kanageddaamen said:
Kasz216 said:
kanageddaamen said:
Kasz216 said:
A) Wrong. They have a free Voter ID.
http://wnep.com/2012/08/28/free-voter-id-cards-available-for-some/
B) Except it's free to get them in states where it's required... and if you didn't need an ID to get a job... how did you get paid? Also, that 11% claim is a false one.
C) Agreed
D) 11% claim is a false one. Currently there is no way to actually catch people committing voter Fraud.
E) Good thing there are plenty ot states that have already had these laws in place. The general reaction? No voter supression. Intersingtly in fact voter participation increased higher then population increases.
Also, as for the link..I imagine he meant by stopping fraud. Voter Fraud via manufacturing votes is historically a Democratic thing. Hence democrats not wanting to fix it.
|
a.) Interesting, I hadn't seen that. Thanks for the link
b.) Direct deposit into a bank account that I have had since I was born. I imagine its on the high end of the scale, but I haven't seen anything that factually disputes it
d.) There are better ways to prevent it though, ie more thorough registration requirements (prevent people who should not legally be registering) or better maintaince of registration records (prevent dead people from voting) that put no burden on legal voters. I have a problem with states saying "we are incompetant in securing our voter registration system, so we are passing the burden onto you voters"
e.) Well, I will reserve judgement on the overall effect of these laws until after the election.
I just find it alarming that there is such a strong push for this with the potential for disenfranchisement when there is not statistical or even reliable anecdotal evidence that this is a problem. Also note that my view on this has nothing to do with who may be disenfranchised. I would be equally against measures that potentially disenfranchised rural, white republican voters as well.
|
B) How did you get the bank account? Bank accounts require photo IDs, or your parents had to show an ID... and your specific information needed to get a photo ID.
B2) Look at how they did said studies. If your voter Registeration says John Hartman at 5242, Violet street. And your Drivers liscense Says Jonathan Hartman at 5242, Violet sctreet... guess which way they ruled it.
D) Ok, so how do you stop someone from voting for there brother, or the elderly, or the disabled, or the mentally ill. Or just someone who decides not to vote. If you know anyone who isn't likely to vote, you can vote for them and it's no problem... and on the off chance they do vote, chances are they aren't going to look at it anyway, and just offer that person a provisional ballot.
E) The claims that it will disenfranchise people are... as previously stated, pretty much made up.
E2) Except there is evidence.... plenty of it. It's just not very widespread there are almsot no ways to detect voter fraud. I mean, lets say my brother is sick... and I go to his precinct and I vote for him for the candidates of my choice.
How would you go about detecting this. Nobody asks my brother if he voted, my brother doesn't get a notice saying he voted... so how do you detect this?
The fact that there are detected cases of it is shocking as it is.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124182750646102435.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122576113489495571.html
|
B) It was opened for me as a child. My parents may have needed to show ID, but I never have had to except for direct withdrawls via a teller. It is also possible to get numbered bank accounts from banks with no photo id requirements,
B2) That is not really evidence that the dtudy's results are a complete misrepresentation. Even if it is though, and the number is only 1%, you are talking about a 1% vs a tiny fraction of a percent
D) The way they do it now, with harsh penalties for the crime. Why risk 3 1/2 years in prison and a $10,000 to cast one additional vote?
E) Vote confirmation letters/email would probably be sufficient. Anyone willing to take the risk for a completely negligable gain would be able to bypass photo id requirements easily anyway. Fake IDs are the simplest thing to come by, and you are placing a requirement on volunteers to be able to spot iconsitencies in the identifications used.
Of course there are SOME cases, but it such a statistically minute portion that it is a complete non-issue to me. There are much larger issues to be focused on first, even just within the electoral process. The timing and scale of this push speaks volumes about its motivation relative to the actual size of the problem.
|
B) You totally do need a photo ID. I needed to show mine to open up my bank account.
B2) Except it isn't 1% or a tiny fraction of a percent. What that study is showing is people who don't meet the requirment currently. Not people who can't meet such a requirment for voting. That's like argueing that requring a gun saftey class to own a gun would be ruining the second ammendment because 85% of gunowners haven't currently passed such a test.
When actually trying to find people who can't meet states requirements, none were really found. They found one woman in the Pennsylvanian case... and after they lost the case... she ended up going through the process to get a voter ID with no problem.
Now the people who can't get an ID this way... THAT is a minute statistic not worth considering... because the people who file these lawsuits can't one person who fits the bill.
D) Because there is absolutely zero chance to get caught. I've noticed you've completely ignored my asking of how such people would be caught, because your starting to realize there is no real way to catch this, and no real way to prevent it.
E) Except you know... false votes would still count. Good fake IDs cost a lot of money, and you have no actual rpoof that it's a statistically minute portion since i've proved that it's a nearly undetectable with current laws.
Though yeah, these laws do not go far enough, since absentee fraud seems to be even more common. You should have to provide an ID to get an absentee ballot too. Still, stopping a perfectly valid, common sense law supported by a VAST majority because it doesn't go far enough or because there are other issues seems quite honestly, a stupid argument.
