We quickly forget our history in this country and we do so to our own detriment. It was, after all, not that long before my time that states used onerous poll taxes and literacy requirements to deny whole classes of people their franchise – the most fundamental of all rights in a democracy.
The 24th Amendment to the Constitution was only passed in 1962. It granted that the right to vote in any national election “shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax” and gave Congress the power to enforce this right.
Until 2006, no US state required voters to show some sort of photo identification in order to vote.
Now some 20 states are passing more rigorous standards, under the guise of voter fraud. A photo ID may not seem to be a huge deal to many, though at least 10 percent of voting-age Americans do not have a photo ID.
The problem that we need to learn from history is that allowing for potentially subjective standards could create systems where the enforcement is either not equally applied, or applied in a way to deny some people the right to vote.
Those who support such systems of regulation have a strong argument about the integrity of the system. And they may have a point if there were evidence of even modest levels of voter fraud – but most studies, conducted objectively and by non-partisan organizations, have not borne out that fear.
It is not clear whom exactly we should be fearing will be illegally voting. Voting by illegal immigrants, or even non-citizens, seems to be one potentially-cited problem.
Logically speaking, the fear makes little sense. After all, we know that minorities, whether black or Hispanic, who are US citizens vote at much lower levels than whites. So now we are to believe that suddenly they have enough interest in our nation’s policies to vote illegally? That simply does not make sense.
Given the logic here, the question as Pia Lopez, editorial writer of the Sacramento Bee, notes is “why did voter ID emerge as a cause in 2006?”
Her answer, based on investigative reporting from the McClatchy newspapers, shows that they “traced the crusade to Karl Rove in an April 2006 speech to the Republican National Lawyers Association, as a strategy to affect voting in battleground states.”
The strategy is clear, she writes: “Go after potential voters who move a lot – and thus don’t have a current address on their driver’s license or other ID – or who are poor or elderly, and don’t drive.”
As John Dean, no stranger to the Southern strategy writes in Verdict, a journal of legal analysis, “There is absolutely no question that Republicans are trying to suppress non-whites from voting, throughout the Southern states, in an effort that has been accelerating since 2010.”
“Documentation of the Republican attack on non-white and minority voters is depressingly vast and complete,” he adds.
John Dean notes: “Here are just a few of the reports that I have found informative, since my writing about the GOP’s gaming the vote last October. From the damning November 11, 2011 report from the Democratic National Committee’s Institute for Voting, entitled Reversal Of Progress, to the more recent reports like The Atlantic‘s “New Voting Laws: Bending the Arc of History Away From Justice,” and the ACLU’s reports on voter suppression, the story is the same. GOP-controlled state governments have adopted measures that restrict voting, with non-whites and minorities always bearing the brunt.”
On Friday, Ohio’s elections chief cancelled his order which would have barred counties from setting voting hours on early-voting days.
Reports the Associated Press: “The move comes after a federal judge this week ordered Secretary of State Jon Husted to personally appear at a court hearing over the swing state’s early voting rules.”
Ohio is among 32 states, plus the District of Columbia, that allow voters to cast early ballots in person without having to give reasons, the AP reports.
As Mr. Dean notes, after 2010, Republicans won control of 21 states and began enacting legislation – based on the pretext of preventing voter fraud of restricting the vote.
He notes, “They adopted laws that fell into the following areas: they cut early voting, eliminated registration on Election Day, created voting challenges that could be made by one’s fellow citizens, and required photo identification for voting.”
As Ari Berman writes in his piece for The Nation, “Voter Suppression: The Confederacy Rises Again,” these efforts have been particularly focused in the South, “where they are clearly intended to block non-whites from voting.”
Again, these efforts might be defensible if there were evidence of voter fraud. But there is not.
Reported the New York Times in April 2007: “Five years after the Bush administration began a crackdown on voter fraud, the Justice Department has turned up virtually no evidence of any organized effort to skew federal elections, according to court records and interviews.”
The Times wrote: “Although Republican activists have repeatedly said fraud is so widespread that it has corrupted the political process and, possibly, cost the party election victories, about 120 people have been charged and 86 convicted as of last year.”
They add: “Most of those charged have been Democrats, voting records show. Many of those charged by the Justice Department appear to have mistakenly filled out registration forms or misunderstood eligibility rules, a review of court records and interviews with prosecutors and defense lawyers show.”
In May of this year, Slate Magazine, in a provocative article entitled “The GOP Sees Dead People – Voting,” argues that Republican plans to fight voter fraud are based not on reality but rather on nightmares, tall tales and paranoid fear.
“These laws, which could disenfranchise more voters than at any time since the 1960s, exist because of one widely held conservative belief: that our elections are plagued with fraud,” Slate reports.
They cite RNC Chair Reince Priebus, who discussed a new Wisconsin law requiring photo IDs, and argued, “The state’s election system was ‘absolutely riddled with voter fraud.’ Priebus may be correct, but only if his standard for ‘riddled’ is 0.0002 percent. A nonpartisan study on voter fraud in Wisconsin after the 2004 election found just seven ineligible votes – all of which were cast by ex-felons who were ineligible to vote despite being released from prison – out of 3 million ballots cast.”
“If you challenge conservatives with just how rare voter fraud is in the United States, you usually get one of three responses: It’s easy to do, it’s hard to catch, and they’ve heard of it happening. Let’s take these arguments one at a time,” they continue.
Some Republicans admit there is no evidence of fraud.
Slate reports, “Last year, Pennsylvania State Sen. Charles McIlhinney conceded as much. Yet in his mind, the mere prospect that it could exist outweighed the possibility that 700,000 citizens may lose their vote in November because of the state’s new voter ID law, which passed two months ago.”
Bottom line, if there were evidence that there were voter fraud, I think we need to protect the integrity of the system. But given the utter absence of what I would call fraud – people who vote despite ineligibility is not what I would call fraud, especially when it is a miniscule number – we are risking doing a far greater harm and preventing many eligible people from voting.
The bigger danger is the one that the 24th Amendment dealt with, and that is giving poll workers the ability to subjectively determine who can and who cannot vote. Mess with that and this could become just like the old South Order again.
That is certainly my fear, and while you are free to agree or disagree with that, it is clear that this is a solution that not only is in search of problem, but will undoubtedly create a huge number of its own problems far worse than what we face now.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
David writes:
> A photo ID may not seem to be a huge deal to many
> though at least 10 percent of voting-age Americans
> do not have photo ID.
If this is true they will need to get one to vote just like you now need a photo ID to drive a car or fly in an airplane.
The bottom line is that there is voter fraud in America from both Republicans and Democrats.
The current push by the Republicans for voter ID laws is because many Republicans think that the Democrats are beating them at the fraud game.
To give the Democrats credit I’m sure that they are not “just” trying to keep the fraud going, I’m sure that someone who “just” became a citizen may be nervous of showing an ID at the polls as well as a guy with a warrent out for his arrest.
Voter fraud in areas like Chicago and SF has been bad for over 100 years (I once had a talk with an older couple at the Irish Center in SF who went from church to church in the 60’s to get birth and marriage records so they would have names to register people to vote for Kennedy in the 60’s).
David then writes:
> Bottom line, if there were evidence that there
> were vote fraud, I think we need to protect the
> integrity of the system.
I often hear from my partisan Democrat friends that we “don’t have a lot of convictions for voter fraud so we don’t need anyone to show ID”. Just because you don’t have a lot of convictions does not mean that no one is doing it.
There are not a lot of convictions of hetrosexual couples “living together” in Florida, Michigan, Mississippi, North Carolina, North Dakota, Virginia and West Virginia (where it was still against the law last time I checked). But despits the “lack of convictions” I bet we still have a lot of people breaking the law…
If photo id is required to cast a ballot, Oregon and California can kiss Vote By Mail (VBM, formerly know as absentee ballot) goodbye. Servicemen oversees would be disenfranchized, as would those whose physical condition (bed-ridden) effectively keep them from the polling places.
EVERY voter who casts a ballot in Yolo County signs the Roster (or the envelope containing their VBM ballot) , and by their signature affirms under the penalty of perjury that they are legally entitled to cast a ballot. And only ONE ballot. I point this out to voters who ask if I need to see their ID before allowing them to vote.
I agree with David’s (and our County Clerk’s) view that the photo ID is a solution in search of problem… BTW for you ‘photo-ID’ers), how many folks including felons and underage teenagers manage to get and present fake photo ID’s?
BTW for you ‘photo-ID’ers), how many folks including felons and underage teenagers manage to get and present fake photo ID’s?
So if we use that type of reasoning we should stop asking for ID’s for people flying, driving, drinking…..
After all, they might be fake.
All of the other scenarios do not involve rights. You have no right to travel on a private mode of transportation
They do not sign an affidavit, under penalty of perjury that they have a LICENSE (not a “Right”) to drive, nor the same type of affidavit to buy a beer or cigarettes.
Every voter is issued a voter registration card, with no photo ID. It is more analogous to your drivers’ license. Maybe we should accept ONLY the original of that card for ID. Unlike a driver’s license, passport, CA identification card, nothing is paid to register to vote. Got your original voter reg card, Rusty?
Perhaps we could go to a fingerprint system with a national database containing records of the fingerprints for all those who wish to vote. That could potentially help law enforcement as well. I’m sure the ‘far right’ will jump in with both feet to go there.
Washington Post Poll: Nearly 75% of Americans Support Voter ID Laws
Posted on August 14, 2012
Most of America and at least half of the Democrats want voter ID. Why are the Democrat hierarchy so against it? Obviously they know they have the most to lose by the cheaters.
I would give much more credibility to the Republican claim that their push for government issued picture ID was truly to prevent voter fraud if one could see them working out in the potentially disenfranchised communities to ensure that those without transportation or other impediments to obtaining these IDs were helped to obtain them. Is anyone aware of any such effort on the part of the Republicans ?
I have no respect for either of the major parties. I am not in favor of voter ID. Probably 75% of the voters believe either Romney or Obama are “the answer” to all our ills. That doesn’t mean they know what they’re talking about.
“Voter ID, which is going to allow Gov Romney to win the state of Pennsylvanis….DONE!”
[url]http://youtube.com/watch?v=EuOT1bRYdK8[/url]
David wrote:
> All of the other scenarios do not involve rights.
> You have no right to travel on a private mode of
> transportation
As a US citizen you have the “right” to enter the United States. Try and do this without a photo ID (at the US Mexican border with brown skin)…
Sadly many Democrats would love to get rid of any ID check at the border as well as the voting booth since recent immigrants tend to vote Dem.
Most people just want to avoid fraud and would be happy if we can just raise the bar to avoid fraud.
Most people don’t want to get rid of “vote by mail” they just want to make fraud harder like “bank by mail” has been doing for years.
medwoman wrote:
> I would give much more credibility to the Republican
> claim that their push for government issued picture
> ID was truly to prevent voter fraud if one could see
> them working out in the potentially disenfranchised
> communities to ensure that those without transportation
> or other impediments to obtaining these IDs were helped
> to obtain them.
Believe it or not I have read about some Republicans offereing to do this.
The bottom line is that if you want to vote in America all you need to do is call the office of the person (or issue) you want to vote for and they will literaly send someone over to help you vote if you can’t seem to figure out how to do it without personal help.
If you want to vote for the Green Party they will help you, just like the GOP and Dems. will help you. I am 100% sure that if someone in Davis needs help casting a vote for the next parcel tax that a call to any school in the district will get them the help they need to do it.
I have voted absentee for more than twenty years. In fact, it’s mandatory: I’m not even assigned to a polling station. I just sign my name, under penalty of perjury, on the back and mail it in. Just as I used to sign my name, under penalty of perjury, when I walked into a polling station (don’t you still do that if you vote in person?). No ID needed, nobody even making sure I’m doing it in person and of sound mind and body.
[i]75% of the voters believe either Romney or Obama are “the answer” to all our ills. That doesn’t mean they know what they’re talking about.[/i]
Well now you are supporting the Democrat-style of democracy. The one that sees the voters as idiots not able to make an informed decision.
We could see this at work at the DNC Convention when LA mayor Antonio Ramón Villaraigosa had to try three times to get all the idiot delegates to vote by ayes to add back the words “God” and “Jerusalem” into the party platform. They would not do it, but that did not stop the Dems leaders from doing it anyway.
We can also see it at work with Obamacare. The majority of Americans have consistently said that they do not support it. Of course as they get used to the free stuff that will change over time. However, the fact that the majority of Americans did not want it did not stop those know-better, do-gooder, elite donkeys from doing their thing.
This relates back to the opinion on voter ID. The majority of Americans want it, but those Dems know they are just stupid country folk that need the hand of central controllers in Washington to do the right thing.
Right.
Here is the thing… we should address this problem if only to remove, or even just diminish, the argument about voter fraud. It is stupid that the country that invented so much information technology and security technology that we are using a prehistoric voter ID process.
JB: [i]Well now you are supporting the Democrat-style of democracy. The one that sees the voters as idiots not able to make an informed decision.[/i]
You on the other hand insult voters who don’t agree with you. Or to be slightly kinder, you ascribe dishonorable motives to them. For instance your narrative about Democratic voters specifically being dependent on government handouts.
The fact is, no matter who gets elected president, there are two other branches of government who have to cooperate to effect meaningful results. In my opinion, it is more important who the people choose to represent their views in the House and Senate, than it is who is president. Of course we have no direct vote on the third branch.
Obama will likely be impotent with a republican majority in both houses. The converse is true for Romney. With split houses, neither man is likely to achieve anything if they stick to their party’s ideologies.
BTW, this will be my 11th presidential election. I would feel much more comfortable administering a non-partisan test to see if the voter actually studied the issues, both for elective office and propositions as an indication of someone should be allowed to vote. The vast majority of voters, do in my opinion and experience, vote “my party right or wrong”, and base their judgements solely on ‘sound-bites’ and talk show TV & radio.
BT Barnum had some great quotes, as did Twain.
LOL, you would like to administer a test but at the same time think voter ID disenfranchises voters. Can’t have it both ways even though I can agree with you about the test.
Ok… let’s try the voter ID, with the test, and both parties will get a shock when the majority of those allowed to vote are decline to state and/or minor parties.. You game for that?
BTW, didn’t say I wanted it both ways, but given the choice, I’d go with the lesser of two evils… which is generally what I have to do anyway. First voted in the McGovern/Nixon race. Mr Nixon was a wonderful example of conservative value, the constitution, and following the law, wasn’t he. I’d say “pardon me” for bringing that one up, but Gerald Ford already did the pardon thing.
I don’t get why you brought up Nixon. What’s that got to do with this?
Nixon, and those who reported to him deliberately interfered in the integrity of the election process, albeit not at the polls or in the vote counting. That was my ‘thread’, albeit a slender one.
My view: Only a fool would deny voter fraud is a serious problem and disenfranchises the voters whose vote is nullified by a fraudulent opposing ballot.
[url]http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/297461/reality-voter-fraud-john-fund[/url]
[i]You on the other hand insult voters who don’t agree with you. Or to be slightly kinder, you ascribe dishonorable motives to them.[/i]
wdf1, There is plenty of that going around from both sides.
However, I would be interested in your references backing that claim. My suspicion is that what you label as insult is something at a level that I consider just voicing a difference of opinion. I will certainly agree that I am caustic and acerbic at times. Unfortunately or not, I think it is necessary to call enough attention to the fact that these other opinions and ideas exist. People with my views tend to be working and/or are more mild mannered. They don’t like to call attention to the fact that they dissagree with the conventional local wisdom. I think you and others with opposing views mistake this silence for agreement. I think you are so surprised when someone with a different worldview raises their voice that your inclination is to attack the messenger as being deranged, unkind, uncaring and dishonorable… rather than just debating the different views.
In terms of ascribing dishonorable motives… please go back and review what the left has been throwing out in their platform and campaign. For example, you of course know that I am a greedy, racist, woman-hating, bible-thumping, homophobic bigot by these things. You just cannot be a conservative without having the sign tied around your neck according to the left and left media template.
[i]”Only a fool would deny voter fraud is a serious problem and disenfranchises the voters whose vote is nullified by a fraudulent opposing ballot.”[/i]
Excellent point! Voters already lack confidence in their politicians. We should at least ensure that they trust in the integrity of the voting process.
Another view:
“There is no documented wave or trend of individuals voting multiple times, voting as someone else, or voting despite knowing that they are ineligible. Indeed, evidence from the microscopically scrutinized 2004 gubernatorial election in Washington State actually reveals just the opposite: though voter fraud does happen, it happens approximately 0.0009% of the time. The similarly closely-analyzed 2004 election in Ohio revealed a voter fraud rate of 0.00004%. National Weather Service data shows that Americans are struck and killed by lightning about as often.”
[url]http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/policy_brief_on_the_truth_about_voter_fraud/[/url]
More: “Voter fraud is most often invoked as a substantial problem in order to justify particular election policies. Chief among these is the proposal that individuals be required to show photo ID in order to vote – a policy that disenfranchises up to 10% of eligible citizens.”
Key question: “Is the solution sufficiently burdensome that it becomes a greater problem than the problem itself?”
In sum: if the requirement for a photo ID disenfranchises up to 10% of voters in order to prevent a handful of cases of voter fraud, which is worse–the initial fraud, or the disenfranchisement?
But now we should be concerned about voting machines: [url]http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/07/13/now-the-right-wing-is-afraid-of-voting-machines/[/url]
The Brennan Center? Really Don?
“The organization is headed by Michael Waldman. Name ring a bell? According to his bio at the Brennan website, Waldman did a bit of work for Bill Clinton back when Clinton was president. In fact, Waldman was “responsible for writing or editing nearly 2,000 speeches, including four State of the Union and two inaugural addresses.”
” Not only that, the Brennan Center is a major beneficiary of financial contributions from an organization backed by left-wing financier George Soros.”
Ah, yes, the conservative obsession with George Soros. Ok: [url]http://votingrights.news21.com/interactive/election-fraud-database/[/url]
“The nation has 2,068 cases of alleged election fraud since 2000. By category, Unknown had the highest percentage of accused at 31 percent (645 cases), followed by Voters at 31 percent (633 cases). The most prevalent fraud was Absentee Ballot Fraud at 24 percent (491 cases). The status of most cases was Pleaded at 27 percent (558 cases). Responses to requests for public records varied from state to state. Some state and local officials were quick to respond by sending available records; others failed to provide a single document.”
“A News21 analysis of 2,068 alleged election-fraud cases since 2000 shows that while fraud has occurred, the rate is infinitesimal, and in-person voter impersonation on Election Day, which prompted 37 state legislatures to enact or consider tough voter ID laws, is virtually non-existent.”
Continuing:
“Based on an exhaustive public records search, the News21 analysis of voter fraud shows:
Since 2000, while fraud has occurred, the number of cases is infinitesimal.
In-person voter impersonation on Election Day, which prompted 37 state legislatures to enact or consider tough voter ID laws, is virtually non-existent. Only 10 such cases over more than a decade were reported.
There is more fraud in absentee ballots and voter registration than any other category. The analysis shows 491 cases of absentee ballot fraud and 400 cases of registration fraud. A required photo ID at the polls would not have prevented these cases.
Voters make a lot of mistakes, from people accidentally voting twice to voting in the wrong precinct. However, few cases reveal a coordinated effort to change election results.
Election officials make a lot of mistakes, giving voters ballots when they’ve already voted, for instance. Election workers are often confused about voters’ eligibility requirements.”
“The News21 investigation also found:
Photo ID laws and other new voting restrictions disproportionately affect minorities, students, the disabled and the elderly.
State rules on voting by felons vary widely. In some states, felons can vote from prison; in other states felons may never regain the right to vote.
More than half of the state bills proposing photo IDs originated from people affiliated with the conservative, pro-business American Legislative Exchange Council. Since the model photo ID legislation, known as ALEC’s 2009 Voter ID Act, 62 voter ID bills were introduced in state legislatures.
Changes to Florida’s voting laws will reduce the state’s in-person, early voting timeframe. This includes the Sunday before Election Day, when African-American churches traditionally organized caravans of parishioners to polling places, known as “Souls to the Polls.”
True the Vote, a Texas-based Tea Party initiative, has trained and dispatched election observers in at least 20 states. The growing national movement’s goal is to prevent voter fraud; opponents say it’s a way to intimidate eligible voters, particularly minorities.
Once-neutral secretary of state offices are becoming increasingly politicized as these office holders join the political debate over voting access.”
[url]http://votingrights.news21.com/article/about/[/url]
I appreciate the question Don Shor is posing here: is the cure for alleged fraud worse than the illness? For a national election to be invalidated by fraud–even in a single so-called “swing state”–the fraud would have to be so massive that it would require a conspiracy of equally massive proportions. David and Don have shared evidence that fraud is actually a small problem according to a number of sources: the Brennan Center, Slate, The Nation, The New York Times and News21 among them.
While one can argue that most of these are left of center publications does it follow that none of them have credibility in this issue?
Meaning they are distorting the truth? Meaning they are liars? Meaning they really do not have the best interests of the public in mind? Meaning that they are actually part of the “conspiracy” to promote voter fraud?
The evidence seems clear: voter fraud on a scale that could swing an election is not a problem in this country at this time. The remedies suggested are onerous, capricious and (in some cases) mean-spirited.
SouthofDavis
[quote] I am 100% sure that if someone in Davis needs help casting a vote for the next parcel tax that a call to any school in the district will get them the help they need to do it.[/quote]
And I would agree with you that this is the case in Davis. Are you 100% sure that this would be the case in for example the rural south, in inner city neighborhoods, on the outskirts of our border towns ? I am not.
My own mother did not drive, never had a picture ID and probably would not have realized that she could call
the offices of a political campaign to get help. Does this mean that she should have effectively lost her right to vote ? To me the answer is a clear “no” ….even though she was Republican ; )
It’s funny how you the liberals can give a few examples of how a voter possibly could be disenfranchised and if it’s just one then that’s one too many. But when examples of dead people casting votes, double voting, unregistered voting and other types of election fraud are brought to the forefront then you all want to say it’s not wide spread and isn’t a problem.
[quote]you all want to say it’s not wide spread and isn’t a problem.[/quote]
No, what I say is show me the numbers. If the numbers of fraud committed come anywhere close to the number of disenfranchised, I will be quick to say I was wrong.
Okay Mr rusty49 – I will respond to your comment. But first let me acknowledge that I am not sure if you are writing to me or not. You say: “you the liberals” and I am not one. But still…
You raise an interesting point. Let me draw a comparison to a medical test. There is always a balance (indeed a tradeoff) between the sensitivity of and specifity of a test. Hi sensitivity means you will not neglect to detect a true case and high specificty means you will not neglect to reject a false case. So which do you want? High sensitivity or high specificity (you typically can’t have both at very high levels)? It depends. If you are trying to detect a deadly disease perhaps you would opt for high sensitivity (catch ALL cases) and lower specificity (call some non-cases cases) to be sure to not neglect a true case.
I view the voting situation the same way. What is worse: limited fraud that has no effect on the outcome or a disenfranchised voter who may leave the voting process forever? I would say (and you can disagree of course) that it is better to err on the side of making it easy to vote to avoid disenfranchisement. I feel especially strong about this because of the history of disenfranchisement in this country. Arguably, from an historical perspective, this has been the greater problem. Of course we should remain vigilent and prosecute fraud but I would opt for a process that makes it easy to vote.
So, yes, I am more concerned about disenfranchisement than about fraud. But that conviction does in no way make me a liberal.
Robb wrote:
> What is worse: limited fraud that has no effect
> on the outcome or a disenfranchised voter who may
> leave the voting process forever?
We all know that the Bush Gore vote in Florida was close. I just did a quick Google search and Wikipedia says: “The election was noteworthy for a controversy over the awarding of Florida’s 25 electoral votes, the subsequent recount process in that state, and the unusual event of the winning candidate having received fewer popular votes than the runner-up.[2] It was the fourth election in which the electoral vote winner did not also receive a plurality of the popular vote. Later research showed that by the standards requested by the Gore campaign in their contest brief and set by the Florida Supreme Court, Bush would have won the recount.[3] However, had the Gore campaign asked for a full, statewide recount the same research indicates that Gore would have probably won the recount by about 100 votes statewide, consequently giving him Florida’s electoral votes and victory in the Presidential election.[4][5]”
When we are talking 100 votes (abou the margin of victory of the next to last Davis School parcel tax) to decide who is the president I think voter fraud is a bid deal…
> So, yes, I am more concerned about disenfranchisement
> than about fraud. But that conviction does in no way
> make me a liberal.
You may not be a “Liberal” but to be “more concerned about disisenfranchisement than about fraud” is a liberal view since few conservatives worry about “disisenfranchisement” at all. I’m not a “Conservative” (especically since I use the term “crazy right wing nut jobs” probably more than medwoman) but my view that I’m more concerned about fraud than disisenfranchisement is the “conservative” view on this issue…
[quote] but to be “more concerned about disenfranchisement than about fraud” is a liberal view since few conservatives worry about “disenfranchisement” at all.[/quote]Exactly… conservatives want to maintain the status quo, historically… was Lincoln or Jesus a “conservative”? African Americans/Blacks/whatever were enfranchised in the vote in the 1860’s…then the ‘Southern Democrats’ tried to put impediments to those who wanted to vote. Get your history straight. Have worked polls for more than 20 years in this County, and have seen not one scintilla of attempted fraud.
[quote]especically since I use the term “crazy right wing nut jobs” probably more than medwoman)[/quote]
Certainly so, since I never use the expression at all ……at least not in print ; )
Today most “conservatives” believe that you should “teach a man to fish” (or teach them to call a political party office if they need help voting) while most “liberals” belive that you should take fish from others and give it to the people that can’t be bothered to fish (and let people that can’t be bothered to get a photo ID vote).
Just because hpierce has not seen fraud does not mean it does not happen. I have been going to stores, restaurants and bars for more than 20 years and often pay cash. I have not “see” a scintilla of attempted tax fraud, but I’m pretty sure that more than one business owner “forgot” to report the cash I gave him as income.
I really think this is a losing argument for the Democrats. Like I stated before, 75% of America is for voter ID which includes at least half of the Democrats in that percentage. How many voters have been cheating the system for years? Just because they haven’t been caught as of yet doesn’t mean it isn’t happening. Voter ID will definatelty put a stop to most of this.
“Today most “conservatives” believe that you should “teach a man to fish” (or teach them to call a political party office if they need help voting) while most “liberals” belive that you should take fish from others and give it to the people that can’t be bothered to fish (and let people that can’t be bothered to get a photo ID vote).”
I don’t think either are accurate. I believe most liberals want to teach people to fish but are not willing to let them starve while they are learning. I think some conservatives would prefer that people should learn to fish on their own through the hard knocks of life and then blame people when they have insufficient skills to survive on their own.
I’m not exactly sure what that means with respect to voter ID law.
I think the fundamental issue here is still that it’s a very low level problem and you would actually cause a much larger one to fix it this way. the other examples of use of ID are examples of much larger problems that have or would result from the absence of required ID.
“I really think this is a losing argument for the Democrats.”
We have a lot of bad laws on the books because to go against them was a losing argument. I think that’s a poor argument and frankly I would rather do the right thing that worry about whether some political party wins.
“Like I stated before, 75% of America is for voter ID which includes at least half of the Democrats in that percentage.”
Whether or not that is true, is immaterial as to whether it is the right policy.
“How many voters have been cheating the system for years? Just because they haven’t been caught as of yet doesn’t mean it isn’t happening. Voter ID will definatelty put a stop to most of this. “
But a random sample ought to be able to account for those. To me, the damage done by changing the law is worse than the disease. I have yet to see compelling aggregate level data that shows that voter fraud is anything other than rare and randomly distributed through the system.
In fact, given the low level of voter participation, I wonder why we are having the discussion at all.
That said, if I were to make a suggestion – find a way to fix your concerns about fraud without impacting legitimate participation.
“Starting in March 2013, the federal government will stop mailing paper checks to people receiving Social Security, veterans’ benefits, railroad pensions and federal disability payments.”
“How will benefits recipients now get their money? One option is direct deposit into a checking or savings account, increasingly common these days. If you don’t have such an account, the other option is a debit card known as the Direct Express card.”
“To get a bank account, wouldn’t you need photo identification? I wouldn’t think a bank would just give you an account based on your word. You may not need a photo ID every day, but you needed one to open that account.”
“Your application for a Direct Express card requires you to send a photo copy of three things: A Social Security check or your last SSA-1099; a utility bill less than 60 days old and addressed to you at your current address; and — shazam — a “valid, government-issued photo identification.”
To get an SS card or to receive your benies you need a photo ID.
It is interesting to me that it seems to me that it is mostly those who want less laws and less government interference in their lives that seem to be the most adamant about favoring this particular law. Our democracy seems to have done very well, in fact exceptionally well, also according to these folks for many, many years. So, I can’t help but wonder, why now given that these same folks seem to feel that we live in by far the best nation on earth, would we need to impose a law that has not been deemed necessary until now. Could it possibly have anything at all to do with sensing a potential advantage in a very tight election ?
[i]It is interesting to me that it seems to me that it is mostly those who want less laws and less government interference in their lives that seem to be the most adamant about favoring this particular law.[/i]
It is a case of personal freedom and personal responsibility, not just a desire for fewer laws. Laws to prevent illicit, immoral and unethical behavior are supported by conservatives. It is the laws and regulations that attempt to manipulate and engineer society that we object to.
Laws to prevent voter fraud are fine because they protect our freedom to vote and have our vote count. One fraudulent vote is too much because it damages trust in the democratic system.
“Laws to prevent illicit, immoral and unethical behavior are supported by conservatives. It is the laws and regulations that attempt to manipulate and engineer society that we object to.”
Seems to me that’s a distinction without a difference and a bit of the eye of the beholder.
“Laws to prevent illicit, immoral and unethical behavior are supported by conservatives. It is the laws and regulations that attempt to manipulate and engineer society that we object to.”
The problem is, as David seems to be alluding to, is that there is not universal agreement about which actions are illicit, immoral and unethical.
It would seem that the following laws do not seem to you as attempts to manipulate and engineer society:
1) Making it more difficult for a population that has voted without picture IDs for generations, who some of the poll workers probably know by name, to vote.
2) Making it impossible for an entire group of citizens to not serve in the military because of whom they choose
to sleep with.
3) Making it legal to discriminate against individuals such as having those they consider to be their family be
present at births, post operative recovery and at the time of death because under law they are defined as
“not married” because they have the same chromosomal make up?
4) Determining what procedure a woman must undergo if she happens to be pregnant.
5) Taking away preventive health services legally obtained by a number of underserved women.
None of this sounds like social manipulation to you ? It most certainly does to me.
[i]None of this sounds like social manipulation to you ? It most certainly does to me.[/i]
1. Preventing voter fraud is not manipulating society unless you support voter fraud as being part of the society you value. I think I can speak for most conservative to say that they do not. People having problems getting an ID can be helped.
2. This issue is much more complicated because of the military ethos and structures for reducing the human distractions caused by sex and sexuality. Men and women who serve are generally separated for this reason. For many conservatives – including me – I am very concerned about these changes causing greater policy, planning and logistics complexity. The military does not need these distractions. It already has the most difficult job on the planet. Don’t ask don’t tell eliminated the military being responsible, and put it on the soldier. Now it is out in the open, and frankly it is causing quite a few problems according to military people I talk to.
3. Nice try medwoman. Gay marriage is the epitome of top-down social engineering. Civil unions with equal rights should be fine and they would prevent the culture war over this. It should be ok being separate but equal. No material harm is caused by this. Demanding it is NOT social engineering… it is to PREVENT society to be engineered into one where gay and straight parenting is considered same and equal. They are not. They will never be. And laws to force society to change in this way are rejected by conservatives.
4. Women can get an abortion. Many conservatives don’t have a problem with that. The religious right does have a problem for moral reasons; but they are a subset of conservatives. However, they have been around with this view for a lot longer than liberal progressives have been demanding that abortion be available as another birth control option. So if we are going to argue social engineering, it is liberal progressives demanding that we change society to their liking. I abhor the position for both extremes for this issue. Forcing a woman to have to deliver a baby conceived from rape – although rare – is something a very small minority of bible thumpers support. However, to just throw up our hands and say that abortion is JUST an issue between a woman and her doctor misses a very fundamental moral dilemma that we SHOULD debate. Frankly, I support abortion only as long as the moral arguments are out there for the woman to think about.
5. I really don’t know what you are talking about here. If you are talking about Obamacare, we cannot afford it, and there are other ways to improve the access and affordability of preventative health care, while we also reduce the numbers of “under-served” people as you like to call them. But in terms of social engineering… Obamacare is the biggest example of it next to gay marriage.
My number 5 was a reference to the Romney pledge to do away with Planned Parenthood. This goal if achieved would effectively gut preventative health care services to many women who depend upon Planned Parenthood for their mammogram, immunizations and Pap smears.
And again, we will just have to agree to disagree on all of the above points.
JB: [i]5. I really don’t know what you are talking about here. If you are talking about Obamacare, we cannot afford it, and there are other ways to improve the access and affordability of preventative health care, while we also reduce the numbers of “under-served” people as you like to call them. But in terms of social engineering… Obamacare is the biggest example of it next to gay marriage.[/i]
Mitt Romney ‘Not Getting Rid of All of Health Care Reform’ ([url]http://news.yahoo.com/mitt-romney-not-getting-rid-health-care-reform-234959138.html[/url])
It seems like your candidate is backsliding.
JB: [i]But in terms of social engineering… Obamacare is the biggest example of it next to gay marriage.[/i]
By the way, the flipside to that is society has done its own form of social engineering by declaring that homosexuality is unnatural.
And how Obamacare social engineering? (A) We already have government health care programs for seniors (Medicare) and poor people (Medicaid). This simply expands that coverage. (B) It simply sifts coverage from private health care provides to some public health care providers. I think you need to more clearly define your use of the term “social engineering” if you wish to use it here because it’s not immediately evidence that what you are describing is.
wdf: [url]http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/09/mitt-romney-obamacare-preexisting-condition.php?ref=fpnewsfeed[/url]
He will, he won’t, he will — with this guy, who knows?
wdf1: [i]By the way, the flipside to that is society has done its own form of social engineering by declaring that homosexuality is unnatural. [/i]
David: [i]And how Obamacare social engineering?[/i]
I’m talking about political social engineering. That is, using political power to accelerate the transformation of some existing aspect of society.
As to wdf1’s point, homosexuality has historically been considered unnatural by the majority of Americans. Right or wrong this has been the social norm. Our civil rights laws cover discrimination and hate… basically those things that are materially harmful to gays. But beyond this protection from material harm is a bunch of social engineering to force society to mainstream homosexuality… if fact I would argue that those exploiting political power to get their way on gay rights will not stop until gays have achieved what feels like a superior position of social status over certain people and groups they feel rejected by.
Obamacare is political social engineering, just like the Community Reinvestment Act is social engineering. Both are attempting to transform society by directly manipulating and subverting large sections of the US economy.
There is a subtle but profound difference in approach for how right-leaning and left-leaning politicians seek to improve some aspect of society. Left-leaners have a general view that people are largely incapable of caring for themselves in a competitive environment, and that economic Darwinism will result in the alpha personalities succeeding at the expense of a larger group of beta “victims”. Right-leaners have a general view that all people are relatively equal in their potential to strive and improve (e.g. beta personalities can transform themselves to alpha, or otherwise learn to have a good American life while maintaining their beta tendencies), and that society is better off transforming organically. Left-leaners are impatient and think they know better… they don’t have a problem pushing their social agenda on others. Right-leaners – if they support any government involvement in transforming aspects of society – prefer that this is done organically through incentives of individual choice.
I went to see Obama 2016 Saturday with my wife, and both of us are now much more disturbed about our President. In terms of social engineering, the thesis of this movie and the previous book are that Barak Obama is not only interested in engineering our domestic society, but his view is global and his intention is to frankly punish America for previous colonialism and imperialism (although the US is not imperialistic and never has been). Barak Obama is leading the effort to reduce the alpha tendencies of America on the global stage. The lessons he learned in Kenya and Hawaii combined with his communist father, collectivist college professors and mentors, and his socialist mother… when combining all of this with his words and actions over the last four years… it is all very frightening. It is not just social engineering, it is global engineering… the intent is to remake the US into a more passive and less influential power… to reduce our economic might and reach to exploit global resources.
Contributing to this goal is Obama’s march to diminish our free market capitalism system that creates and rewards alpha personalities. Obama wants to level the playing field to move the US to be more like Kenya… ostensibly because he believes that with the US less able to exploit the natural resources of Kenya, that country, and others like it at the bottom of the economic ladder, would be able to make a better life for their people. Or, with America so diminished, Kenya and other third-world countries would at least feel better by comparison.
I now see Obama as a much greater threat to this country. If he is re-elected we will double-down on social engineering to ensure America is greatly diminished on the global stage.
Democrat oposition to voter ID will just assist him in this ultimate goal.
Well, Dinesh D’Souza does have a BA in English, so I’d say he’s highly qualified to psychoanalyze President Obama and assess his motives and values.
My favorite D’Souza quote: “[i]The cultural left in this country is responsible for causing 9/11 … the cultural left and its allies in Congress, the media, Hollywood, the non-profit sector and the universities are the primary cause of the volcano of anger toward America that is erupting from the Islamic world.”[/i]
Yep, I’d sure believe him as a knowledgeable, credible analyst of world affairs and a shrewd judge of human character.
Don, you slip into that method of character assassination for someone you disagree with as easy as a beach bum puts on his flip flops.
Did you see the movie?
Did you read the book?
Come on now, I watched Algore’s movie even though he is not a climate scientist and spews more pollution in the air than 100 normal Americans.
Go see the movie. The interview he did with Obama’s half-brother was/is extremely interesting and telling. It is worth going to see the movie if just for that.
No. No. And no. He won’t be getting any of my money. I might add it to my Netflix queue at some point.
I’ve read his thesis, which was promulgated heavily by Newt Gingrich during the campaign. It’s garbage.
I wasn’t a fan of Inconvenient Truth, either, because it required considerable fact-checking and didn’t hold up on many counts in that regard.
Voter ID laws meet the judges: [url]http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/08/in-south-carolina-shockingly-candid-talk-about-voter-discrimination/261760/#.UE4rPXPzPag.facebook[/url]
In Texas, voter fraud abounds: [url]http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/story/2012-03-19/voter-ID-Texas-fraud/53658158/1[/url]
Evidence of Obama’s agenda to weaken Amerika?
[quote]At the tail end of his 90 minute meeting with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev Monday, President Obama said that he would have “more flexibility” to deal with controversial issues such as missile defense, but incoming Russian President Vladimir Putin needs to give him “space.”
The exchange was picked up by microphones as reporters were let into the room for remarks by the two leaders.[/quote]
Vote fraud news: [url]http://www.rnla.org/votefraud.asp[/url]
By the way, since rusty started a thread about D’Souza’s movie on the bulletin board, you might want to add your thoughts there: [url]https://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_kunena&func=view&catid=2&id=783&Itemid=192[/url]
There does seem to be plenty of evidence of vote fraud.
See [url]http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/politics/bs-md-wendy-rosen-withdraws-20120910,0,3764352.story[/url] for an example that came out today. Vote fraud by a Dem congressional candidate!
It seems to me that the reason the Democrats oppose voter ID this is simply that vote fraud nets them votes.
[i]It seems to me that the reason the Democrats oppose voter ID this is simply that vote fraud nets them votes.[/i]
J.R., I think you are correct. I also think there are some Republicans that support voter ID because they think it will reduce the votes Democrats would get.
However, the justification for voter ID superceeds both of these motivations. It is about having trust in our voting system. One of the biggest turn-offs for voters is thinking that their vote does not count. If there is a risk that any votes could be canceled out from fraud we should at least demonstrate actions to prevent this from happening.
[quote]True The Vote, a national voter fraud watchdog group, announced Tuesday that preliminary research findings show evidence of 31 cases of absentee ballot fraud in New York and Florida. The organization’s president says it is just the “tip of the iceberg” when it comes to voter fraud in the United States.[/quote]
[url]http://www.theblaze.com/stories/voter-watchdog-group-says-it-found-31-cases-of-absentee-ballot-fraud-in-florida-ny-tip-of-the-iceberg/[/url]