Advertisement

Archive for Tuesday, July 10, 2012

Tough ID laws may deter many voters

July 10, 2012

Advertisement

When Edward and Mary Weidenbener went to vote in Indiana’s primary in May, they didn’t realize that state law required them to bring government photo IDs such as a driver’s license or passport.

The husband and wife, both approaching 90 years old, had to use a temporary ballot that would be verified later, even though they knew the people working the polling site that day. Unaware that Indiana law obligated them to follow up with the county election board, the Weidenbeners ultimately had their votes rejected — news to them until informed recently by an Associated Press reporter.

Edward Weidenbener, a World War II veteran who had voted for Mitt Romney in the Republican presidential contest, said he was surprised by the rules and the consequences.

“A lot of people don’t have a photo ID. They’ll be automatically disenfranchised,” he said.

Tossed votes

As more states put in place strict voter ID rules, an AP review of temporary ballots from Indiana and Georgia, which first adopted the most stringent standards, found that more than 1,200 such votes were tossed during the 2008 general election.

During sparsely attended primaries this year in Georgia, Indiana and Tennessee, the states implementing the toughest laws, hundreds more ballots were blocked.

The numbers suggest that the legitimate votes rejected by the laws are far more numerous than are the cases of fraud that advocates of the rules say they are trying to prevent. Thousands more votes could be in jeopardy for this November, when more states with larger populations are looking to have similar rules in place.

More than two dozen states have some form of ID requirement, and 11 of those passed new rules over the past two years largely at the urging of Republicans who say they want to prevent fraud.

Democrats and voting-rights groups fear that ID laws could suppress votes among people who may not typically have a driver’s license, and disproportionately affect the elderly, poor and minorities. While the number of votes is a small percentage of the overall total, they have the potential to sway a close election. Remember that the 2000 presidential race was decided by a 537-vote margin in Florida.

A Republican leader in Pennsylvania said recently that the state’s new ID law would allow Romney to win the state over President Barack Obama.

Election fraud

Supporters of the laws cite anecdotal cases of fraud as a reason that states need to do more to secure elections, but fraud appears to be rare. As part of its effort to build support for voter ID laws, the Republican National Lawyers Association last year published a report that identified some 400 election fraud prosecutions over a decade across the entire country. That’s not even one per state per year.

ID laws would not have prevented many of those cases because they involved vote-buying schemes in local elections or people who falsified voter registrations.

Election administrators and academics who monitor the issue said in-person fraud is rare because someone would have to impersonate a registered voter and risk arrest. A 2008 Supreme Court case drew detailed briefs from the federal government, 10 states and other groups that identified only nine potential impersonation cases over the span of several years, according to a tally by the Brennan Center at New York University.

Comments

werekoala 2 years, 2 months ago

Don't forget the Pennsylvania chair of the state GOP, who let slip the gem, "Voter ID is going to let us deliver the state to Mitt Rimney."

Oops, your agenda is showing, pal. I am as concerned for the security of our elections as anyone, but when the number of legitimate voters who will be disenfranchised is 100,000 times the highest estimate of fraudulent voters, something is rotten.

Plus, it has been well established over the last 50 years that the government cannot charge a poll tax or otherwise place financial barriers that will discourage poor citizens from voting. So if a state requires you show ID to vote, it must not charge a fee to obtain that ID. Trouble is, most states charge $20-$50 to get an ID, and I can't for the life of me see that not being ruled a poll tax. After many years and millions of dollars in litigation, of course.

If you are really concerned about voter fraud, take the advice of Josef Stalin to heart: "It's not who votes that counts, it's who counts the votes that counts."

In other words, most elections are overseen at a state or county level, so there is little consistency in standards across the country. Some locales have robust and secure devices. Others have unsecured, buggy programs that are less audit-able than an ATM, and have less back ups than a college term paper. That's what anyone who really cares about our republic solid be concerned about...

4

moliemolie 2 years, 2 months ago

So you think state governments around this country spending millions of dollars in total to stop a non-existent problem is smart?

This isn't about being liberal or conservative. It is about common sense. Fiscal conservatives should be outraged at what is going on. We have much bigger problems we should be working on and much better things we should be spending our money on.

0

sourpuss 2 years, 2 months ago

Says a man who believes in democracy.

0

paulveer 2 years, 2 months ago

FHNC is lucky there is not a lucidity test for voting.

4

grammaddy 2 years, 2 months ago

Of course it's getting tougher. That's the GOP plan! Disenfranchise as many non-GOP voters as they can. WIN by any means necessary.When was the last time the GOP did anything to benefit this country?...anything at all that wasn't a benefit for themselves?

10

bradh 2 years, 2 months ago

Pretty poor article. The one case they mention where a voter was disenfranchised was a Mitt Romney vote, but it translates to the Dems and B.O. losing votes. It would have been better for this obviously biased article if he'd found a B.O. voter who had been disenfranchised.

He goes on to state that voter fraud isn't a problem because only a few are prosecuted each year. It's hard to track down someone who gives you a fake name, votes and leaves. Obviously there won't be many prosecutions. It's like saying there aren't many illegal aliens in the US because only a few hundred are deported each year. Maybe the author should have considered the tens of thousands of voter fraud registrations just from ACORN. Or maybe how many dead voted in St. Louis the last 3-4 elections. They weren't prosecuted, but their votes were stricken when found. The author really had to play fast and loose with the facts to make their point.

0

bradh 2 years, 2 months ago

Actually, all it shows is that there is fraud going on. It doesn't show how much isn't caught. For instance, Move On mentions 180,000 voters in Florida that are being purged. These 180,000 voters are people who got driver's licenses as non-citizens and when the DMV compared their list of non-citizens driver's licenses to the voter registration, they found 180,000 non-citizens who were registered to vote. Sounds like massive fraud to me and "the system" had allowed them to vote for years.

0

Kate Rogge 2 years, 2 months ago

I think the notion of "tens of thousands of voter fraud registrations just from ACORN. Or maybe how many dead voted in St. Louis the last 3-4 elections" is a Republican myth generated to 1) make their base afraid of everyone non-Republican, and 2) justify the naked suppression of marginalized voters (both Republican and non-Republican) such as the elderly, poor, and those citizens who move into a Kobachistan state this year and may not realize, until too late, that the protected voting rights they had in their last home have been stripped away in states like Kansas and Pennsylvania. A shameful time in our country.

5

Jayhawks64 2 years, 2 months ago

However, a Heritage Foundation report using state data said Georgia has issued 26,000 voter IDs since its law passed in 2007, and minority turnout has spiked in recent years. Even without Obama on the ballot, the 2010 midterm election saw a 66 percent increase in Latino voters and a 44 percent increase in African-American voters over 2006. The white vote grew 11 percent.

0

jaywalker 2 years, 2 months ago

What a ridiculous issue. Having ID to vote is pure common sense. 1200 instances from two states?! I'm guessing they're all better informed this time around and have rectified the situation so there shouldn't be widespread ignorance of the law now.

"Of course it's getting tougher. That's the GOP plan! Disenfranchise as many non-GOP voters as they can."

OH! Who realized that the law only applied to "non-GOP voters"?! Considering the majority of senior citizens vote Republican, this one's a puzzler.

1

Mary Darst 2 years, 2 months ago

So what is the elderly lady, that I take care of, to do? She doesnt drive anymore, so no drivers license. she is not a current world traveler either. A birth certificate doesnt have her picture on it, nor does her social security card. She has voted all her life...just what is she suppose to do.

3

jaywalker 2 years, 2 months ago

Help her get a State issued ID or a Govt. issued public assistance ID. An expired ID is ok for those over 65, and she could be exempt if disabled/handicapped.

1

Kate Rogge 2 years, 2 months ago

She should not have to prove that she is a U.S. citizen to vote.

3

jaywalker 2 years, 2 months ago

Why not? Of all the things we're required to have ID for, why shouldn't it be required to prove who you are when you vote?

0

Cant_have_it_both_ways 2 years, 2 months ago

You have to have ID for most everything else including getting on welfare, going to the hospital, or cashing your check. There is zero reason you should not have your ID to vote, unless you support a lawless country.

0

deec 2 years, 2 months ago

No you don't. Please stop spreading untruths. An ID is not required to go to the hospital. These things are also not constitutionally guaranteed.

4

Cant_have_it_both_ways 2 years, 2 months ago

This is crap, when you go to billing, you bet they want to know exactly who you are.

0

Leslie Swearingen 2 years, 2 months ago

I had to show a picture ID to see my doctor, just the one time, they now have it on file. Also every time I have a procedure done at radiology, see the dentist, or use my medical insurance, oh, and the pharmacy.

0

Kirk Larson 2 years, 2 months ago

"This is what the liberal population calls "facts"...

Yeah, I don't suppose you've heard of them before.

1

Kate Rogge 2 years, 2 months ago

How about Kobach provide on-the-ground statewide voter registration support - which is a legitimate part of his JOB - and cut back on his spare-time contracts in other states until after the election? He's forced through significant changes to voter registration here in Kansas and it is his responsibility to do everything he can to ensure voters obtain required ID in time for the November election. Changing the game and then dusting off his hands without helping - by doing something more than training voting site workers how to turn away unprepared voters - is demonstrating that what he's most interested in doing is reducing the number of voters, not protecting elections from fraudulent voters. Disgraceful.

1

werekoala 2 years, 2 months ago

A lot of you guys are missing a key point:

The government. Is not. Allowed. To charge. Any fee. To vote.

You may not like it, you can talk all you want about how people should "get back in the welfare line" (classy) or charities should put together drives to get elderly voters IDs, but you're just yelling at clouds.

The minute an ID is made available free of charge, without overly burdensome requirements, and provided to all eligible citizens, all bets are off, and you are free to require ID to your little hearts content.

Until that day, it's an unconstitutional poll tax, and will doubtless be ruled as such after many years and millions if dollars in lawyers fees. Doesn't matter to the GOP at that point, it will have served its purpose for an election cycle or two, and will then be abandoned.

Remember when gay marriage was a threat to our way of life? Hey, it tipped the balance in Ohio in 2004, that's all that matters.

3

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 2 years, 2 months ago

In other words, a poll tax is OK as long as it's called something else.

2

jaywalker 2 years, 2 months ago

That's an old, tired, and ludicrous argument, were.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 2 years, 2 months ago

As the saying goes, the simplest explanation is usually the correct one.

There is no voter fraud-- none, so these laws won't and can't prevent it.

So why do we have them?-- voter suppression, because Republicans know that the higher the turnout, the less likely their ugly agenda of class warfare can win elections. It's that simple.

6

jaywalker 2 years, 2 months ago

"As the saying goes, the simplest explanation is usually the correct one."

Telling that the "simplest explanation", in your estimation, would be a conspiracy theory.

1

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 2 years, 2 months ago

It's official Republican Party/ALEC policy. Are you just being contrary for contrariness's sake, or are you just that ignorant of what's going on in the world?

4

jaywalker 2 years, 2 months ago

It's "official Republican policy", huh? So I'm sure you can cite that, right? What a maroon.

0

jaywalker 2 years, 2 months ago

Gotta be honest, that was fun, bea! One of your best fudge ups, and that's sayin' somethin'!

0

Jayhawks64 2 years, 2 months ago

Georgia will take you to get an ID and pay for it.

0

beatrice 2 years, 2 months ago

As I am sure you know, people aren't stripped of their rights just for being dumb and lazy.

3

beatrice 2 years, 2 months ago

jay: "1200 instances from two states?!"

And that is nothing to you? Really? 1200 people -- American citizens -- stripped of their rights, and why? Because a couple of people might attempt to vote illegally? Is that why you want to add a new level of regulation against people, to stop a miniscule number of people from doing something illegal?

What next, add regulations in order strip everyone of their rights to own guns because someone might use one illegally?

Don't be surprised if you find your needing to show an ID to practice all kinds of rights, like practicing your freedom of speech. Of course, by then, it might just be the landed gentry who are allowed to vote. I'm sure many will be perfectly happy with that.

1

jaywalker 2 years, 2 months ago

"And that is nothing to you? Really? 1200 people -- American citizens -- stripped of their rights, and why?"

Spare me the histrionics, bea. Your second and third paragraphs don't merit response, for crying out loud. "Landed gentry"?! Try not to jump the shark so quickly.

As to the 1200 - yup, pretty much it's nothing. If you have any context whatsoever. First of all, nobody was "stripped of their rights." There is no constitutional right to vote. Secondly, 1200 people in two states who were ignorant of the ID law is minuscule and insignificant when you consider that, in just the '04 November election: - 1.2 million voted incorrectly because of "poor ballot design" - in Broward County, FL ALONE: 58,000 votes were lost because the absentee ballots weren't mailed out in time - over 1100 voting machines malfunctioned - 9 million Americans were denied the vote when they would have been able to in another part of the country

http://archive.fairvote.org/?page=72

There are state issued ID's, federal public assistance ID's, and exemptions for the infirm and elderly. And it's not a "new level of regulation" - it's THE regulation. There are no "levels." And it couldn't be simpler.

0

beatrice 2 years, 2 months ago

You are willing to give up people's rights to vote to chase boogey men.

If there was a real concern of people voting illegally, I could see the need for IDs. However, there have been what -- a handful at best -- cases of people trying to vote illegally. Those are generally people with IDs attempting to vote twice. But who cares about 1200 people being disenfranchised, since we all know they are "those" types of people. The stripping people of their rights as a response to a non-issue is the thing that is truly an hysterical reaction.

Do you honestly think anywhere near 1200 people tried to vote illegally in those two states? Are you truly in favor of limiting the rights of all people to stop a couple of people? Sad jay, sad.

3

jaywalker 2 years, 2 months ago

Get a freakin' grip. Nobody's right's have been given up, limited, stripped, or violated. I don't care if there's a concern for someone voting illegally or not, it's the epitome of common sense to require ID when you show up to vote. Period.

As for your comment about "those" types of people - go effeminate yourself if that's directed toward me in any fashion.

And hysterical is you in these two posts. You've been shown how insignificant the number inconvenienced is compared to the millions whose vote didn't count or was erroneous due to an inept system. You've been shown how easy it is to acquire proper ID and how certain citizens are exempt. Yet still you tilt at windmills. It's not the Inquisition, it's not qualifying for life or health insurance, it's not running a marathon - get an ID! Oooooo! The horror!

"Are you truly in favor of limiting the rights of all people to stop a couple of people? Sad jay, sad."

Hypocrite much? Could have sworn we conversed just yesterday about taking assault weapons out of everyone's hands just "to stop a couple of people." Sad bea, sad.

0

beatrice 2 years, 2 months ago

If someone shows up to their polling place and are denied the right to vote, their right has been given up, limited, stripped and violated. Your view of "common sense" is obviously not shared by everyone. Many feel practicing one's rights without burdens is the real form of common sense.

Under no circumstance are 1200 people not being allowed to vote insignificant. If a system doesn't count votes, the system needs to be fixed. If people are denied the right to vote, then that system needs to be fixed as well.

As far as getting an ID -- will that also be required to use my right to free speech? In Arizona, you can walk down the street with a pistol on your hip or in your pocket, no ID required. Think that should change? Should all Americans start carrying their papers at all times?

Finally, please show me exactly where I said I wanted to take assault weapons out of everyone's hands. Go ahead and find it ... I'll wait ...

Oh, couldn't find it? Guess I'm not suprised since I didn't actually write that. Instead, I asked about what would be reasonable restrictions. That is the problem with asking questions and having a discussion about guns, as we were. As soon as someone starts to ask about what might be reasonable restrictions, those in favor of gun rights too often leap to the conclusion that any suggestion of restrictions must mean the full ban on guns.

But while we are on the subject, if someone uses a voting place incorrectly, a fraud is made, no doubt. Happens a couple of times every election, no doubt. If someone uses a gun illegally, however, people are often killed, and in America that means in the thousands every year. So sure, I can see why you want to make requirements on voting, but lets give gun owners free reign. Now stopping which offense makes greater common sense?

(By the way, I only added the "sad, jay, sad," because I tire of the whole "histrionics" "hypocrite" "hysterical" "brilliant" ... condescending tone of yours, which is really not necessary. Is this the way you speak to people in the real world?)

1

jaywalker 2 years, 2 months ago

"If someone shows up to their polling place and are denied the right to vote"

For the learning impaired: there is NO right to vote.

"As far as getting an ID -- will that also be required to use my right to free speech?"

Absolutely. And for breathing. Can you be just a little more ridiculous?

"Finally, please show me exactly where I said I wanted to take assault weapons out of everyone's hands."

My apologies, that certainly seemed to be part of our conversation yesterday. Figured you agreed w/ me and my desire to eliminate assault weapons from public use when you posted "That is why the argument from that is made by some about anyone having access to extended clips, etc... When does the desire for self defense become an unnecessary arsenal?"

"So sure, I can see why you want to make requirements on voting, but lets give gun owners free reign."

And you wonder why I get sarcastic with you. Why don't you go ahead and show me where I ever said gun owners should have free reign. Go ahead. I'll wait. What? Couldn't find it? Shouldn't be surprising since it was only yesterday when I expressed my wish that assault weapons were banned. .

"Now stopping which offense makes greater common sense?"

Well, gee, bea, it's too darn bad that's not the issue nor ever has been. Or is that on the ballot and I just didn't know it?

As for your explanation of the "sad jay" garbage, once again, please spare me. It's the epitome of hypocrisy to criticize my supposed condescension by attempting to cover up your own w/ some lame excuse.

If you don't wish to be labeled w/ words like 'histrionics' and 'hysterical', then read your posts and edit them before submitting. For the love, your initial response to my post started w/ 5 or 6 sentences in two paragraphs - all ending w/ question marks behind sarcastic, rhetorical jibes. Throwing out irrational or just flat-out poor analogies coupled w/ offensive insinuations generally isn't going to get a friendly response, either. So before you start running around calling others black, look in the mirror, Pot.

I've stated my case here and it's pretty simple: ID's are not too much to ask and don't put an "undue burden" on ANYBODY. Would you like to get back to the subject and try to persuade me w/ well-articulated argument or keep going down the path you've chosen?

0

beatrice 2 years, 2 months ago

I disagree with you. Citizens should be allowed to vote, whether or not they have an ID. Since there have been no proven issues or significant problems with people attempting to vote who are not legal citizens, the concern is clearly based on a fear of something that isn't happening.

You feel you are right on this, but the major result of these new voting rules is that citizens are kept from voting. Even if you think that it is no big deal and that all people should have an ID, since citizens are turned away from the polls, quite clearly not everyone does. As strange as that might seem to you, however, that doesn't mean they aren't citizens. It is also not a rule applied evenly, since people who mail in their ballots--primarily people with a fixed residence (homeowners)--are not required to show their ID each time they vote.

Beyond that, continuing this discussion would be ... well ... ridiculous.

1

jaywalker 2 years, 2 months ago

'I disagree with you. Citizens should be allowed to vote, "

No kidding. And they are. NOTHING is stopping them from voting. Ever.

"the major result of these new voting rules is that citizens are kept from voting."

There's one new rule, not multiple, and the only reason anyone's kept from voting is they didn't follow or know of the singular, completely innocuous rule. You're behaving as if people are required to produce a pound of flesh. How much simpler does it need to be?

"As strange as that might seem to you, however, that doesn't mean they aren't citizens."

It would be advisable for you to stop responding to my posts if this is the best you can come up with. Nobody said anyone wasn't a citizen if they couldn't vote because they couldn't follow the rules. Enough negatives for ya? Keep posting garbage like that and not posting altogether would be the best option.

"It is also not a rule applied evenly,"

Yes, it absolutely is.

"--since people who mail in their ballots, primarily people with a fixed residence (homeowners)--are not required to show their ID each time they vote."

It would be best not to opine on something authoritatively when you have ABSOLUTELY no clue what you're talking about. ANYONE can request an absentee ballot - for example: a homeless man living in an alley right next to the polling station; simply because they don't want to vote when the actual polls are open. AND proof of person is required, moreso than before these new ID rules were introduced.

The only logical thing you've added in this "conversation" since it's inception is the last paragraph. Happy you finally got it. And just for history's sake, bea, if you're willing to be fair, I was more than happy to converse w/ you respectfully. You chose to denigrate it. More than happy to oblige, you should know that by now.

0

jaywalker 2 years, 2 months ago

I'm bettin' you won't anyway, but just in case: after reading this all over again I feel compelled to suggest you don't respond, bea. Honestly, I truly prefer when we converse respectfully. I didn't choose this course of action, you're call.

0

beatrice 2 years, 2 months ago

"histrionics" "hysterical" "brilliant" "hypocrite" ... Sure jay, you didn't choose this form of discourse. You are but an innocent lamb forced to behave as you do by others. Poor, poor boy.

1

jaywalker 2 years, 2 months ago

Like I said, don't post such tripe and you won't get such reactions. All I started w/ was pointing out the obvious histrionics of your initial response. You're not that stupid, bea, you're well aware of the goading you throw down. Drop the martyr shtick, it don't fit.

0

tomatogrower 2 years, 2 months ago

"Tough ID laws may deter many voters"

That was the point wasn't it?

1

verity 2 years, 2 months ago

Unfortunately, due to vote counting, as has already been stated, who we vote for may not matter a whole lot in some states.

Did any of you watch "60 Minutes" last Sunday? While I'm a little skeptical of Jack Abramoff's ethical enlightenment, he made one very good point. As long as government officials---both elected and hired staff---can become lobbyists when they leave their government job, they will be able to be bought by the promise of a high paying job.

Of course, that would apply to a job in any industry, not just lobbying. Apparently not a whole lot of our esteemed officials are immune to that kind of bribery.

If Jack Abramoff is to be believed.

1

werekoala 2 years, 2 months ago

Sigh...

I understand that you, personally, cannot conceive of an existence without photo ID. I too, would find my life significantly changed. But thank god we don't only allow those things which are approved of by random internet people.

You guys remind me of all the upper middle class twits who couldn't understand why during Katrina, all the people at the Superdome didn't just pack up the family in the SUV and charge a few nights in a Holiday Inn on the old Amex.

If it's not something that has happened to someone you care about, it doesn't really matter, right?

And sweet Jebus, the cavalier disregard for the rights of your fellow citizens shows either a frightening ignorance of our nation's history, or an even more frightening willingness to repeat some it's worst mistakes, if it serve your purpose.

5

werekoala 2 years, 2 months ago

Look, if this was really about protecting the sanctity of the voting both from fraud and deception, there's a much easier way to achieve the same goal. Just have each person voting leave a fingerprint in the voting roll book next to their name. Costs a few bucks for ink and a stamp pad, and ensures that if there is ever a allegation of fraud, you can prove scientifically whether or not that person has a fingerprint that matches the one in the book.

Also, need an actual national I D card so we can track who has voted, make sure they don't cross state lines and double dip.

Of course both ideas would be cheap, effective, and reliable, but since they don't suppress the votes of troublesome populations, and do inflame the black-UN-helicopter wing of the GOP, we will just ignore them and focus on this picayune debate instead...

2

jaywalker 2 years, 2 months ago

Brilliant. Instead of requiring an ID, as innocuous a standard as there could be, let's make up a national data base of everyone's fingerprints?! Yes, I'm sure that would be much cheaper and nobody would have a gripe that Big Brother is keeping tabs on them.
Oooh! AND a national ID card - EVERYONE now needs new ID, instead of the present situation where the majority are already set ..........

0

Richard Heckler 2 years, 2 months ago

Voter fraud is in the mind of the RINO GOP. It's like their bogus position tax cuts for the 1% create new jobs...... after 30 years of tax cuts why are 20 million looking for jobs?

There are no jobs and there is no voter fraud.

Again how is it that the RINO GOP claim they are about less government? One more lie coming from the RINO GOP.

RINO = republican in name only

Why are there no jobs? It's very much a republican thing:

ENTITLEMENT - Bailing out The Reagan/Bush Savings and Loan Heist aka home loan scandal sent the economy out the window costing taxpayers many many $$ trillions (Cost taxpayers $1.4 trillion), Plus millions of jobs, loss of retirement plans and loss of medical insurance. http://rationalrevolution0.tripod.com/war/bush_family_and_the_s.htm

ENTITLEMENT - Bailing out the Bush/Cheney Home Loan Wall Street Bank Fraud cost consumers $ trillions, millions of jobs, loss of retirement plans and loss of medical insurance. Exactly like the Reagan/Bush home loan scam. Déjà vu can we say. Yep seems to be a pattern. http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2009/0709macewan.html

ENTITLEMENT - Bush/Cheney implied many financial institutions were at risk instead of only 3? One of the biggest lies perpetrated to American citizens. Where did this money go? Why were some banks forced to take bail out money? Where are the jobs? http://www.democracynow.org/2009/9/10/good_billions_after_bad_one_year

1

Richard Heckler 2 years, 2 months ago

Could it be that voter fraud might well be a republican thing?

Computers are inherently subject to programming error, equipment malfunction, and malicious tampering.

If we are to ensure fair and honest elections, and retain voter confidence in our democratic process, we need to ensure that there are no such questions.

Therefore, it is crucial that any computerized voting system provide a voter-verifiable paper audit trail and that random audits of electronic votes be conducted on Election Day.

Paperless electronic voting machines make it impossible to safeguard the integrity of our vote - thereby threatening the very foundation of our democracy.

Moreover, the seller of the machines, the Diebold Corporation, is a supplier of money to one of the major parties ...republican. The CEO and top officers of Diebold are major contributors to republican campaigns. A corporation with vested political interests should not have control over the votes of the populace.

Voters using Diebold machines should immediately report any suspected malfunctions or deficiencies at voting precincts to their Board of Elections.

Voters should also urge their legislators to require a voter verified paper ballot trail for random audits and independent recounts.

Count every vote! Damn Right!

3

jayhawklawrence 2 years, 2 months ago

What the Republicans are demonstrating is that they believe fraud is a good thing if it means getting one of their candidates elected

Anyone who votes for this kind of Republican is therefore guilty of the same thing.

These are the same people who will get on a soap box and lecture you about religion and morality.

1

tbaker 2 years, 2 months ago

In 2007, Georgia enacted a voter ID law. In the 2008 election, the minority turn-out set an all-time record. Indiana is another similar example, so whose vote was being suppressed by the voter ID laws in these states?

People say these laws are designed to disenfranchise blacks and other minorities, the poor, students and senior citizens, etc, but to do so this must be based on the assumption that these groups of people lacking the resources or the ability to obtain a photo ID for voting purposes. Really? Where is the evidence of this?

If you follow this logic, then these groups of people must also lack the ability to get a driver’s license, a credit or debit card, a beer or a pack of cigarettes. Where is the hue and cry from the great disenfranchised masses that are being prevented from getting all the aforementioned things you need a photo ID for?

There isn't one is the answer. Protecting the sanctity of the election process is more important than inconveniencing a tiny fraction of potential voters on the fringe of society who - for whatever reason - cannot seem to navigate the impenetrable mysteries of daily life to the extent they can get themselves a photo ID. Since we cannot impose a much-needed IQ test for voters, this is as good a proxy as there is.

0

jaywalker 2 years, 2 months ago

Sure it did, vertigo. But then that's the point, isn't it? The crux of the argument is that minorities and the elderly are the most effected by the ID rule. But the minorities showed up in droves, and the elderly are primarily Republican voters. So where's the rub?

1

jaywalker 2 years, 2 months ago

Seriously? C'mon man, be real. 4/4 quarters of those groups tend to have ID. The infirm and elderly have exemptions, the young have ID 'cuz they all wanna drive; I've never seen any study that states minorities are less likely to have ID, and the poor have access to free ID from the state or federal public assistance. Try again.

0

jaywalker 2 years, 2 months ago

Ok. Now where's the study that examines how incredibly easy it is to acquire ID?

0

jaywalker 2 years, 2 months ago

Absolutely not, my friend. For some it will be a pain in the ass. No doubt about it. But regardless of everything else in this situation, what I find illuminating is the old adage that "change in any society comes at an incrementally, even painfully slow pace, and will almost always find resistance." I sincerely empathize with those that might truly struggle w/ this wrinkle, but I feel you and I are fairly close in "ideology" (for an incredible lack of a better word at this moment); so do you honestly believe this isn't a common sense move? And though any new regulation might take a cycle or two to get in line, don't you think most everyone will be in compliance within a relatively short period of time? Seriously, all things considered with the hoops we have to jump through on a daily basis, this is bupkiss, isn't it?

0

jaywalker 2 years, 2 months ago

My pseudo FB "like" was for TBaker, probably my favorite poster of All Time.

1

verity 2 years, 2 months ago

"Since we cannot impose a much-needed IQ test for voters, this is as good a proxy as there is."

And we have a winner for inadvertently showing one's true, un-American and undemocratic motives.

1

jaywalker 2 years, 2 months ago

Right! A true, democratic American embraces ignorance. Dumber the better! God Bless America.......land that I .......

0

verity 2 years, 2 months ago

The point just flew right by you.

0

jaywalker 2 years, 2 months ago

But it was so terribly complex......

0

beatrice 2 years, 2 months ago

"...inconveniencing a tiny fraction of potential voters on the fringe of society ..."

So now, if you are determined by some to be on the "fringe of society," that means you lose your voting privileges? And "a much-needed IQ test" to boot? Really? Wow.

I return to what I said before and suggest that perhaps we only allow the landed gentry be allowed to vote. And if we ignore history, we can always impose a literacy test while we are at it.

This is Amerika -- Now, show me your papers!

2

jaywalker 2 years, 2 months ago

'So now, if you are determined by some to be on the "fringe of society," that means you lose your voting privileges?"

NOBODY has lost their voting privileges. Their are first graders that can grasp such a subtle nuance.

"I return to what I said before and suggest that perhaps we only allow the landed gentry be allowed to vote."

Like a dog returns to it's vomit, so does the fool to his folly. It wasn't clever the first time.

0

beatrice 2 years, 2 months ago

Really? "Their" are first graders who know a thing or two? Well good for them. Perhaps they can tell us which of the Founding Fathers were required to show "their" ID in order to vote.

It is not a crime for a citizen to be without an ID in America. Call it what you will -- denied, rejected, Republicanized, whatever -- a fellow citizen getting turned away from voting for not having the proper ID has been denied the privilege of voting. Period.

Also, if you feel like a fool for returning to his folly, perhaps you shouldn't keep responding to my posts. (This insulting thing is so much fun. I think next time I will call you a doodie head. hehehe. I said doodie. hehehe.)

Now -- this is Amerika -- SHOW ME YOUR PAPERS!!!

1

jaywalker 2 years, 2 months ago

"It is not a crime for a citizen to be without an ID in America."

Who said it was?

"Also, if you feel like a fool for returning to his folly, perhaps you shouldn't keep responding to my posts"

" a fellow citizen getting turned away from voting for not having the proper ID has been denied the privilege of voting. Period."

Find a first grader. Maybe they speak your language so you'll finally understand.

"Also, if you feel like a fool for returning to his folly, perhaps you shouldn't keep responding to my posts."

There ya go! Porch Person and the the 7 yr. olds at Eastside Elementary would be so proud!

0

jaywalker 2 years, 2 months ago

"Protecting the sanctity of the election process is more important than inconveniencing a tiny fraction of potential voters on the fringe of society who - for whatever reason - cannot seem to navigate the impenetrable mysteries of daily life to the extent they can get themselves a photo ID. Since we cannot impose a much-needed IQ test for voters, this is as good a proxy as there is."

Perfection. As usual, tbaker sums up what I've struggled to express.

0

jaywalker 2 years, 2 months ago

First of all, they CAN vote. Secondly, I said 1200 was nothing taken in context w/ the millions who's vote was lost, mistaken, or not delivered on time. And what "rush"? This move has been going on for years. Besides, the ID law doesn't have to be strictly about fraud. How can it not make sense to require proof of who someone is? This is looooong overdue and so simple even a caveman can do it.

0

jaywalker 2 years, 2 months ago

That was an odd yet cool transfer to a link. Gotta say first time I've ever seen that transition. But the state ID's they're offering specifically for this issue are unique. If someone wants to attempt to defraud the system, there will always be opportunities to do so. You're carded to buy alcohol in an effort to obey the law; every effort will not be foolproof. That never means there should be no effort.

0

beatrice 2 years, 2 months ago

If there were actual support of these so-called dead relatives and undocumented individuals attempting to vote, you would have a point. Since there is no such evidence and this is all about chasing boogey men, this type of legislation os just putting a barrier between citizens and voting. Yes, it is sad to see so many people supporting this type of legislation.

2

verity 2 years, 2 months ago

Not that I expect this to change the mind of anyone who is already convinced, but I'm going to repeat a story I posted here some years ago when this first became a topic of discussion.

My mother was born in her parent's home in a remote area of a U.S. territory, so her birth was not officially recorded. Some sixty years later, she finally had need of a birth certificate. Fortunately for her, at that time she lived in the community where her parents had originally come from and where she had attended grade school for a time. It still took quite a bit of time and resources to collect school and other records, etc. to get the information needed for a birth certificate. Again, fortunately, my parents were able to drive, walk, pay for gas, had the time, and so forth, to be able to do this. And once again, fortunately, somebody had saved a postcard they had received from her father stating the time of her birth. Otherwise, it would have been much more difficult than it was to secure a birth certificate.

Not everybody is so fortunate and/or lucky as my mother was. That doesn't mean they are stupid or lazy.

In principle, I don't have anything against requiring a photo ID for voting, but these laws and the push to get them implemented without doing something to help people get the documentation they need is so obviously an attempt to suppress voting (a PA politician was even caught on tape saying that the new laws would deliver the state to Romney). That, plus the Diebold voting machine fiasco, says that some people apparently think they can't win elections fairly.

1

jaywalker 2 years, 2 months ago

"but these laws and the push to get them implemented without doing something to help people get the documentation they need is so obviously an attempt to suppress voting"

Without doing something to help?! State issued ID, federal public assistance ID, exemptions for the infirm and elderly......do they need their rears wiped, too? This ain't the trials of Job, for crying out loud. It's pretty freakin' simple for most, and hopefully it'll jostle most to move into the 21st century, get their important paperwork in order. And for these folks so up in arms over supposed "voter suppression": Do something about it! Volunteer and help folks get up to speed if it's actually that important to ya.

0

beatrice 2 years, 2 months ago

Perhaps we should jail citizens for not carrying their papers.

0

beatrice 2 years, 2 months ago

jaywalker: "And for these folks so up in arms over supposed "voter suppression": Do something about it! Volunteer and help folks get up to speed if it's actually that important to ya."

So people should now volunteer to help others get IDs rather than just allow citizens to vote in the first place? Wow.

Not only should people help their fellow citizens, but others should volunteer to help "folks get up to speed". Um ... who are you to decide what the proper "speed" is to fully participate in American citizenship? It isn't a crime for a citizen to be without an ID in America -- at least not yet -- and if you haven't committed a crime you should be allowed to vote. That is the issue. Sorry you can't grasp this simple concept. Why, the proverbial first grader could understand this ... or do we now require first graders in Amerika to show IDs?

"Up to speed" indeed. And to think, for some strange reason, some people might read a hidden agenda behind this ID requirement push coming from Republicans. Why, it couldn't possibly be to suppress the votes of those "fringe" citizens who some people feel aren't "up to speed" now, could it?

3

jaywalker 2 years, 2 months ago

"So people should now volunteer to help others get IDs rather than just allow citizens to vote in the first place? Wow."

Thank you oh so much for proving just how phony you are. It's an incredibly small percentage of people who are affected by this provision, and the percentage of that segment of the population that ACTUALLY vote is even more minuscule, but your position is 'why help when we can just sit on our fat ass and complain?" Perfection! Thank you again!

The rest of your post isn't worthy of a first grader. Just more mindless, senseless repetition of absolutely nothing. Stop. You're embarrassing yourself.

0

beatrice 2 years, 2 months ago

Actually, my position is that we shouldn't have a law requiring people to need "help." Putting people -- citizens -- in the position of needing help from someone as wonderful as yourself is your position. I feel they can vote without my help.

"It's an incredibly small percentage of people who are affected by this provision..."

So why have the provision at all? Seriously, what purpose does it serve if the number is so "incredibly small"?

No jay, with the non-stop name calling and sad attempts at belittling others it is you who is the one embarrassing yourself. And why? Because someone doesn't see the world exactly as you do. Really and truly sad that anyone would be like this, but if that is what you need to do to boost your self esteem, fine. Go for it.

2

jaywalker 2 years, 2 months ago

"So why have the provision at all? Seriously, what purpose does it serve if the number is so "incredibly small"?"

You're so far off the rails you forgot the subject. Try again.

"And why? Because someone doesn't see the world exactly as you do."

Has absolutely nothing to do with that. I have no problem discussing counter points w/ those who remain rational and stick to the argument. You're unable to accomplish either, so..........

0

beatrice 2 years, 2 months ago

I do not believe the laws in various states now requiring voters to show IDs is worthwhile on more than one level. One, they do hinder some Americans from voting. Two, there have been no actual findings to show people attempting to vote illegally. It hurts more people than it prevents from breaking a law. It also is not uniform in its enforcement, since those who mail in their ballots clearly can be doing so without having to show their IDs. That is and has remained my arguments.

Sure jay, that is "irrational." Just admit you get carried away whenever someone disagrees with you. You must make every attempt possible to belittle that person, from accusatiion of mental inferiority to being irrational. How sad, because otherwise you occassionally have something to offer. Generally, however, it devolves into the same debased conversations. Sad jay, sad.

0

beatrice 2 years, 2 months ago

Maybe we should just have one of those signs from the carnival at polling places: You must be this big in order to vote.

Randy Newman wouldn't care if short people are disenfranchised, and if is good enough for Randy Newman, it must be good enough for America. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NvgLk...

0

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 2 months ago

What happens when you're caught in this catch 22? You have to have a photo ID to vote. To get a photo ID you have to have...wait for it...a photo ID. This is what Mississippi is dealing with as we speak.

2

beatrice 2 years, 2 months ago

"1200 people is nothing" -- yep, these people who need to be "brought up to speed" are just people on the "fringe" of society. Heck, they should just be taken out back and shot.

Hope y'all don't lose your wallets on election day.

0

Richard Heckler 2 years, 2 months ago

Earlier this week I wrote about the long-standing hope of Democrats that demographic changes are working in their favor and will soon create a durable national Dem majority. There are several moving parts to this theory, but the two big ones are (a) young people are trending Democratic, and (b) the Dem-leaning nonwhite population is getting bigger and bigger.

As far as I know, Republicans don't really deny that these things are happening. After all, the trend in the youth vote jumps out in every poll, and the growing nonwhite share of the population is regularly front-page news. George Bush and Karl Rove, who desperately wanted to pass a comprehensive immigration bill in 2006 in order to stanch the flow of Hispanic votes into the Democratic column, knew perfectly well how important this was.

So what's the Republican response to all this? They have two options:

  1. Start to move leftward on social issues, especially gay marriage, in order to win back their share of the youth vote; tone down the anti-immigration rhetoric from the tea partiers; and stop tolerating casual racism among their core supporters.

or

  1. Double down on the demographic groups who already support them. This is basically the South, angry white men, the rich, and the elderly.

Eventually, they might be forced to adopt Option 1, but for now they seem to have abandoned the idea of pushing back against their base (as Democrats eventually did in the late '80s), and instead have gone all in on Option 2. There are two elements to this. The first is to push ever harder for higher turnout among the Fox News set.

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/07/voter-id-laws-are-last-gasp-fading-gop-strategy

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 2 years, 2 months ago

Jaywalker is just doing his usual-- setting up pointlessly arbitrary standards he expects others to meet, and then the piece de resistance, he gets to levy equally arbitrary punishment on those he considers his inferiors.

Pump yourself up, dude!!!!!

0

jaywalker 2 years, 2 months ago

Arbitrary standards?! You mean like legitimate facts and rationality? Bozo, you exponentially inflate stats as if you get paid for hot air, not to mention you're as unwavering an irrational partisan as any of the worst of the right wingers on this board. And if beatrice had a rational bone in her body, she'd reflect on her initial response here and realize she's the instigator. It certainly wasn't a search for a sincere discussion.

Keep playing the martyrs, kids.

0

beatrice 2 years, 2 months ago

Martyrs? Hardly. Just pointing out what is obvious. If you disagree jay, I simply ask you go through your posting history and see how often your intent in posting is to do nothing but attempt to insult another person. How often do you use words like "histrionics" "hysterical (when discussing another person, not in regard to something being funny), "rational bone in his/her body," etc...

Of course, you always blame someone else rather than take responsibility for your own actions. Someone else always instigates it ... "she made me do it!" No jay, you chose to. Admit that, at the very least.

And I did look at my initial response. It is against what you were saying, I do still feel that 1200 people isn't "nothing," not even in the context you provided, but nowhere in my response did I attempt to insult. You, however, respond with a personal attack.

Again, that is fine. If that is what you need to do to feel somehow superior, then go for it. But do know, it is you jay. I can't make you do anything. It is you.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.