Imagine

>> Thursday, October 27, 2011

"Our great democracies still tend to think that a stupid man is more likely to be honest than a clever man." ~ Bertrand Russell

Over at fellow blogger Marshall Art's place, a comment thread is steadily growing over what would seem to most reasonable, logical people to be a logical, common sense measure that would insure only eligible, legally registered voters would, in fact, be able to vote in elections.

Art (and I agree) has posited that a simple and nearly effortless requirement of presenting a legal photo ID would help prevent voter fraud.

Apparently, some of Art's resident Liberal's argument against this is a rather illogical supposition that the requirement of Photo ID's would somehow intimidate and/or discourage those legal voters who want to vote from doing so.

I say "apparently" because the whole thing seems rather cut and dried to me. I fail to see any logic in allowing just anyone who wants to show up and vote to do so without asking any proof beyond their word, that they are legally registered and eligible.

Incidentally, recently I noticed a television ad for Wal-Mart which states that shoppers are no longer required to show proof that some other retail outlet in town is offering items at lower prices than Walmart in order to get Wal-Mart to "match the price". Formerly, if a shopper wanted Wal-Mart to match the price of some other retail outlet, they were required to bring in an advertisement which proved the other outlet was indeed selling the item at a lower price.

Now, all they have to do is state that the item is being offered at a lower price than Wal-Mart to get a lower price.

No proof is required.

Apparently, Wal-Mart doesn't consider the possibility that some unscrupulous shoppers might actually lie about lower prices just to get a lower price from Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart employees are expected to simply take the shopper's word for it. If one doesn't see a potential disaster in that practice, one would have to be incredibly naive.

This is the exact same reason that not requiring proof of eligibility to vote is a horrifically bad idea.

Perhaps, in the 1950's we could be safe in assuming we could trust someone's word, but that era has long since passed.

Admittedly, it's unfortunate that we have regressed to the point that we can no longer trust our neighbors, and I wish it were not so, but the fact is, we can't. And, that is why we need to require proof of eligibility.

My own resident Liberal, Jim, according to his comments, doesn't seem to believe any ineligible people would even consider trying to commit voter fraud. I find this thinking naive at best, and dangerous at worst. The idea that you can trust people, especially people who have a vested interest in pivotal issues that directly affect election outcomes, to refrain from attempting voter fraud, is unbelievably naive.

So, I offer this example of why requiring proof of voter eligibility is crucial to preventing voter fraud:

Hey, we're eligible. I promise!

Imagine I'm an illegal alien, and imagine I have been following the "illegal immigration debate" and I want full amnesty for my 1,000 or so brothers, sisters, mothers, mothers-in-law, fathers, fathers-in-law, uncles, aunts, cousins, and my friends and their friends so they can enter this country and take advantage of all those free hand-outs that the legal U.S. Citizens pay for with their taxes extracted from their hard earned money.

And, imagine me (as an illegal alien) being able to vote for every politician who has promised to grant amnesty to anyone who wants to immigrate to this country regardless of criminal history and/or highly contagious medical conditions, etc, because there is no way to ascertain whether or not I am legally eligible to vote.

So now, with no requirement to insure ineligible people don't vote, I and my 1000's of illegal alien relatives and friends, who share the same vested interest in the outcome of the election as I do, have effectively defeated the candidate who would have enforced the immigration laws, and installed a pro-illegal alien candidate in office.

Is this what the Liberals really want for our country?

It is my opinion that unbridled and unchecked amnesty for illegal aliens would quickly cause the degeneration of this country into third world status. Not to mention the drug cartels and Islamic Jihad terrorists flowing unstopped into our country, and wreaking their own brand of havoc.

All because of simply removing all requirements to show proof of eligibility to vote.

Can anyone think of an easier way to accomplish this task?

27 comments:

ELAshley October 27, 2011 at 8:20 AM  

"Is this what the Liberals really want for our country?"

Yes, it is. What they really want is an oligarchy. They'd keep democrats in control of all three branches in perpetuity, if they could. They'd bankrupt this nation... kill it outright. They don't want freedom, they want government handouts... they want slavery.

Forget the truth! Their brains can't handle, let alone grasp, LOGIC!

lady di October 27, 2011 at 9:54 AM  

Yes, you are correct, and no "empire" lasts forever. Many more takers than givers to last for much longer.

BenT - the unbeliever,  October 27, 2011 at 9:55 AM  

Imagine is certainly the right title for this post, because there has NEVER been ANY proven cases of wide-spread voter impersonation or fraud to overturn an election.

Never any thousands of people voting illegally! Never even hundreds of people voting illegally! NEVER EVEN TENS OF PEOPLE VOTING TOGETHER ILLEGALLY! Your whole fear scenario rests in your imagination.

Because for your idea to be true then your fictitious horde would have to know the names of a thousand people on the voter registration lists that were sure not to later show up a the polls.

...You forgot voter registration lists didn't you? And you couldn't have an extra thousand show up at just one poll. You'd have to bus groups of twenty-fifty to all the polling stations to evenly distribute your imaginary conspiracy. And if we're talking about more than a city election then you'd need about 10,000 fake votes not just 1,000.

…In 2008, more than six million Pennsylvanians went to the polls for the presidential election, and only four were charged with misrepresentation.

So why did the House State Government Committee recently approve a bill to require photo ID of Pennsylvania voters, a program that would cost more than $11 million to initiate and millions more to run each year?


Are you starting to see how ludicrous your end of democracy fantasy is?


What has been proven is that tens of real-life seniors who don't drive often let their licenses expire and inner city dwellers who use public transportation, and college students don't have photo-IDs. These are real cases and real people, who become ineligible to vote.

Twenty-five percent of African American voters do not have a valid government-issued photo ID, compared with 8 percent of whites, according to a study by the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University Law School. The report also found that 15 percent of voters earning less than $35,000 per year do not have such an ID.

And that certainly is enough to sway an election.

"I don’t want everybody to vote," Paul Weyrich, co-founder of the Heritage Foundation and the Moral Majority, said while addressing a right-wing Christian audience in 1980. "[O]ur leverage in the elections goes up as the voting populace goes down..."

ELAshley October 27, 2011 at 11:22 AM  

Then what do liberals have to fear in requiring a photo ID to cast a vote? We have to do it here where we live, BenT. Why not everywhere?

Not having a valid ID is no excuse. If any one of these "25% of African American voters" without a valid photo ID were pulled over by the police, they'd likely be detained. Sorry, but failing to procure a valid photo ID because you're black is no excuse. It costs less than 50 dollars to get a state-issued ID card. In Alabama, according to the DMV, it cost only $23 to be issued a photo ID. There is simply no excuse for not having a legal photo ID.

BenT - the unbeliever,  October 27, 2011 at 11:35 AM  

Because this photo-ID rule disenfranchises tens of thousands of people who have the constitutional right to vote! and doesn't address a real problem. It's a burden without a benefit.

Those 25% of African Americans don't have drivers licenses because they don't drive. Most of them are probably seniors who stopped driving, the rest probably live in major cities and use public transport and don't even own a car. Why should they have to pay for a state ID just to vote. Doesn't that sound like a poll tax?

To me this goes beyond the partisan benefits to democrats having more poor, minority voters. It's about the idea that one party places partisan gain above the basic ideal of our Constitution.

Bill of Rights - Amendment 15
1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Bill of Rights - Amendment 19
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Bill of Rights - Amendment 24
The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, 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.

Bill of Rights - Amendment 26
The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

ELAshley October 27, 2011 at 12:12 PM  

As I indicated in my last comment it only costs $23 in the state of Alabama to acquire a state issued ID (not to be confused with a drivers license).

It's not a poll tax. Each person is expected to have a photo ID to open a bank account-- where else will the poor cash their checks? Even to apply for EBT (food stamps) you have to show a photo ID. The government requires Identification for a whole sundry of services... but not for voting? Come on! Where's the sense in that?

Requiring a Photo ID to vote does not infringe upon the 15th amendment because no one would be denied the right to vote because of "race, color, or previous condition of servitude." We don't care what race, color or 'condition of servitude' a potential voters is/has... only that he can be identified for the purpose of crossing out his name at his polling place.

Requiring a Photo ID to vote does not infringe upon the 19th amendment because of "sex." We don't care what sex a potential voters is... only that he or she can be identified for the purpose of crossing out his or her name at his or her polling place.

Requiring a Photo ID to vote does not infringe upon the 24th amendment because of a "failure to pay any poll tax or other tax." We don't care about whether or not a potential voters owes money to the government or is in arrears to any municipality... we only care that he or she can be identified for the purpose of crossing out his or her name at his or her polling place. A photo ID is not a poll tax for the simple reason that a photo ID is required for all kinds of other things by the government itself.

Lastly, requiring a Photo ID to vote does not infringe upon the 26th amendment because of "age." We don't care how old a potential voters is (provided they're at least 18 years of age)... we only care that he or she can be identified for the purpose of crossing out his or her name at his or her polling place.


All of your objections are based on fear, and therefore, baseless.

BenT - the unbeliever,  October 27, 2011 at 1:18 PM  

A photo ID is not a poll tax for the simple reason that a photo ID is required for all kinds of other things by the government itself.

But none of the other services are required by the Constitution/Bill of Rights to be free and charging people for a photo-id only for the purposes of voting IS a poll tax.

And even still you haven't shown a NEED for photo-IDs at elections. Because there is NO WIDESPREAD VOTER FRAUD IN THE US!! You have to show the need for voter-ID laws before you enact them. Your fears of voter fraud are baseless. You have been lied to by your party's thought-meisters.

ELAshley October 27, 2011 at 2:11 PM  

No one gets a photo ID solely for the purpose of voting. People get photo IDs for the purpose of identifying themselves to the authorities, financial institutions, government services, etc...

Your supposition rests on the idea that an individual would only ever need a photo ID for the purpose of voting, and this is simply not true-- photo ID's are a necessary part of 'being a part' of modern society. This supposition of yours is what we like to call a 'straw man' argument.

If, however, a person wishes to opt out of being a part in 'modern society' that's their choice. But I contend (and you can't prove otherwise) that such people aren't interested in voting. Anyone not interested in being a part of society, as a whole, has no real interest in politics, let alone voting.

Your fear of requiring a photo ID (for the purpose of proving who you are, at the poll, so the poll workers can draw a line through your name to indicate you have already voted) is irrational.

Marshall Art October 27, 2011 at 2:20 PM  

"a program that would cost more than $11 million to initiate and millions more to run each year?"

How does it cost anyone more than the cost of getting the ID? Millions? Nonsense. And how would it cost anything to "run" the program? Precinct workers merely ask to see a state issued ID before proceeding with the rest of what they do. That is, instead of merely asking for a person's name, they ask for their ID and read if off of that. Jim spoke of comparing signatures instead, but the state issued ID has the person's signature as well (at least it does in Illinois). There's no "cost" problem involved here.

And as to proving need, what need was proven in order to institute the requirements for voter registration and why aren't THOSE requirements considered "disenfranchising"? Indeed, I know a whiny liberal who has never voted or registered to do so. If he wants to vote the next time the polls are opened, he would be "disenfranchised" because he didn't register to vote previous to Nov 2. Oh, the horror! He failed to meet the requirements to vote. Voting requirements are not disenfranchising restrictions. They are requirements meant to insure that those who vote are eligible to do so. Presenting an ID proves one is the eligible person previously registered.

The amount of fraud this policy would prevent is irrelevant. Someone willing to go through the effort could still get around it. But there it is: more effort required to mess with the process. That makes it a good idea and the benefits of having a state issued ID this policy presents is also worth it.

The charge of disenfranchising thousands is a greater leap than to insist the policy will prevent fraud. I've not seen anything that proves this policy has disenfranchised anyone where the policy has been put into place. The reality is that the individual failed in some manner and then whined about being denied the right to vote. Again, anyone who fails to register can make the exact same whine.

BenT - the unbeliever,  October 27, 2011 at 3:17 PM  

THERE IS NO NEED FOR VOTER ID LAWS: The Justice Department under George W. Bush launched a massive, five-year investigation into voter fraud that resulted in a paltry 86 convictions across the entire country. Similarly, a three-year study conducted by Professor Lori Minnite of Barnard College showed that not only is voter fraud a very rare phenomenon, but the vast majority of cases involved people who were either ineligible to vote at all or had voted more than once in an election. Voter ID laws, which only target voter impersonation, would not have done anything to prevent these instances of fraud.

VOTER ID LAWS ARE EXPENSIVE: States must undertake massive public information campaigns, retrain poll workers, account for longer lines on Election Day, and issue millions of free IDs to citizens to avoid running afoul of constitutional mandates. This has the potential to increase electoral costs in some states by as much as 50 percent — tens of millions of dollars.

Over four years, Indiana's strict voter ID law cost taxpayers more than $10 million just to issue new IDs. Estimates by other states projected additional implementation costs of up to $25.2 million in North Carolina over three years, $16.9 million in Missouri over three years.

According to a recent study, it would cost Maryland nearly $100,000 just to hire and train poll workers in order to ensure that any voter ID laws are properly followed, or else potentially face a massive wave of expensive and protracted litigation.

Jim October 27, 2011 at 3:34 PM  

Ella, my mother had polio in 1950. She had no photo ID for 50 years. She never had a personal credit card, never drove, never flew.

No one gets a photo ID solely for the purpose of voting.

Yet she was very politically aware and voted in every election. If she would have needed a photo ID, it would be solely for the purpose of voting.

There are a lot of people like her who live their lives without a photo ID.

We don't care about whether or not a potential voters owes money to the government or is in arrears to any municipality

What does that have to do with anything? Any expense incurred solely for the purpose of voting is a poll tax.

BenT - the unbeliever,  October 27, 2011 at 4:49 PM  

Here's the case study for Alabama.

To register to vote you have to provide ID. It can be a driver's license or a government check or a paycheck or a utility bill or several other kinds of documentation. Essentially what the registrars office cares about is that you reside in their precinct at a certain address, are 18yrs of age and are a US citizen.

Once you are on the rolls at the polling place, then all you need is a signature to place your vote.

Why is this secure? Because periodically the state goes through all the voting rolls for the entire state weeding out those who may have registered, but are ineligible. They remove convicts, and those who are dead and for other reasons. And this works!

Only a few thousand people every presidential election need to place "provisional ballots" because their name was inadvertently removed from the voting rolls.

We already have procedures to make sure those ineligible don't vote. We don't need any more burdens on the process.

There is no benefit for voter ID laws. They cost money. They don't solve a problem, and they disproportionately affect poor and minority voters.

Apparently the forces of government waste and partisan hackery have already conquered Alabama. We have photo-ID laws waiting to begin in the 2014 election cycle. .... Idiots!

Jim October 27, 2011 at 4:58 PM  

People, can we do a level set here? Can we divide the "issue" into two separate pieces?

1. Registering to vote.
2. Casting a vote.

Registration is the process by which a voter attests to their eligibility and swears by their signature under penalty of perjury that the registration is true. I don't have a problem with a government process that verifies that the registration is accurate and that the person registering is not a convicted felon. A photo ID presented at the time of registration wouldn't be much help. It would prove DOB but wouldn't indicate whether or not the registrant is a felon or even that they are a citizen.

The government process would be helpful by matching stated addresses to actual addresses or tax bills, utility bills, and lists of felons. Any discrepancies should be investigated and prosecuted if found to be willful. But this would be expensive and an expansion of government. But I'm for it at the risk of being called a liberal favoring government expansion.

Once registered and verified, though, you are eligible. And if you are currently registered, you are registered unless a government process proves that your registration is fraudulent. No illegal caging allowed.

A poll worker can't and shouldn't determine eligibility. Eligibility is implied by registration. A photo ID doesn't prove eligibility. It is evidence of identity. So is a signature.

At the polls a voter should only be required to sign a voter roll which the poll worker would verify against the registrant's signature. A photo ID does not indicate citizenship nor does it indicate whether or not a person is a felon. Therefore, it does not indicate eligibility. The voter roll does that.

Regardless of the numbers of supposed voter fraud, there is no point in the process where a photo ID is really much help, much less necessary. It doesn't matter how easy or hard it is to get one. It doesn't achieve the goal of stopping voter fraud.

It only achieves the goal of reducing the number of voters.

Marshall Art October 30, 2011 at 1:02 AM  

Massive information campaigns? Retrain poll workers? Give me a freakin' break! The governor (or prez if it's a nat'l thing) can call a press conference. All major TV and news outlets would attend as they usually do. Each can take a moment or a page of their newspaper or website to spread the word. From there, all local leaders, radio and TV personalities (like on news shows) can also spread the word. Ministers can remind their congregants, citizens can tell their friends. State and local gov't websites can post the information. Libraries and DMVs can post it as well. This can all be done for about a buck and a half total. If any state has spent tens of thousands, there should be a major overhaul at the NEXT election. I think those estimates of state expense (10 mil over four years? BS!) are way overblown and I don't believe them for a minute. There aren't that many people without state issued photo IDs.

Jim October 30, 2011 at 12:38 PM  

Baltimore Sun

Over four years, Indiana's strict voter ID law cost taxpayers more than $10 million just to issue new IDs. Estimates by other states projected additional implementation costs of up to $25.2 million in North Carolina over three years, $16.9 million in Missouri over three years.

According to a recent study, it would cost Maryland nearly $100,000 just to hire and train poll workers in order to ensure that any voter ID laws are properly followed, or else potentially face a massive wave of expensive and protracted litigation. Of course, implementing any new law would cost the state tens of millions to issue free IDs, among other education- and election-related expenses.


The Brennan Center for Justice:

In short, recent case law suggests that states seeking to adopt photo ID requirements for voters will have to incur substantial costs. Although the costs will vary from state to state, they will likely run into the millions of dollars per state per year and dramatically increase the cost of administering elections. Even if a state incurs these costs, its photo ID requirements may still be vulnerable to successful constitutional challenges; and a state that does not allocate sufficient funds to cover these costs will likely see its law struck down.

Minnesota Common Cause:

VOTER EDUCATION AND OUTREACH: $19.48 Million
A voter ID law in Minnesota would require an extensive publicity effort to educate voters
about the law changes and ensure that voters are not turned away at the polls. Courts in
Georgia have repeatedly ruled that inadequate public education efforts invalidate their
voter ID law.


The Pennsylvania Budget and Policy Center:

Meeting these tests can impose substantial financial burdens on cash-strapped states. Indiana, with about half as many registered voters as Pennsylvania, adopted a voter ID law in 2005 and spent $12.2 million over four years implementing it[2]. Missouri has estimated voter ID legislation would cost $17.4 million over three years to inform its 4.1 million registered voters of the new requirements[3]. Independent estimates for a proposed North Carolina law range from $18 million to $25 million over three years[4].

Jim October 30, 2011 at 12:41 PM  

Ministers can remind their congregants, citizens can tell their friends.

Yep, that should do it.

Marshall Art October 30, 2011 at 2:00 PM  

What a typical horse's ass crack for you to make, Jim, to single out one piece in order to mock the whole. Add to that perfectly reasonable cost effective way to get out the word the teaching of voting procedures and requirements in all the schools so that no liberal whiner will ever grow up not falling short of practical maturity even if they fail to understand it.

The point is that there is no reason to spend millions on implementing a simple requirement for photo IDs unless libs are insistent that even those with the ability plead hardship in order to force the rest of their fellow citizens to foot the bill. I know that's so unlike you and your ilk, but I can't help that would account for much of any true cost of implementation.

Jim October 30, 2011 at 3:59 PM  

I picked what I did because it very well represented the whole post, especially the "buck and a half" part. I presented studies that showed not only estimates of future costs, but actual costs incurred by states that implemented voter ID laws.

All to stop something that rarely IF EVER happens: one person impersonating another at the polls.

Marshall Art October 30, 2011 at 4:57 PM  

"Rarely ever happens" is a lame whine for blocking this common sense requirement. My point, of the previous comments, is that costs are unnecessary to inform everyone of such a requirement. There is no reason millions of dollars should be required for such an announcement. When do we hold the citizen responsible for being responsible enough to inform themselves of what they need to do to vote? It seems obvious you don't want to burden the stupid, because the stupid are more likely to vote your way. I don't see that it is the duty of gov't to bend over backward to make sure the stupid and clueless know how to do what any citizen of average intelligence understands or can easily find out for themselves.

Jim October 30, 2011 at 8:03 PM  

Apparently Missouri, Indiana, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and other states disagree with you.

And I think it would be common sense to have voters give a finger print at the polls that can be compared to their fingerprint on the roll. That's actually better proof of identity than a photo ID.

It's common sense.

Marshall Art October 30, 2011 at 10:59 PM  

No, it's NOT common sense. It's rank stupidity given the need for the database required to match fingerprints before being allowed in the ballot booth. Got any other nonsensical ideas that do nothing to serve your position or diminish mine?

I don't know if those states you list disagree with me. Did you ask them why they felt the expenditure was justified? Do you suggest to them simpler ways to get the word out such as those I've suggested? Get serious.

Jim October 30, 2011 at 11:27 PM  

given the need for the database required to match fingerprints

No need for a database. You register and you give a fingerprint. That fingerprint is put in the voter rolls at the polling place. The voter comes in and makes a fingerprint. The poll worker compares the two prints.

Easy. And now you know for sure that the voter is the person who registered. Much better than a photo ID.

or diminish mine

Your position is diminished from the start. It's based on the proposition that there is a problem with people impersonating voters.

Do you suggest to them simpler ways to get the word out such as those I've suggested? Get serious.

You get serious. You think these states just went out and spent $10 Million instead of asking ministers to mention it in their sermons? Are they that stupid? They ARE Republicans.

Marshall Art October 31, 2011 at 2:31 AM  

You're being incredibly stupid. The cops don't "compare" fingerprints. They have computers do it and it isn't an immediate result, unlike looking at the picture on the state issued ID. And why do you insist on dishonestly singling out one of several options I mentioned? So that you can pretend the expenditure is absolutely necessary to implement the policy? I don't care who is power, the expenditure of such size is unnecessary.

My position isn't diminished at all, as it is based on the common sense of the policy, not the number of fraud cases proven. YOUR position is baseless considering the fact that neither you, nor any of those who agree with you, have been able to prove that any disenfranchisement is the result of implementation of the policy.

ELAshley October 31, 2011 at 8:16 AM  

Republicans stupid?

Democrats: wasteful; fraudulent; thieves.

Jim October 31, 2011 at 11:51 PM  

neither you, nor any of those who agree with you, have been able to prove that any disenfranchisement is the result of implementation of the policy.

This is not true. This has been demonstrated over and over in studies and the media. And admitted to by Republicans.

The cops don't "compare" fingerprints.

Who said anything about cops? Anyone trained to compare today's face with a four year old photo ID can be trained to compare a fingerprint that hasn't changed at all.

And why do you insist on dishonestly singling out one of several options I mentioned?

OK, just for you here is another stupid idea: "The governor (or prez if it's a nat'l thing) can call a press conference."

So that you can pretend the expenditure is absolutely necessary to implement the policy?

So I can pretend? Apparently the states cited above believe the expenditure is absolutely necessary, and I dare say they are in a much better position to know than you are.

it is based on the common sense of the policy

No, it is not based on common sense. It is based on the supposition that voter impersonation is a problem.

As I have shown through such links as the Brennan study that it is NOT a problem.

Therefore requiring a photo ID to prevent something that almost never happens and spending millions to do so, is quite far from being common sense.

It's ridiculous.

Marshall Art November 1, 2011 at 3:52 AM  

"This is not true. This has been demonstrated over and over in studies and the media. And admitted to by Republicans."

I would have thought that by now it would have been rather easy for you to provide an example or two. You haven't. That is, what you've provided is not an example of the policy preventing anyone from voting, anymore than someone not having the required items to register does. One must adhere to the policy and this one is no more or less difficult and/or burdensome than the existing one for registering, or than registering itself. As to Republicans "admitting" anything, are you referring to the acknowledgment of that 3% bump? If so, that isn't admitting disenfranchisement, but that some who shouldn't have been voting no longer could. Again, the policy itself isn't what prevents anyone from voting. The lack of compliance does. If not, then you haven't provided evidence of that admission, either.

"Anyone trained to compare today's face with a four year old photo ID can be trained to compare a fingerprint that hasn't changed at all."

The level of stupidity required to make this statement is Parkie-like. How much do YOU age in four years? Even someone trained to deal with fingerprints cannot make a positive comparison as quickly as ANYONE can compare an ID photo to the face of the guy holding it. What an incredibly stupid thing to say!

"OK, just for you here is another stupid idea: "The governor (or prez if it's a nat'l thing) can call a press conference.""

How is this stupid, especially since your last statement established a much higher bar to hurdle? The governor calls a press conference and most, if not all, major news outlets sends a reporter and then reports the major details on TV, radio, the newspapers and whatever outlets are alerted and invited to attend. Now, wise-ass, consider how many people are exposed to the news of the new photo ID policy, who will then talk about it with friends, at work, from the pulpit and a plethora of other occasions and scenarios. And this is just from one press conference. The news from this will spread appreciably and at little cost.

"Apparently the states cited above believe the expenditure is absolutely necessary, and I dare say they are in a much better position to know than you are."

I see. So now, when it suits you, governments are absolutely perfect in determining the wisest use of tax dollars. I'll remember that when a lib wants to cut military expenditures. No. They are NOT in a better position simply because they have the means and authority to spend.

"No, it is not based on common sense. It is based on the supposition that voter impersonation is a problem."

No you get to tell me what I think? I was referring to MY basis of belief. It's a common sense move, just as registering to vote is and just as providing identification (whatever form that might be) to register is. It's the same freaking thing. So whether you or Brennan thinks it's a problem worth reducing or eliminating is irrelevant. You both obviously lack common sense.

Jim November 1, 2011 at 11:28 AM  

Photo ID laws don't "prevent" people from voting. I don't think anybody is making such a claim. They do discourage people from voting, and that is disenfranchisement.

Many examples have been provided by me and in newspapers, websites, and studies.

that isn't admitting disenfranchisement, but that some who shouldn't have been voting no longer could.

Baloney. Who "shouldn't" have voted? You are suggesting that people who don't have photo IDs are not eligible to vote?

There are tens of thousands of eligible and legally registered voters who don't have a photo ID. Why should they have to get a photo ID just to vote when they have been voting based on their signature for decades? Having to go to the DMV and pay for or get a free ID is an unnecessary requirement and many people will not do it just to vote.

You'll surely say, "Good. They shouldn't be voting if they don't care enough to get a photo ID."

To which I and the Constitution would respond, "Nobody gives a crap about who YOU THINK should be voting. Voting is a Constitutional right, whether you're a genius or a moron, whether your choices are determined through study or a flip of a coin. That's none of YOUR business."

How much do YOU age in four years?

I stopped using Grecian Formula and my hair color completely changed in 4 weeks. A lot of people change their hair color and style. Many people wear tinted contact lenses. Joan Rivers got another face job this year. I had a mustache once. Shaved it off. Have you ever lost weight?

Even someone trained to deal with fingerprints cannot make a positive comparison as quickly as ANYONE can compare an ID photo to the face of the guy holding it.

That's debatable.

The news from this will spread appreciably and at little cost.

Maybe your minister can read the voters guide from the pulpit, too. Then the congregation can pass it around at the soccer game.

Apparently the states mentioned don't agree that the shampoo marketing style you are suggesting is effective.

They are NOT in a better position simply because they have the means and authority to spend.

Maybe it's simply because they have the expertise and experience of doing mass communication campaigns.

No you get to tell me what I think? I was referring to MY basis of belief.

A photo ID provides evidence of identification and age. If provides NO proof of eligibility, no proof of citizenship.

Aside from age, the only thing a photo ID is good for is to provide evidence that the bearer is the person on the rolls. That is done just as well by signature. If a person tries to vote as someone else...

That is voter impersonation.

Voter impersonation is virtually non-existent.

Implementing voter ID laws cost millions of dollars and add new requirements on already legally registered voters in order to prevent voter impersonation.

Voter impersonation is virtually non-existent.

Spending millions of dollars on an imaginary problem is not common sense.

Post a Comment

Your First Amendment right to free speech is a privilege and comes with a measure of responsibility. You have the right to exercise that responsibility here but we reserve the right to inform you when you've used that right irresponsibly.

We are benevolent dictators in this regard. Enjoy.

Barry Obama : The Young Turk


Young Turk:
Date: 1908
Function: noun
Etymology: Young Turks, a 20th century revolutionary party in Turkey
:an insurgent or a member of an insurgent group especially in a political party : radical; broadly
:one advocating changes within a usually established group.





Photos: 1980 Taken by, Lisa Jack / M+B Gallery

Labels

"House Negro" "No One Messes with Joe" "O" "The One" 08-Election 1984 2009 Inaugural 2012 Election 9/11 abortion abortionists Air Obama Al Franken Al Gore Al-Qaeda American Youth Americarcare Assassination Scenario Atheism Barry O Bi-Partisanship Biden Billary Birth Certificate Border Security Bush Bush Legacy Change Change-NOT child-killers Christians Christmas Civilian Defense Force Clinton Code Pink Congress Conservatism Constitution Creation Darwin Del McCoury Democrat Hypocrisy Democrats Dick Morris Dr. Tiller Dubya Earth Day Elian Gonzalez Ends Justify Means Evil Evolution Evolution-Devolution Failure in Chief Fairness Doctrine Feodork Foreign Relations Free Speech Frogs Fuck America - Obama Has Gates George Orwell Gestapo Global Cooling Global Idiots Global Warmong God GOP Descent Graphic Design Great American Tea Party Gun-Control Guns hackers Harry Reid hate haters Heath Care Heretic Hillary Howard Dean Hussein ident in History identity theft Illegal Immigration Iraq Jackboots Jesus Jihadist-Lover Jimmy Carter Joe Biden Jon Stewart Kanye West Karl Rove Katrina Las Vegas Left-Wing Media Leftists Liar Liberal Media liberal tactics Liberals Liberty Lying Media Marriage Penalty Martyr Marxism McCain Media MSNBC/Obama Administration murderers Norm Coleman Obama Obama 2012 Obama Administration Obama Dicatorship Obama Lies Obama Wars Obama's Army Obamacare Obamists Olympia Snowe Partisanship perversion Piracy Police State Political Hell Political Left Populist Rage Pragmatist Prayer Proof of Citizenship Proposition 8 Racism Regime Change Revolution Ronald Reagan Rush Limbaugh Second Amendment Separation of Powers Slavery Socialist Government Tea-Bagging Tea-Parties terrorists The Raw Deal Thuggery Tom Tancredo Traitors War Criminal War on Weather War-Crimes Worst President in History

  © Blogger template Werd by Ourblogtemplates.com 2009

Back to TOP