vote?

    If yes, then the "no ID Checks" side may be right. If not, there is no case for that side.

    Do you believe people voting under the wrong identity or people that do not have the right to vote are deciding elections too often (or do you think even 1 is too often), and that voter ID would fix this?
    I think our elections are generally full to the brim with fraud, of all stripes and kinds. I personally have very little faith in the accuracy of vote counts and counting, and the legitimacy of the votes cast.

  10. #30
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    nyc
    Posts
    11,570
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    Anyone would would not vote would be not-voting by CHOICE, not by unequal treatemnt under the law, and that is all that matters. A voter ID Law is not a prohibition on legal voting anymore than registration is a legal prohibition on voting. They are, in fact, effectively the same exact thing. How one can support one, and denounce in the striongest terms the other, is ****ign mindboggling.
    That's where we part ways (bolded). I think the fact that we would lose voters who would not or could not get IDs is a punishment not worthy of the crime (so I guess we also part ways on the frequency/effect of fraud, which I think is negligible at best). Of course voter ID is not a prohibition, it's an obstacle. And if it was necessary, then so be it. I just don't think it is.

    Thanks for responding, hope your headache goes away soon

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