• 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!

In South Carolina, attorney general says voting rights at risk

DaveFagan said:
I think the only reason for it is to suppress the black vote. South Carolina always amazes me. It has a very high percentage of black citizens and votes Republican. That is perplexing to me. Perhaps not to you.
Click to expand...
Actually it is to suppress the Democratic vote. If you'll look at the people targeted by the ID laws... elderly, minority, students. All traditionally Democrats.

And without checking, I'd wager that these state laws are coming from ALEC.

The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is a politically conservative 501(c) (3) non-profit Policy Organization, consisting of both state legislators and members of the private sector. ALEC's mission statement describes the organization's purpose as the advancement of free-market principles, limited government, federalism, and individual liberty. Among other activities, the group provides a venue for private individuals and corporations to assist politicians in developing what it considers model laws serving the economic and political aims of its members. ALEC also serves as a networking tool among state legislators, allowing them to research the handling and best practices of policy in other states.

ALEC currently has more than 2,000 legislative members representing all 50 states, as well as more than 85 members of Congress and 14 sitting or former Governors who are considered alumni. ALEC also claims approximately 300 corporate, foundation, and other private-sector members. A list of ALEC leaders in the states includes 73 Republican lawmakers and 7 Democrats. [...] Each year approximately 800 bills based in whole or in part on ALEC model legislation are introduced in the states. Annually, about 20% of these introduced bills become law.[5]

American Legislative Exchange Council - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...
 
ARealConservative said:
a college Id could allow a student to vote twice, and just adds to voter fraud.

giving people the means to vote twice is basically the same as taking my vote away
Click to expand...

That would only be if he chose to vote in his home town AND in his college town. Whether the polls use his college ID or his driver's license has nothing to do with the ability to vote twice. He would have to actively register twice and vote in two different polls to pull off that crime.

Not using a college ID is making a student either get a local driver's license (which would mean he's officially moved out of his parent's home -and that has tax implications) or vote at home. There is no reason a student shouldn't be able to vote in his college town with a valid student ID.

Not sure where you guys went to college, but it was much easier to fake a state ID than it was to fake a student ID.

And you're being paranoid. Again, there is NO proof that this is a problem.

In 5-Year Effort, Scant Evidence of Voter Fraud - New York Times
 
jamesrage said:
SO how can you prove that fraud is NOT happening?
Click to expand...

When multiple studies have been done in many places and none of them find rampant voter fraud, it suggests to a reasonable person that there isn't a problem there. Especially when the studies are being done by people who are actively seeking to find the problem (like the Bush DoJ tried to do).
 
haymarket said:
I have been voting in elections for forty years. I have never been asked to show any photo ID. The person on the other side of the table at my voting precinct does their due diligence by matching the signature I produced in front of them with my signature on my voters application which is kept in a book on site.

There never has been any reason for a photo ID.

And none has ever been offered here to warrant such a change.
Click to expand...

how quaint. I here similar stories every day at work about why a business doesn't need to improve their technologies. They have used a little note book for years, and it works fine.
 
FilmFestGuy said:
When multiple studies have been done in many places and none of them find rampant voter fraud, it suggests to a reasonable person that there isn't a problem there. Especially when the studies are being done by people who are actively seeking to find the problem (like the Bush DoJ tried to do).
Click to expand...

I seriously doubt any of those studies called up everyone on the sign in sheet to see if they actually voted.So those studies did not prove if fraud did or did not occur.
 
ARealConservative said:
how quaint. I here similar stories every day at work about why a business doesn't need to improve their technologies. They have used a little note book for years, and it works fine.
Click to expand...

Thank you for proving my point.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
 
jamesrage said:
SO how can you prove that fraud is NOT happening?
Click to expand...

James - I cannot prove that there are NOT three inch monkeys made of flame that play professional basketball underneath the surface of Uranus.

You have been around a long time - you are intelligent - you know well that one cannot prove a negative like what you suggest.
 
jamesrage said:
SO how can you prove that fraud is NOT happening?
Click to expand...
Only the terminally ignorant need proof of a negative.

Since that does not apply to any of us here, I fail to see the validity of your question.
 
jamesrage said:
When a state enacts a law that says you need ID to vote they give adequate notice. If the woman chose at the last minute to try to get a ID then that is her fault.
Click to expand...
How do you know she "chose at the last minute"?

Please -- don't make stuff up and offer it as an argument. It just wastes everyone's time, and makes the thread look dumb.
 
FilmFestGuy said:
That would only be if he chose to vote in his home town AND in his college town. Whether the polls use his college ID or his driver's license has nothing to do with the ability to vote twice. He would have to actively register twice and vote in two different polls to pull off that crime.

Not using a college ID is making a student either get a local driver's license (which would mean he's officially moved out of his parent's home -and that has tax implications) or vote at home. There is no reason a student shouldn't be able to vote in his college town with a valid student ID.

Not sure where you guys went to college, but it was much easier to fake a state ID than it was to fake a student ID.

And you're being paranoid. Again, there is NO proof that this is a problem.

In 5-Year Effort, Scant Evidence of Voter Fraud - New York Times
Click to expand...

your link only said that no "organized attempts" at fraud have been found. They have certainly found cases of fraud.
 
Karl said:
How do you know she "chose at the last minute"?

Please -- don't make stuff up and offer it as an argument. It just wastes everyone's time, and makes the thread look dumb.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that as soon as the new law was passed she immediately went down to the DMV to get her a ID and she has been waiting for ever to resolve the issue of her last name and no marriage certificate?
 
Karl said:
Only the terminally ignorant need proof of a negative.

Since that does not apply to any of us here, I fail to see the validity of your question.
Click to expand...

You are claiming fraud isn't happening.
 
jamesrage said:
Are you saying that as soon as the new law was passed she immediately went down to the DMV to get her a ID and she has been waiting for ever to resolve the issue of her last name and no marriage certificate?
Click to expand...
Please -- don't make stuff up and offer it as an argument. It just wastes everyone's time, and makes the thread look dumb.
 
jamesrage said:
You are claiming fraud isn't happening.
Click to expand...
Please -- don't make stuff up and offer it as an argument. It just wastes everyone's time, and makes the thread look dumb.
 
digsbe said:
I honestly don't see the big hoopla over having to show an ID. You have to show an ID to get alcohol, buy cigarettes, pick up certain medications prescribed to you, apply for a passport to legally leave and reenter the country, and numerous other things. This isn't a violation of voter rights and is a good thing.
Click to expand...

first, your list of items that require photo ID's are for the exercise of privileges; voting is a right. The issue is about creating a barrier in the exercise of a RIGHT.

The only reason to require photo idea is voter suppression. Moreover, intelligent people realize that the vote that people are trying to suppress tends to vote for a particular party. Its time to stop the intellectual dishonesty and just call this what it is: a Republican tactic to suppress Democratic votes.
 
jamesrage said:
You are claiming fraud isn't happening.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone's saying that fraud isn't happening. Everytime it's looked into, it's only in a small percentage of votes cast. Usually under 1%. So what you've got is a solution in search of a problem.

If you look at the ID provision, I don't have a problem with it. However, it's not going to stop fraud. It's simply going to mean that you'll need a fake ID to do it. Fake IDs aren't that hard to come by, High School kids do it all the time.

So what you've got with the ID requirement is a non-solution to a non-problem. Why do we need that?
 
jamesrage said:
Unless they call up every registered voter whose signature appears on the sign in sheet and ask how they voted and how and compared it to the ballots they are not going to be able to prove fraud?
Click to expand...

So what you are saying is that you trust nobody and therefore no election results are valid, because unless you personally interrogate every single voter, they all could be forgeries. However, not even your solution would work, since there is no way to tie a signature to a ballot. The ballot is secret - at least it is in my state.

This is a silly discussion. The issue ought to be proving that fraud takes place, not proving that it doesn't. In this state, those alleging fraud were given five months, hundreds of attorneys, and a court room to prove it. They failed.
 
haymarket said:
I would welcome looking at the figures you may want to present on voter fraud convictions.
Click to expand...

This should be interesting. When these sorts of challenges are issued, they always fail - and the excuse is, 'well, you can't really prove fraud but I know it's happening.'

The national figures for convictions for voter fraud are microscopic.
 
rocket88 said:
I don't think anyone's saying that fraud isn't happening. Everytime it's looked into, it's only in a small percentage of votes cast. Usually under 1%. So what you've got is a solution in search of a problem.

If you look at the ID provision, I don't have a problem with it. However, it's not going to stop fraud. It's simply going to mean that you'll need a fake ID to do it. Fake IDs aren't that hard to come by, High School kids do it all the time.

So what you've got with the ID requirement is a non-solution to a non-problem. Why do we need that?
Click to expand...

It's a fraction of 1%.
 
ARealConservative said:
your link only said that no "organized attempts" at fraud have been found. They have certainly found cases of fraud.
Click to expand...


They sure have,in Wisconsin they found seven.:2wave:"This amounts to a rate of 0.0025% within Milwaukee and 0.0002% within the state as a whole. None of these problems could have been resolved by requiring photo ID at the polls. "

Wisconsin, 2004 (The Truth About Fraud)
 
treedancer said:
Looks to me like someone is attempting to suppress those that cant/don't drive, or don't have a photo ID from voting. Wonder why?:roll:


Mon Jan 16, 2012 12:26pm EST

(Reuters) - U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, appearing at a Martin Luther King holiday rally in South Carolina, warned on Monday that voting rights laws are still at risk and said aggressive enforcement of those laws is "a moral imperative."


<"The reality is that - in jurisdictions across the country - both overt and subtle forms of discrimination remain all too common," Holder, who is black, told hundreds of people attending an annual rally to honor King, the slain civil rights leader, on the steps of the South Carolina state capitol.>





<The South Carolina law required voters to show a state-issued photo identification card to cast a ballot in an election. Republican supporters said it would prevent voter fraud, but Democratic critics argued it would make it harder for those without driver's licenses, many of them poor and black, to cast a ballot.>


<The Justice Department blocked the law after ruling it could hinder the right to vote of tens of thousands of people. It noted that just more than a third of the state's minorities who are registered voters did not have a driver's license. The state plans to fight the ruling in court.>


In South Carolina, attorney general says voting rights at risk | Reuters
Click to expand...

I'm not worried about voter fraud at all. From what I've read it is negligible.

But let's say out of 200,000 votes, you have 10 fraudulent votes. That's a problem, right? I guess.

Now. Lets say out of 200,000 votes, because of photo ID requirements 1,000 people don't vote. You will still have most of the 10 fraudulent votes, maybe all of them. But, for whatever reason, 1,000 people who can currently legally vote, do not vote. What has been accomplished?
 
tryreading said:
I'm not worried about voter fraud at all. From what I've read it is negligible.

But let's say out of 200,000 votes, you have 10 fraudulent votes. That's a problem, right? I guess.

Now. Lets say out of 200,000 votes, because of photo ID requirements 1,000 people don't vote. You will still have most of the 10 fraudulent votes, maybe all of them. But, for whatever reason, 1,000 people who can currently legally vote, do not vote. What has been accomplished?
Click to expand...

A couple thousand votes can change an election. Consider that mittens won the Iowa caucuses with an eight vote margin but it’s still a W. It’s a shame when one of the two political parties in this country cant win on ideas. So sad.:(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom