What is so evil about requiring id to vote?

[airdvr 198]

jcd11235

*********So without doing the math it looks like roughly 40% of the population doesn't bother to vote...at least not in the Presidential election. Where is the cry from the left about that 40% being disenfranchised?

Choosing not to vote is not the same as being disenfranchised.

What makes you so sure?

Primarily the definition of disenfranchise.

So there is no problem with the 40%...you're absolutely sure of it.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[jcd11235 0]

airdvr

************So without doing the math it looks like roughly 40% of the population doesn't bother to vote...at least not in the Presidential election. Where is the cry from the left about that 40% being disenfranchised?

Choosing not to vote is not the same as being disenfranchised.

What makes you so sure?

Primarily the definition of disenfranchise.

So there is no problem with the 40%...you're absolutely sure of it.

What I said was choosing not to vote is not the same as being disenfranchised.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[AndyBoyd 0]

This is quite a long thread. I've read most of it, and if this has been cited before and I missed it, my apologies. This is a link to an article summarizing 7th Circuit Judge Posner's take on voter ID laws. Posner is a staunch conservative, appointed to the bench by Ronald Reagan.

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-why-voter-id-laws-are-evil-20141013-column.html#page=1

Here's a highlight of the article:

"There is only one motivation for imposing burdens on voting that are ostensibly designed to discourage voter-impersonation fraud," he writes, "and that is to discourage voting by persons likely to vote against the party responsible for imposing the burdens." More specifically, he observes, photo ID laws are "highly correlated with a state's having a Republican governor and Republican control of the legislature and appear to be aimed at limiting voting by minorities, particularly blacks." In Wisconsin, according to evidence presented at trial, the voter ID law would disenfranchise 300,000 residents, or 9% of registered voters.

So Wisconsin is willing to take the right to vote away from 300,000 people, nearly 10% of its population, to combat a non-existent problem, when the real motive is to limit the ability of minorities, especially blacks, to vote. That is evil in my book, and in the view of Judge Posner, a Reagan conservative.

[kallend 1,644]

AndyBoyd

This is quite a long thread. I've read most of it, and if this has been cited before and I missed it, my apologies. This is a link to an article summarizing 7th Circuit Judge Posner's take on voter ID laws. Posner is a staunch conservative, appointed to the bench by Ronald Reagan.

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-why-voter-id-laws-are-evil-20141013-column.html#page=1

Here's a highlight of the article:

"There is only one motivation for imposing burdens on voting that are ostensibly designed to discourage voter-impersonation fraud," he writes, "and that is to discourage voting by persons likely to vote against the party responsible for imposing the burdens." More specifically, he observes, photo ID laws are "highly correlated with a state's having a Republican governor and Republican control of the legislature and appear to be aimed at limiting voting by minorities, particularly blacks." In Wisconsin, according to evidence presented at trial, the voter ID law would disenfranchise 300,000 residents, or 9% of registered voters.

So Wisconsin is willing to take the right to vote away from 300,000 people, nearly 10% of its population, to combat a non-existent problem, when the real motive is to limit the ability of minorities, especially blacks, to vote. That is evil in my book, and in the view of Judge Posner, a Reagan conservative.

Judge Posner tells it like it is. He also wrote the scathing criticism of the Indiana and Wisconsin briefs submitted in support of their (now overturned) bans on gay marriage. He may be conservative but clearly he has no time for GOP hypocrites.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[regulator 0]

Last time I checked you don't have to even have a drivers license in Texas to have an Id. If someone can't provide even that much identification they don't deserve to vote. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

[jakee 1,257]

regulator

Last time I checked you don't have to even have a drivers license in Texas to have an Id. If someone can't provide even that much identification they don't deserve to vote. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

Oh please don't think we disagree with you because we don't understand your opinion. It's because we think your opinion is wrong.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Andy9o8 0]

regulator

Last time I checked you don't have to even have a drivers license in Texas to have an Id. If someone can't provide even that much identification they don't deserve to vote. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

Why is the crushing weight of the preceding 100+ posts, judicial opinions and law review articles so difficult for you to understand?

http://blog.contagiouscompanies.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/lalalala-listening.jpg

[GeorgiaDon 340]

regulator

Last time I checked you don't have to even have a drivers license in Texas to have an Id. If someone can't provide even that much identification they don't deserve to vote. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

Last time I checked you don't have to even have to prove you can hit the broad side of a barn door to buy a gun in Georgia. If someone can't prove even that much proficiency they don't deserve to own a gun. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[cvfd1399 0]

Quote

Last time I checked, buying pseudo ephedrine was not a Constitutional right.

Last time I checked, voting was a Constitutional right.

Last time I checked the right to keep and bear arms was a Constitutional right, and it is subject to extreme id requirements.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.atf.gov%2Ffiles%2Fforms%2Fdownload%2Fatf-f-4473-1.pdf&ei=9DU9VNLnM-qK8QHopoC4Dw&usg=AFQjCNGXga8TQE_MZSZMz8-3KRO2PoEvgQ&bvm=bv.77161500,d.b2U&cad=rja

Please see box 20a. 20b.

So why are you not in outrage that an undue hardship of providing an id to obtain an instrument guaranteed by constitutional right is being placed upon Americans? Ooh thats right its because you are scared of one, and the other is a tool to provide votes for your party.

[rhaig 0]

jcd11235

***Which is worse: a false vote, or a denied vote?

I would argue that a denied vote is worse.

The Constitution provides for standards that, if met, guarantee one's right to vote. It does not, however, require that these be minimum standards to be allowed to vote.

For example, the 26th Amendment does not require one to be eighteen years of age to vote, but rather guarantees that no citizen who reaches the age of eighteen shall be deprived of the right to vote. If a state wanted to allow sixteen and seventeen year-old to vote, the Constitution does not prohibit such a standard.

I agree. I also believe that we should find a way to not deprive anyone of their legal right to vote while at the same time securing the voting system.

I've not heard one liberal suggest that alternative. That would lead me to believe that they don't want the voting system secured and are ok with the (albeit minimal) fraud that is happening currently.

--
Rob

[Andy9o8 0]

rhaig

******Which is worse: a false vote, or a denied vote?

I would argue that a denied vote is worse.

The Constitution provides for standards that, if met, guarantee one's right to vote. It does not, however, require that these be minimum standards to be allowed to vote.

For example, the 26th Amendment does not require one to be eighteen years of age to vote, but rather guarantees that no citizen who reaches the age of eighteen shall be deprived of the right to vote. If a state wanted to allow sixteen and seventeen year-old to vote, the Constitution does not prohibit such a standard.

I agree. I also believe that we should find a way to not deprive anyone of their legal right to vote while at the same time securing the voting system.

I've not heard one liberal suggest that alternative. That would lead me to believe that they don't want the voting system secured and are ok with the (albeit minimal) fraud that is happening currently.

Then you're ignoring what's been repeatedly said in this thread. "Voter fraud requiring better ID" is a manufactured issue. It doesn't genuinely exist in reality. It does worse than simply "solve the possibility of a problem" - the kind of "new laws" that conservatives love to rail against. But worse, it's a deliberate cover for the true agenda, which is a partisan attempt to reduce the voting population of the ideological opponents. Every time you parrot the bullshit slogan of "securing the voting system", you're just doing what your programmers have programmed you to say. I see no reason why liberals, or even moderates (believe it or not, they do exist) should buy into the game to suggest "solutions" to a non-problem.

Think, man - you guys are being played, and you're being used. Have some dignity and Just Say No.

[champu 1]

GeorgiaDon

If a million legitimate votes are cast, and one is fraudulent, that fraudulent one negates 1/1,000,000th of my vote. If I am denied the right to vote, 100% of my vote is removed.

Meh... not the best of your arguments in this thread.

In your example the fraudulent vote removes 1/1,000,000th of one million peoples' votes, not just yours. The overall damage from a single instance of each is on par. I know people like to think of their vote as a personal unique snowflake or whatever, but it really just is about the amount of accumulation. That still makes the imbalance between people who would be denied vs. people who would be stopped from committing fraud heavily favor not enacting voter ID requirements though.

More generally I also prefer to error on the side of government inaction rather than government action when it comes to problem solving. A given quantity of damage done by the government because they did a crap job at trying to fix a problem is fundamentally worse than that same amount of damage allowed by the government because they did nothing.

[kallend 1,644]

regulator

Last time I checked you don't have to even have a drivers license in Texas to have an Id. If someone can't provide even that much identification they don't deserve to vote. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

Wrong. Citizens deserve to vote by virtue of being citizens.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[cvfd1399 0]

Quote

Think, man - you guys are being played, and you're being used. Have some dignity and Just Say No.

You are right we are being played, by the LEFT, and we are saying NO.

I will state again. I WANT EVERY LEGAL AMERICAN TO VOTE LEGALLY, and would support EVERY program that would allow someone to do that. Including providing transportation and free assistance to gather the needed LEGAL documents.

Latino illegal immigrants would vote Democratic at an eight-to-one margin.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/07/22/are-unauthorized-immigrants-overwhelmingly-democrats/

Proposed benefits for illegal immigrants
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=proposed+benefits+to+illegal+aliens


Commission on Federal Election Reform report in 2005 even agreed with ID requirements, and stated that voter fraud is not wide spread, but it ultimately exists, and could alter the outcome of a close election and needs to be addressed. It also identified the difficulty in tracking down illegal voter fraud, and stated absentee ballots as the most easily done form of illegal voting See section 2.5, and basically the whole document. With the MASS increase in illegal immigration since 2005 the probability has risen.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.eac.gov%2Fassets%2F1%2FAssetManager%2FExhibit%2520M.PDF&ei=N0I9VL3qDMK48QHNo4HwDQ&usg=AFQjCNHTv09qyxi3hbJG4D7UkKD2xmLALg&bvm=bv.77161500,d.b2U&cad=rja

When there is a reason and a way it will happen.
The left is trying every thing they can to enable the illegal voting process to take off, and preventing every avenue to secure the current process from voter fraud no matter the way it occurs.

[kallend 1,644]

cvfd1399

Quote

Last time I checked, buying pseudo ephedrine was not a Constitutional right.

Last time I checked, voting was a Constitutional right.

Last time I checked the right to keep and bear arms was a Constitutional right, and it is subject to extreme id requirements.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.atf.gov%2Ffiles%2Fforms%2Fdownload%2Fatf-f-4473-1.pdf&ei=9DU9VNLnM-qK8QHopoC4Dw&usg=AFQjCNGXga8TQE_MZSZMz8-3KRO2PoEvgQ&bvm=bv.77161500,d.b2U&cad=rja

Please see box 20a. 20b.

So why are you not in outrage that an undue hardship of providing an id to obtain an instrument guaranteed by constitutional right is being placed upon Americans? Ooh thats right its because you are scared of one, and the other is a tool to provide votes for your party.

I don't have a party.

There isn't an "anti-hypocrite and anti-ignorance" party. (Dems are as close as it gets nationally, though, but as a Chicagoan I would vote AGAINST the Dems in a city/county election.)

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[cvfd1399 0]

Quote

Then you're ignoring what's been repeatedly said in this thread. "Voter fraud requiring better ID" is a manufactured issue.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.eac.gov%2Fassets%2F1%2FAssetManager%2FExhibit%2520M.PDF&ei=N0I9VL3qDMK48QHNo4HwDQ&usg=AFQjCNHTv09qyxi3hbJG4D7UkKD2xmLALg&bvm=bv.77161500,d.b2U&cad=rja

The report from the Commission On Federal Election Reform disagrees with you. Please see the entire section of 2.5

[cvfd1399 0]

Quote

cvfd1399 wrote:
Quote:
Last time I checked, buying pseudo ephedrine was not a Constitutional right.

Last time I checked, voting was a Constitutional right.

Last time I checked the right to keep and bear arms was a Constitutional right, and it is subject to extreme id requirements.

https://www.google.com/...00,d.b2U&cad=rja

Please see box 20a. 20b.

So why are you not in outrage that an undue hardship of providing an id to obtain an instrument guaranteed by constitutional right is being placed upon Americans? Ooh thats right its because you are scared of one, and the other is a tool to provide votes for your party.

I don't have a party.

There isn't an "anti-hypocrite and anti-ignorance" party. (Dems are as close as it gets nationally, though, but as a Chicagoan I would vote AGAINST the Dems in a city/county election.)

Fair enough, I am also the same and am not a republican. I recognize your right to not be identified as such if you recognize my choice to not be called a Repub/GOP.

Now that is out of the way, care to address the heart of the post where I pointed out a constitutional amendment that requires ID.

[muff528 3]

AndyBoyd

This is quite a long thread. I've read most of it, and if this has been cited before and I missed it, my apologies. This is a link to an article summarizing 7th Circuit Judge Posner's take on voter ID laws. Posner is a staunch conservative, appointed to the bench by Ronald Reagan.

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-why-voter-id-laws-are-evil-20141013-column.html#page=1

Here's a highlight of the article:

"There is only one motivation for imposing burdens on voting that are ostensibly designed to discourage voter-impersonation fraud," he writes, "and that is to discourage voting by persons likely to vote against the party responsible for imposing the burdens." More specifically, he observes, photo ID laws are "highly correlated with a state's having a Republican governor and Republican control of the legislature and appear to be aimed at limiting voting by minorities, particularly blacks." In Wisconsin, according to evidence presented at trial, the voter ID law would disenfranchise 300,000 residents, or 9% of registered voters.

So Wisconsin is willing to take the right to vote away from 300,000 people, nearly 10% of its population, to combat a non-existent problem, when the real motive is to limit the ability of minorities, especially blacks, to vote. That is evil in my book, and in the view of Judge Posner, a Reagan conservative.

First, the article, itself, is hardly objective. It is written by a partisan hack writer in a hack newspaper and is written in unapologetically one-sided, inflammatory terms. His highly opinionated, derisive language and his "philosophical" bent are likely invisible to those who share his opinions because it attacks "the bad guys" who, as everyone in their world knows, are inherently evil in their motives which, to their targeted, like-minded readers, are clear and obvious. It is presented as "news" in the business section of that issue ...not in the editorials (or on the editorial floor) where this article clearly belongs. So much for journalistic integrity and objectivity. Even Fox distinguishes between its News and Editorial content, as anyone who pays any attention can clearly see. (this includes shows like O'Reilly, Hannity and other right-wing commentary which even the most uninformed, casual viewer should be able to recognize as "opinion pieces"). IMO, there is always some editorializing of the actual news by all outlets, whether in choosing which news to run or in how to present a story. ...but none so blatant as e.g.; LA Times, NY Times, MSNBC, CNN, and others. I have no problem with any editorial commentary placed into the "editorial" section no matter how partisan or slanted.

As far as the content of the article, particularly your highlighted paragraph, Posner intentionally fails to consider the other side of the equation. Obviously, as Posner "observes", if Side A advances a restrictive measure to "ostensibly" inhibit or discourage an illegal activity which happens to be regarded as harmful to them and favorable to Side B, then of course there would be "high correlation" of those measures in states controlled by Side A than in those controlled by Side B. Even an idiot should be able to see that point. You don't have to be a lawyer or a judge. He regards this "enlightened" observation as "evidence" of nefarious motives by the Repubs. The rest of his "observation", the motives themselves ("...appear to be aimed at limiting voting by minorities, particularly blacks"), is nothing but BS political propaganda and is in lock-step with the Dems long-orchestrated and carefully nurtured, racist characature of their political adversaries. But conversely, the judge does not address the "observation" that these same measures are vehemently opposed by states controlled by Dems, and he makes no further mention of any "motive" that might drive that opposition. The flip-side is that if Dems are adamantly opposed to those same measures, then it might be said that their rabid opposition to those "ostensibly" burdensome rules is really to mask illegal activity that is favorable to them, and more importantly, to quash any "thing" that might reveal that criminal activity. They then, after eliminating or suppressing, or not enforcing any laws or procedures that might reveal their unlawful shenanigans, challenge their opponents to provide "proof" of wrongdoing and further claim that any support of those measures is grounded in racism (providing the race-baiting smackdown that their sychophants like see.) That is, of course, intended to silence any further talk of voter integrity and to marginalize and demonize anyone who disagrees with their "position". So, Justice Posner, ....you call me a racist, I call you a partisan hack. It is you who is prejudiced. Not a good quality for a judge.

Who appointed Posner is irrelevant. Bush appointed Roberts and he handed over the largest chunk of the economy ever ceded to the US government. The article states that Posner was opposed by 5 justices, "ostensibly" equal in stature for rehearing the case that was previously upheld by a panel of 3 other judges. So his opinion carries no more or no less weight than any other of those judges. Only after the Wisconsin law was overturned by an already-proven partisan Supreme Court did he claim some self-righteous victory.

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Quote

In your example the fraudulent vote removes 1/1,000,000th of one million peoples' votes, not just yours.

That's true.

What I was trying to anticipate and counter was the argument that one fraudulent vote wipes out my legitimate one, which is often raised by those in favor of enhanced barriers to voting. As you say, people like to think of their vote as a "personal unique snowflake" [I quite like that analogy BTW] but there is no reason to assume the one "bad" vote somehow singles out a specific "good" vote and cancels just that one.

I think we agree that a very low percentage (less than 0.02% of the total, judging by the number of charges and convictions) of fraudulent votes does much less to offset my legitimate vote, than denying me the right to vote altogether would do.

It's galling, but some problems may not be cost effective to tackle, if the inevitable result is worse damage.

If a solution to the issue is necessary, it's more likely to be found in more rigorous documentation at the registration end, and possibly some tightening up with regard to drivers licenses. I was able to register to vote without being asked for proof of citizenship, although I did have it with me. My son was registered without his knowledge when he got his drivers license, as a result of the DMV clerk clicking the wrong box on the "motor voter" question. This created a lot of hassle, and eventually cost me over $500 to sort out when it screwed up his application for naturalized citizenship. Also, when I moved from one county to a neighboring county and changed the address on my drivers license I was allowed to keep my old license, so for a while I had perfectly good ID that would have allowed me to vote in two different counties. These seem like problem areas that could be addressed without denying legitimate voters their rights.

However, much of the alleged fraud seems to involve absentee ballots, and it's hard to see how that could be tightened up a lot without implementing barriers even worse than photo IDS, such as having to have the ballots notarized.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[kallend 1,644]

cvfd1399

Quote

cvfd1399 wrote:
Quote:
Last time I checked, buying pseudo ephedrine was not a Constitutional right.

Last time I checked, voting was a Constitutional right.

Last time I checked the right to keep and bear arms was a Constitutional right, and it is subject to extreme id requirements.

https://www.google.com/...00,d.b2U&cad=rja

Please see box 20a. 20b.

So why are you not in outrage that an undue hardship of providing an id to obtain an instrument guaranteed by constitutional right is being placed upon Americans? Ooh thats right its because you are scared of one, and the other is a tool to provide votes for your party.

I don't have a party.

There isn't an "anti-hypocrite and anti-ignorance" party. (Dems are as close as it gets nationally, though, but as a Chicagoan I would vote AGAINST the Dems in a city/county election.)

Fair enough, I am also the same and am not a republican. I recognize your right to not be identified as such if you recognize my choice to not be called a Repub/GOP.

Now that is out of the way, care to address the heart of the post where I pointed out a constitutional amendment that requires ID.

Yes, the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution and its amendments, not you. From Heller (2008): " Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[cvfd1399 0]

Quote

" Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."

That was in reference to the types of weapons such as SBR, AUTOMATIC etc. cant just be owned by anyone, and the ways of carry CCW etc. whats your point?

That does not address the fact that its still a constitutional right that requires extensive ID doccuments to enjoy.

[wmw999 2,146]

Quote

a constitutional right that requires extensive ID doccuments to enjoy.

Well, unless you're talking about a private sale (regardless of the venue), or actually shooting the weapon (it hasn't required ID when I've gone to the range if I remember rightly). Surely shooting the gun is part of the enjoyment.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

I agree. I also believe that we should find a way to not deprive anyone of their legal right to vote while at the same time securing the voting system.

I've not heard one liberal suggest that alternative.

Because until you suggest a way to do it, it's not an alternative.

Like I said to the other guy - what you have is a desired result, not a plan.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[champu 1]

The second amendment doesn't say anything about shooting.

More importantly though, the problem of people who are ineligible to own a firearm legally being able to purchase firearms doesn't stack up well against the problem of people who are ineligible to vote (whether it's because they aren't citizens or because they already voted) being able to vote. This is true both in terms of quantity of instances and in terms of how well it is actually curbed by having to furnish ID.

As I said about 100 posts ago in this thread, I think requiring ID to vote in order to stop voter fraud can be better compared to banning magazines that hold over ten rounds (or a whole host of other firearms laws out there) in order to stop gun violence. People just end up using their imagination rather than any sort of real-world data to agree with and argue on behalf of something that was not conceived in good faith

[cvfd1399 0]

Quote

Well, unless you're talking about a private sale (regardless of the venue), or actually shooting the weapon (it hasn't required ID when I've gone to the range if I remember rightly). Surely shooting the gun is part of the enjoyment.

To buy a firearm at anywhere other than the back of a pickup truck you must fill out a federal form 4473 which requires ID. This includes walmart, bass pro, cabelas, any other mom and pop gun store, private ffl dealer or pawn shop.

The private range in my town requires ID.
http://www.precisionfirearm.com/
Feel free to call and ask

Further, the public ranges at the national wildlife areas require you to have have a basic hunting, or fishing license to use the range....Care to ask what they want to see when getting one of those? Yep ID