• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Feds to Florida: halt non-citizen voter purge

Not sure what you mean. I'm saying that errecting barriers to people voting has a huge impact on election results.
Yes, of course, which is why photo ID would be very helpful.

If you elect barriers to some folks- people that don't currently have the right kind of ID- but not others, then you are corrupting the result of the election.

Well certainly no American citizen should be denied a photo ID. If there is a problem with any individual then that can certainly be investigated, but most people should be expected have some record of their personal history.

Whether in theory people ought to just push through those barriers or not isn't the issue, the issue is how severely that measure will skew the election results. I'm using the rain example to show that even relatively small barriers do in fact dramatically skew election results.

Yes, the weather can skew election results, and other events as well, but like admission to any event there should be some criteria as to who should be allowed to participate. In elections this is of utmost importance, and should be a matter of nationall pride. Certainly the famed "American know-how" can come up with some system where only US citizens may vote.



Well, for example, I would not currently be able to vote if my state adopted the strictest of the voter ID laws unless I went and got a new ID. I have several valid photo IDs- a passport, a driver's license from the state I lived in before entering law school, and a student ID. But, many of the laws only accept IDs issued by the state in which you would be voting, and since I'm not driving while I'm at school here, I didn't get a driver's license here.

This does seem a seious problem and one that should easily be overcome. You could probably apply for a passport as well with no real problem.
Likewise, my grandmother could not vote with her current ID in some of the states. She has a passport as well and a Medicare card, but her driver's license was allowed to expire a few years ago since she is too old to drive.

Her passport should be evidence enough.

The biggest category of people whose IDs wouldn't allow them to vote are people who move more frequently. Very few people update the addresses on their IDs right away every time they move houses. So, young people very often have previous addresses on their IDs. Many of the laws exclude IDs that don't have a current address.

A very minor problem.

So, those are three big categories of people that get hit hard by the worst of the voter ID laws- students, the eldery and young people. Other categories are people in the military, people in cities where you can get by without a car, and the poor.

With advanced polling, drivers pools, etc. this is not a major concern. People who intend to vote will have no problem applying for ID.

Again, it is corrupting the system by suppressing the votes of up to 10% of the population. That is a massive corruption of the system on par with the Jim Crow days. Excluding one person from voting who is a legal voter is exactly as bad as one person who isn't a legal voter voting. Either way, you're cheating the result by one vote.

It's not clear where this 10% number comes in , especially if you are drawing from the concerns you expressed above. Other countries have overcome problems with their electoral system and there appears to be no real reasons why the American people can't do the same. You're implying that they are ineffectual, lazy or just plain stupid, and I don't believe that's that the case at all.
 
So your position is that the Democrats somehow got the Republicans to do it? Or what?

No, my position is that liberal demo's are crying like stuck pigs, because the Fl AG is taking a close look at voting roles in a battle ground state that demo's were/are counting on to pull their usual dirty tricks in steal the vote in that state.

And Holder is complacent in this by attempting to block it...This crew of liberal criminals is corrupt to the core, and I for one will be glad when Nov. comes and they tossed out on their ear.

j-mac
 
How many want to bet that the poster will refuse to accept this? ;)

Interesting such a remark would be made without knowing an individual.
 
No, my position is that liberal demo's are crying like stuck pigs, because the Fl AG is taking a close look at voting roles in a battle ground state that demo's were/are counting on to pull their usual dirty tricks in steal the vote in that state.

And Holder is complacent in this by attempting to block it...This crew of liberal criminals is corrupt to the core, and I for one will be glad when Nov. comes and they tossed out on their ear.

j-mac

The beauty of being a democrat is that, even after death, they'll still be able to vote.
 
No the problem is that with opinions like yours parroting the partisan political agenda and ignoring the fact that these names are NOT random in order to stir up the ignorant public into creating a well meaning outcry over perceived violations. These names are being flagged due to some voters being convicted, dying or lack of citizenship whether by intent, clerical error or other misfortune. This does not mean those flagged in error will, after due diligence, be denied their legal right to vote if they have one !


I thought this is why the names are being 'flagged:'

The state's list was based on Florida residents who hold "non-citizen" driver licenses. But that database, kept by the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, is not automatically updated when an individual becomes a citizen.
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-06-01/news/os-doj-strikes-down-voter-purge-20120601_1_voter-purge-voter-registration-national-voter-rights-act
 
Yes, of course, which is why photo ID would be very helpful.

So you just admit that you're willing to go along with election fraud if it gets the results you like?

Well certainly no American citizen should be denied a photo ID. If there is a problem with any individual then that can certainly be investigated, but most people should be expected have some record of their personal history.

Not sure what you're talking about here either. That doesn't have anything to do with anything we're talking about as far as I can tell.

This does seem a seious problem and one that should easily be overcome. You could probably apply for a passport as well with no real problem.

Again, I already have a passport. That doesn't help under a lot of the so called "voter ID" laws, because they aren't there just to figure out if you're a legal voter, they're there to skew election results. You clearly aren't reading my posts.

With advanced polling, drivers pools, etc. this is not a major concern. People who intend to vote will have no problem applying for ID.

Again, just rain alone reduces turnout by 50%. Obviously spending a day at the DMV is a bigger hassle than rain, right? So you're talking about a massive manipulation of the election, right?

It's not clear where this 10% number comes in , especially if you are drawing from the concerns you expressed above.

10% is the number of people who currently do not have a form of ID accepted by the most rigged of the voter ID laws.

So, what do you figure, 1 in 10 people in that boat would go get an additional photo ID they don't need for any other purpose just to vote? So nationally if those voter ID laws were imposed, that would be something on the order of 18 million acts of voter fraud the Republicans would be committing by rigging the elections in this way.

Other countries have overcome problems with their electoral system and there appears to be no real reasons why the American people can't do the same..

Other countries just require a valid photo ID, not all this messed up gaming of the system to try to rig elections.
 
The real crux of this boils down to this:




My God liberals are transparent in their intent....

j-mac

You mean liberals are upset because coservatives are trying to disenfranchise them?

Why do you think this is so important to Republicans?

Or are you stupid enough to think that they have your best interests at heart? :lamo
 
I thought this is why the names are being 'flagged:'

The state's list was based on Florida residents who hold "non-citizen" driver licenses. But that database, kept by the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, is not automatically updated when an individual becomes a citizen.
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-06-01/news/os-doj-strikes-down-voter-purge-20120601_1_voter-purge-voter-registration-national-voter-rights-act

So the state should do more research or "Due Diligence" to determine if they are or are not citizens?
 
Ok, prove it...What was the last time that Florida violated the 14th amendment?

Isn't this just another in the long line of Holder's war on states that don't want illegals voting, or being here illegally?

j-mac

The last time? That would be just this week, which is why the Justice Department intervened. It was in the news, 'ya know. :mrgreen:
 
Well, for example, I would not currently be able to vote if my state adopted the strictest of the voter ID laws unless I went and got a new ID. I have several valid photo IDs- a passport, a driver's license from the state I lived in before entering law school, and a student ID. But, many of the laws only accept IDs issued by the state in which you would be voting, and since I'm not driving while I'm at school here, I didn't get a driver's license here.

Likewise, my grandmother could not vote with her current ID in some of the states. She has a passport as well and a Medicare card, but her driver's license was allowed to expire a few years ago since she is too old to drive.

You seem fixated on "driver's license". Drivers License is not required. A state issued ID is required.

The biggest category of people whose IDs wouldn't allow them to vote are people who move more frequently. Very few people update the addresses on their IDs right away every time they move houses. So, young people very often have previous addresses on their IDs. Many of the laws exclude IDs that don't have a current address.

This is just irresponsible since most state require a person to update their drivers license within 30 days of a change of address.
 
This is typical liberal racism by danarhea. Ignore the fact that the state has been asking the feds to help confirm who is and isn’t a citizen and act like you are outraged that these “white republicans” are trying to return to the days of Jim Crow.

How pathetic it must be to see white boogieman republicans hiding around every corner just looking to enslave everyone else. What a joke.

Yes, it's all about Liberal racism, which is why REPUBLICAN officials in some counties are refusing to obey Scott and are NOT conducting the purge. OK, I just learned something. Republicans are Liberals. :rofl
 
Last edited:
You seem fixated on "driver's license". Drivers License is not required. A state issued ID is required.

Not sure how you think that helps anything. Neither me nor my grandmother have any ID issued by the states we live in. You don't need one for any other reason. In the states we live in, you don't need it to vote either, but if they did pass one of those laws here, I doubt I'd go down to the DMV for a day to get a new ID I don't need just for voting. Do you honestly think you would?

This is just irresponsible since most state require a person to update their drivers license within 30 days of a change of address.

Some states do, some states don't. But, regardless, that's only if you drive.

I think a lot of this issue just comes down to folks not thinking beyond their own lifestyle. People who live in the suburbs or some small town somewhere that drive everywhere and haven't moved in 20 years think "gosh, that doesn't sound like a hassle to me" so they figure it must not be for anybody... But in reality there are many people who move every year, even multiple times a year. Sometimes within states, sometimes between states. There are many people who don't drive either because they live in a big city or because they are elderly or because they can't afford a car. I've lived in 4 different states in just the past 2 years for example and I have only been driving in 2 of those 4 states. You need to put more effort into thinking this stuff through and putting yourself in other people's shoes.
 
Not sure how you think that helps anything. Neither me nor my grandmother have any ID issued by the states we live in. You don't need one for any other reason. In the states we live in, you don't need it to vote either, but if they did pass one of those laws here, I doubt I'd go down to the DMV for a day to get a new ID I don't need just for voting. Do you honestly think you would?

To Vote? Absolutely yes, I would. Did you take the time to register to vote? Photo Id is required for many things. Opening a bank account, purchasing alcohol or cigarettes or (at least here) purchasing Advil cold and sinus.


Some states do, some states don't. But, regardless, that's only if you drive.

I think a lot of this issue just comes down to folks not thinking beyond their own lifestyle. People who live in the suburbs or some small town somewhere that drive everywhere and haven't moved in 20 years think "gosh, that doesn't sound like a hassle to me" so they figure it must not be for anybody... But in reality there are many people who move every year, even multiple times a year. Sometimes within states, sometimes between states. There are many people who don't drive either because they live in a big city or because they are elderly or because they can't afford a car. I've lived in 4 different states in just the past 2 years for example and I have only been driving in 2 of those 4 states. You need to put more effort into thinking this stuff through and putting yourself in other people's shoes.

You also have to register to vote. It that too much hassle also? should we just allow whoever walks up to the polling place to vote with no checks at all?
 
To Vote? Absolutely yes, I would. Did you take the time to register to vote? Photo Id is required for many things. Opening a bank account, purchasing alcohol or cigarettes or (at least here) purchasing Advil cold and sinus.

No, again, I have several forms of valid photo ID. Just not one that would meet the most rigged of the voter ID laws. A passport is accepted as proof of ID for every other purpose there is, as is an out of state drivers' license. But not for some of these voter ID laws because they're attempting to rig the elections.

You also have to register to vote. It that too much hassle also? should we just allow whoever walks up to the polling place to vote with no checks at all?

Well, first off, all the studies conclude that just letting people vote actually very rarely leads to any fraud. That's what the actual evidence proves, so no need for speculation.

But, I would be fine with just requiring a valid photo ID.
 
So you just admit that you're willing to go along with election fraud if it gets the results you like?

No. As I said earlier steps should be taken to prevent any voter fraud whatsoever, while you were making the claim that some voter fraud is acceptable. That's where we differ.

Not sure what you're talking about here either. That doesn't have anything to do with anything we're talking about as far as I can tell.

It's really quite clear.

Again, I already have a passport. That doesn't help under a lot of the so called "voter ID" laws, because they aren't there just to figure out if you're a legal voter, they're there to skew election results. You clearly aren't reading my posts.

This debate is not about you.

Again, just rain alone reduces turnout by 50%. Obviously spending a day at the DMV is a bigger hassle than rain, right? So you're talking about a massive manipulation of the election, right?

Is this a climate change argument? Is is still about Al Gore?

10% is the number of people who currently do not have a form of ID accepted by the most rigged of the voter ID laws.

How about a link to a reliable source?

So, what do you figure, 1 in 10 people in that boat would go get an additional photo ID they don't need for any other purpose just to vote? So nationally if those voter ID laws were imposed, that would be something on the order of 18 million acts of voter fraud the Republicans would be committing by rigging the elections in this way.

It\s not clear how you arrived at this conclusion. There is some muddled thinking going on, it seems.

Other countries just require a valid photo ID, not all this messed up gaming of the system to try to rig elections.

You should provide some credible l;nks to justify these assertions.
 
The last time? That would be just this week, which is why the Justice Department intervened. It was in the news, 'ya know. :mrgreen:


Oh yes, and DoJ under the Obama administration would never do anything skirting the law....Nooooooo....Gheeze Dana, you are so conservative, what with your unquestioning demeanor of our current administration and all....:roll:

j-mac
 
No. As I said earlier steps should be taken to prevent any voter fraud whatsoever, while you were making the claim that some voter fraud is acceptable. That's where we differ.

Well, the worst of the voter ID laws are, by far, the biggest case of election fraud anybody has even contemplated in 50 years. You seem to think that is acceptable for some reason.

This debate is not about you.

You claimed that having a passport would mean I could vote. That is not true. The debate isn't about me, it is about whether the requirements are reasonable. Do you think that refusing to accept even passports- generally seen as the most reliable and fraud proof form of ID there is, is reasonable?

How about a link to a reliable source?

Voter ID | Brennan Center for Justice

It\s not clear how you arrived at this conclusion. There is some muddled thinking going on, it seems.

I don't understand where you're getting confused. Again, voter ID laws create a barrier to voting that many people will not overcome. So, however many legit voters get prevented from voting, that is how much election fraud the voter ID laws result in. Many millions.
 
Oh yes, and DoJ under the Obama administration would never do anything skirting the law....Nooooooo....Gheeze Dana, you are so conservative, what with your unquestioning demeanor of our current administration and all....:roll:

j-mac

When as many as 20% of the people that are on the list are actually citizens and actually eligible to vote, then yes, it is a violation of the 14th Amendment. Want to make a bet? If this goes to the Supreme Court, let's bet on the outcome. Avatars for a month. You in?
 
Now why would the Justice Department order a purge of non-citizens to be stopped? A purge like this is a good thing, right? Well, not really. Not if a substantial number of purged voters are actually citizens, and are being added to the purge list because they don't happen to be white Republicans.



Article is here.

It is very satisfying to see a conservative come out against a conservative politician's civil rights abuse.

Make no mistake, I would gladly return the favor. If a Democratic politician ever tried to purge Republicans who were legally entitled to vote from the registry, I would defend those Republicans tooth and nail. It is better to have a politician you don't like ethically elected than one you do like unethically elected.
 
When as many as 20% of the people that are on the list are actually citizens and actually eligible to vote, then yes, it is a violation of the 14th Amendment. Want to make a bet? If this goes to the Supreme Court, let's bet on the outcome. Avatars for a month. You in?

Yeah, it certainly is. But, more directly, disregarding a refusal by the DOJ to preclear a change to voting procedures in a covered jurisdiction is extremely illegal. They won't even need to get into any constitutional questions. The Voting Rights Act flatly says that they can't enact changes to voting procedures without either the DOJ or a court pre-clearing it. If they do, as they boast they will, they will unquestionably be in serious violation of federal law.
 
When as many as 20% of the people that are on the list are actually citizens and actually eligible to vote, then yes, it is a violation of the 14th Amendment. Want to make a bet? If this goes to the Supreme Court, let's bet on the outcome. Avatars for a month. You in?


LOL, if it goes to the Supreme Court?....heh, heh....Yeah sure...:roll:

Good God man...


j-mac
 
Yeah, and you just might be.

My understanding is that there are over 2 million federal employees. Isn't there an agency somewhere which can figure out who is eligible to vote?

It's been over 235 year now. Aren't the citizens getting a little impatient for the Feds to solve the problem?

Each state controls it's own voter registration lists. However, Florida has had a long history of Jim Crow, and voter suppression, so much so that any plan it comes up with, in regard to voting, must be reviewed by the Federal government to assure that it complies with the 1965 Voting Rights Act, and the 14th Amendment, both of which the State of Florida has violated time and time again, thus making Federal review of it's programs necessary.

It's not up to the Federal government to fix Florida's problem. It's up to Florida, and until Florida does fix it's problem, the Feds will be watching them, and putting a stop to anything they attempt to do that breaks the law.

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to State's Rights...perhaps at its worse.
 
Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to State's Rights...perhaps at its worse.

Sadly, states' rights seem to always be at their worst. The big states' rights battles have all been about individual states trying to do something awful. Slavery is obviously the big one, but school segregation, lax safety standards for nuclear power plants, voting discrimination, employment discrimination, child labor, pollution... The list goes on and on. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, the states never seem to have been on the right side of the issue in any of these state-federal squabbles in our history.
 
No, again, I have several forms of valid photo ID. Just not one that would meet the most rigged of the voter ID laws. A passport is accepted as proof of ID for every other purpose there is, as is an out of state drivers' license. But not for some of these voter ID laws because they're attempting to rig the elections.
Valid? Without your current address? I don't think most banks would consider that valid.
Well, first off, all the studies conclude that just letting people vote actually very rarely leads to any fraud. That's what the actual evidence proves, so no need for speculation.
Allowing people to walk in without any registration at all? Has any state done that? If not how can they know it leads to little fraud?
 
Valid? Without your current address? I don't think most banks would consider that valid.

Of course they do. In fact, I bet that your bank asks you whether your ID has your current address all the time. If it doesn't, they just ask you what your current address is.

Allowing people to walk in without any registration at all? Has any state done that? If not how can they know it leads to little fraud?

No, all states require registration, but most allow you to register and vote right at the polling place. I have no problem with requiring registration, although IMO the only reason not to allow same day registration is voter suppression. Heck, I'm even OK with requiring a photo ID. But these so called voter ID laws that tack on all sorts of other requirements in attempts to rig the elections are not remotely acceptable.

Here is what you maybe don't get. Committing voter fraud by actually going into a polling place would be idiotic. Totally inefficient and high risk. It is hard enough getting even half of legal voters to vote. If somebody wanted to make a big push to get more votes, why would they possibly push for illegal voters when there are millions of legal voters who haven't voted? It'd be way easier to get legal voters to vote than to get people to commit a crime. And, regardless, if somebody wanted to commit voter fraud, they find ways to do it that result in hundreds or thousands of votes and involve less risk, such as sending in fake absentee ballots or fraud by election workers. That kind of stuff happens, but fraud committed by going into a polling place and voting when you shouldn't doesn't really happen at all. Again, that is what literally hundreds of studies have all concluded. It just baffles me. It's like the right just doesn't even care whether there is actual factual evidence for things anymore. They just go off half cocked about everything and even when faced with the actual evidence, they are unphased.... Has the right just collapsed into a cesspool of the stupid or what?
 
Back
Top Bottom