• 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!

Photo ID to vote?

Photo ID to vote?

  • Total voters
    92
Josie said:
It takes my fingerprint to get onto my computer. Maybe we should do that instead of photo ID....

I really don't know why some of you don't want to keep the voting process for the highest office in the land secure and fair. What's the downside to that?
Click to expand...

Bio-metrics would not be a bad idea but it would be seen as an invasion of privacy. If the government does not have your fingerprints, they don't need them just to vote. They don't even do that to buy weapons, so I don't think it would fly at all.
 
a777pilot said:
Only if you are a Democrat and are interested only in the outcome no matter the cost, i.e., The end justifies the means.
Click to expand...

Out of 190 million voters we average 17 cases of voter fraud a year. Looks like the $5,000 fine and five years in jail penalty for voter fraud is pretty damn effective.
 
a777pilot said:
Oh BS! Get your head out.
Click to expand...

"A five year study conducted by President Bush’s Justice Department found that out of more than 300 million votes, there were only 86 cases of individual voter fraud nationwide, and most of them involved immigrants who misunderstood their eligibility. In Pennsylvania since 2004, there have been more than 20 million votes cast and 4 convictions of fraud, all involving people registering when not eligible.Subject: Voter ID Op-Ed by State Sen. Daylin Leach"
 
Catawba said:
"A five year study conducted by President Bush’s Justice Department found that out of more than 300 million votes, there were only 86 cases of individual voter fraud nationwide, and most of them involved immigrants who misunderstood their eligibility. In Pennsylvania since 2004, there have been more than 20 million votes cast and 4 convictions of fraud, all involving people registering when not eligible.Subject: Voter ID Op-Ed by State Sen. Daylin Leach"
Click to expand...

Wrong. The study actually says...

Although Republican activists have repeatedly said fraud is so widespread that it has corrupted the political process and, possibly, cost the party election victories, about 120 people have been charged and 86 convicted as of last year.

Most of those charged have been Democrats, voting records show. Many of those charged by the Justice Department appear to have mistakenly filled out registration forms or misunderstood eligibility rules, a review of court records and interviews with prosecutors and defense lawyers show.

Mistakes and lapses in enforcing voting and registration rules routinely occur in elections, allowing thousands of ineligible voters to go to the polls. But the federal cases provide little evidence of widespread, organized fraud, prosecutors and election law experts said.- In 5-Year Effort, Scant Evidence of Voter Fraud - New York Times

ID's are not the answer, but they will help.
 
Last edited:
Blackdog said:
Wrong. The study actually says...

Although Republican activists have repeatedly said fraud is so widespread that it has corrupted the political process and, possibly, cost the party election victories, about 120 people have been charged and 86 convicted as of last year.

Most of those charged have been Democrats, voting records show. Many of those charged by the Justice Department appear to have mistakenly filled out registration forms or misunderstood eligibility rules, a review of court records and interviews with prosecutors and defense lawyers show.

Mistakes and lapses in enforcing voting and registration rules routinely occur in elections, allowing thousands of ineligible voters to go to the polls. But the federal cases provide little evidence of widespread, organized fraud, prosecutors and election law experts said.- In 5-Year Effort, Scant Evidence of Voter Fraud - New York Times

ID's are not the answer, but they will help.
Click to expand...

86 (that there was enough proof to convict) divided by 5 is still 17.2 by my calculator. The red font doesn't change that. Sorry! As your link points out:

In 5-Year Effort, Scant Evidence of Voter Fraud
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
86 (that there was enough proof to convict) divided by 5 is still 17.2 by my calculator. The red font doesn't change that. Sorry! As your link points out:
Click to expand...

#1 It makes your article wrong.
#2 Not my link, the play drive.
#3 My argument has never been that the fraud was perpetrated by allot of people. My contention is that it happens.
#4 there were only 86 cases of individual voter fraud nationwide - Subject: Voter ID Op-Ed by State Sen. Daylin Leach <--- Wrong.

Keep ignoring the rest as it does not matter anymore. You have no argument, it is happening and will continue.

Game over man, lol.
 
Do you read your own links? here is what Sentor Leach says in the piece from the above post:

What all of this means is that to solve a problem that literally does not exist in our state, we are going to disenfranchise approximately 700,000 Pennsylvania voters. These voters: poor people, African Americans and students tend to disproportionately vote Democratic. This appears to be yet another cynical effort to rig future elections by people who have no respect for the democratic process and whose only concern is winning. It is ironic that this effort is occurring in the state where representative democracy was born.
Click to expand...

And why does he say that is a solution to a problem that does not exist?

A five year study conducted by President Bush’s Justice Department found that out of more than 300 million votes, there were only 86 cases of individual voter fraud nationwide, and most of them involved immigrants who misunderstood their eligibility. In Pennsylvania since 2004, there have been more than 20 million votes cast and 4 convictions of fraud, all involving people registering when not eligible. None of these cases involved someone pretending to be someone they were not. Secretary Aichele herself, in a Philadelphia Inquirer article is quoted as saying “I've worked in polling places since 1981, and I've never seen voter fraud.”
Click to expand...

Apparently I have been wrong and using the figure of 86 convictions out of over 196 million votes. Actually it is out of over 300 million votes. The teeny tiny percentages just shrunk even further.

from blackdog
My argument has never been that the fraud was perpetrated by allot of people. My contention is that it happens.
Click to expand...

My oh my how far the right has sunk to attempt to stack the deck to win future elections at a time when demographic census projections clearly show their base is shrinking. Now its not even a pretense that a problem really exists, only that 100% pure virginal perfection does not exist.

Amazing.

This is a pure and simple partisan attempt to counter future demographic trends which spell trouble for a shrinking Republican voter base. This is a way to disenfranchise large numbers of likely Democratic voters and keep the GOP in the game.
There is no significant problem that requires a solution.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
Do you read your own links? here is what Sentor Leach says in the piece from the above post:

And why does he say that is a solution to a problem that does not exist?
Click to expand...

A politician pandering to his base. makes perfect sense. Since we already know from the other 15 states that it had no real effect on voter turnout.

haymarket said:
Apparently I have been wrong and using the figure of 86 convictions out of over 196 million votes. Actually it is out of over 300 million votes. The teeny tiny percentages just shrunk even further.
Click to expand...

Again makes no difference. When 1 to 4 people can register 400,000 illegal names (as ACORN did) an ID can go a long way to helping expose it.

haymarket said:
My oh my how far the right has sunk to attempt to stack the deck to win future elections at a time when demographic census projections clearly show their base is shrinking. Now its not even a pretense that a problem really exists, only that 100% pure virginal perfection does not exist.
Click to expand...

More partisan crap.

Just look at the poll. That should tell you something.

haymarket said:
Amazing.
Click to expand...

Yes your level of dishonesty and partisan ranting is amazing.

haymarket said:
This is a pure and simple partisan attempt to counter future demographic trends which spell trouble for a shrinking Republican voter base. This is a way to disenfranchise large numbers of likely Democratic voters and keep the GOP in the game.
Click to expand...

Even more partisan ranting. :roll:

Debate, not rant.

haymarket said:
There is no significant problem that requires a solution.
Click to expand...

I agree, and this will help that never become a major issue.
 
Last edited:
Having read the latest thread responses, if I were a conservative, I'd hide that black spot , I'd even publicly disavow being a conservative, better yet, I'd switch to being a moderate...
And yes !, the photo ID is a good idea, whose time has come....But not for preventing certain people from voting, but for streamlining and modernizing the voting process.
 
haymarket said:
No reasons have been established to institute a system which may cost hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of people their vote. The system works and works quite well.
Click to expand...

While not an analytical answer the reason that has escaped you is ‘because they wanted to’. As BHO put it so eloquently ‘elections have consequences’. The GOP won majority in the states that passed the voter ID laws and now they get to ‘do what they want’. And as you state ‘the system works and works quite well’ so if the electorate thinks the GOP have overstepped their bounds they will press for a referendum on the ID laws, as they did the CB law in Ohio. And if they think the legislators overstepped drastically enough they may recall them individual. Considering the results of this highly unscientific DP poll, 7/3 for, referendum seems unlikely.
 
Dickieboy...... What do you mean "because they wanted to"? Who is it that wanted to do what?

You are intentionally confusing what i said with what you want it to mean. I took the actual historical record - 86 voter fraud convictions out of over 300 million votes cast - and showed that there is no problem and the system we have works well.

Are you really arguing that because a party wins a majority in an election they then have license to do anything they can muster enough votes to pass and that is the only measure of if it is good and worthwhile or not?

from Blackdog

Yes your level of dishonesty and partisan ranting is amazing.
Even more partisan ranting. :roll:
Click to expand...




........ voting should never be a partisan issue but sadly it is. To hide your head in the sand and play high and mighty and yell PARTISAN when the reality is laid out ofr you is a bit naive to put it kindly. The reason it is so is because the right looks at demographic projections of a changing America and they see little prospect in a conservative white persons party being able to win down the road as white voters become the minority in the land as the census projects by 2050. They could do two things in response to this
1) move to the middle to attract new voters, or
2) move to enact repressive measures to prevent the wrong folks from voting for the wrong party as far too many have endorsed on this very site.

The first option flies in the face of the turn by the GOP towards right libertarianism over the past years and it is now firmly in control of the party apparatus meaning that it is not going to happen anytime soon. So what we have left is efforts to end same day voting registration, cut back on early voting, increase restrictions on absentee ballot use, take away former felons right to vote, tighten up on registration procedures and introduce things like this bogus ID requirement when there is no demonstrable or significant problem which warrants any of it.

Reality can be harsh and upsetting.... but reality it is and whining about PARTISANSHIP is not going to make it otherwise. In facts its quite humorous that someone being a warrior in a far right partisan effort pretends to take the high road and accuse others who object to Americans being stripped of voting rights as PARTISAN.
 
Last edited:
If the system is working well and there is no fraud then why do the dead vote in Cook County?

How is it that a dead man wins an election is Missouri?

How is it the the eventual "winner" in Minnesota and Washington got more votes in some precincts than voters in those precincts?

How is it that in Indiana the last county to make its results know in an election is always Lake County?

How is it that in the southern counties of Texas there are so many illegals voting that those counties are just an extension of mexico?

There in now and has been for a long time rampant voter fraud and almost all of it is do to the attitude of Democrats that the end justifies the means.




p.s., Not mentioned in this thread, and really ought to be its own thread, is the fact that if you don't vote on a paper ballot, you really haven't voted.
 
from a777

If the system is working well and there is no fraud then why do the dead vote in Cook County?
Click to expand...

I will gladly look at your evidence if you have any to present.

How is it that a dead man wins an election is Missouri?
Click to expand...

Based on your first question, perhaps the dead voted for him in a bloc to have a true representative for their needs?
Do you have evidence to show this was voter fraud? I will be happy to look at it.

How is it the the eventual "winner" in Minnesota and Washington got more votes in some precincts than voters in those precincts?
Click to expand...
I have no idea but if you present your evidence I will be happy to look at it.


How is it that in Indiana the last county to make its results know in an election is always Lake County?
Click to expand...
Somebody has to be last. Do you have actual evidence to present regarding voter fraud in Lake County? If so, I will be happy to look at it.

How is it that in the southern counties of Texas there are so many illegals voting that those counties are just an extension of mexico?
Click to expand...
Did I miss the link in that statement which presented the actual evidence of your claim?

There in now and has been for a long time rampant voter fraud and almost all of it is do to the attitude of Democrats that the end justifies the means.
Click to expand...

While that highly inflamed partisan statement may get you the approval of those on the far right, it hardly constitutes evidence of any crime or wrongdoing.
 
haymarket said:
from a777



I will gladly look at your evidence if you have any to present.



Based on your first question, perhaps the dead voted for him in a bloc to have a true representative for their needs?
Do you have evidence to show this was voter fraud? I will be happy to look at it.


I have no idea but if you present your evidence I will be happy to look at it.



Somebody has to be last. Do you have actual evidence to present regarding voter fraud in Lake County? If so, I will be happy to look at it.


Did I miss the link in that statement which presented the actual evidence of your claim?



While that highly inflamed partisan statement may get you the approval of those on the far right, it hardly constitutes evidence of any crime or wrongdoing.
Click to expand...

ROFLMAO!

You would never believe anything I posted or linked, so you look it up yourself.

p.s., Just another Liberal happily making his case of the end justifies the means.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
Dickieboy...... What do you mean "because they wanted to"? Who is it that wanted to do what?
Click to expand...

‘They’ can be understood to mean just the legislators or more globally the electorate. Is our governance based only on who we elect or is its essential power based in the electorate as a whole? Again, if the ‘system works and works quite well’ why not let it work?

You are intentionally confusing what i said with what you want it to mean. I took the actual historical record - 86 voter fraud convictions out of over 300 million votes cast - and showed that there is no problem and the system we have works well.
Click to expand...

No, I understand you argument and do not disagree with the point. There has been very little fraud conviction historically. The reasons for this vary I’m sure but whatever. My agreement of you ‘system’ statement goes past elections but the governance system as a whole, although ugly at times it does work.

Are you really arguing that because a party wins a majority in an election they then have license to do anything they can muster enough votes to pass and that is the only measure of if it is good and worthwhile or not?
Click to expand...

BHO did. Why would it be any different if another party is in power? Who’s the authority on whether ‘it is good and worthwhile or not’…the electorate? Further, aren’t you basing you opinion/argument on ‘what you want it to mean’?
 
a777pilot said:
ROFLMAO!

You would never believe anything I posted or linked, so you look it up yourself.

p.s., Just another Liberal happily making his case of the end justifies the means.
Click to expand...

You attack me but the fault lies in you. I said nothing about the ends justifies any means. This is a strawman out of your own barn.

You have presented nothing to examine.

You have presented no actual evidence to be examined.

You have presented only vague repeating of unsupported right wing horror tales designed to scare your randroids into submission.

There is NOTHING for me to look up since you failed to provide anything. The way debate works is that it is the responsibility of the one making the charges, the boasts, the claims or the allegations to provide verifiable proof of their claims. That would be you.

Dickieboy

how can you attack President Obama for something and attempt to use that same standard in defense of what you support?

In the end, you still end up with nearly nothing on this charge of voter fraud. You want to expand the discussion to the entire political system - but the fact remains that we have seen no real significant evidence of voter fraud which mandates some serious changes in the process.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
You have presented nothing to examine.

You have presented no actual evidence to be examined.

You have presented only vague repeating of unsupported right wing horror tales designed to scare your randroids into submission.

There is NOTHING for me to look up since you failed to provide anything. The way debate works is that it is the responsibility of the one making the charges, the boasts, the claims or the allegations to provide verifiable proof of their claims. That would be you.

Dickieboy

how can you attack President Obama for something and attempt to use that same standard in defense of what you support?

In the end, you still end up with nearly nothing on this charge of voter fraud. You want to expand the discussion to the entire political system - but the fact remains that we have seen no real significant evidence of voter fraud which mandates some serious changes in the process.
Click to expand...

OK. Fair enough.

I quote from Wikipedia (not the best source, but it is a source)

In spite of his being deceased, Mel Carnahan was elected by a narrow margin, 51% to 49%.
Click to expand...

ROFLMAO!
 
a777pilot said:
OK. Fair enough.

I quote from Wikipedia (not the best source, but it is a source)



ROFLMAO!
Click to expand...

Even if we're not willing to make voters prove that they are who they say they are, we should at least make the candidates prove that they're still alive.

I think John Wayne would have a good chance at public office, if the "being dead" issue could be spun somehow.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Even if we're not willing to make voters prove that they are who they say they are, we should at least make the candidates prove that they're still alive.

I think John Wayne would have a good chance at public office, if the "being dead" issue could be spun somehow.
Click to expand...

LOL!

Good point.
 
haymarket said:
Dickieboy
how can you attack President Obama for something and attempt to use that same standard in defense of what you support?
Click to expand...

I am not attacking him but agreeing with him. He was/is right ‘elections do have consequences’. Is it your position that they do not?

In the end, you still end up with nearly nothing on this charge of voter fraud. You want to expand the discussion to the entire political system - but the fact remains that we have seen no real significant evidence of voter fraud which mandates some serious changes in the process.
Click to expand...

Please notice in the previous post that I agreed with your ‘false voter fraud’ contention. What is the argument?
 
a777pilot said:
OK. Fair enough.

I quote from Wikipedia (not the best source, but it is a source)



ROFLMAO!
Click to expand...

When you stop laughing can you please explain to all here what that election result has to do with evidence of voter fraud?

If you read a bit further in Wikipedia you would find a detailed summary of what happened in that election

In 2000, Mel Carnahan ran for U.S. Senate, opposing the incumbent Republican, John Ashcroft. It was a heated, intense campaign in which Carnahan traveled all over the state to garner support in what was a very close race. Early on October 16, 2000, just three weeks before the election and the night before a presidential debate to be held at Washington University in St. Louis, the twin-engine Cessna airplane piloted by the Governor's son, Randy, crashed on a heavily forested hillside during a rainstorm and foggy conditions near Goldman, Missouri, about 35 miles south of St. Louis. All three occupants of the plane - Governor Carnahan, his son Randy, and Chris Sifford, campaign advisor and former chief of staff to the governor - died in the crash.
Shortly afterward, Lieutenant Governor Roger B. Wilson succeeded Mel Carnahan to fill the Governor's office until January 2001. Because Missouri election law would not allow for Mel Carnahan's name to be removed from the November 7, 2000 ballot, Jean Carnahan, his widow, became the Democratic candidate unofficially. Governor Wilson promised to appoint her to the senate seat if vacant as a result of Mr. Carnahan's being elected, and the campaign continued using the slogan "I'm Still With Mel." A Senate first, the deceased Carnahan won by a 2% margin. Mrs. Carnahan was then appointed to the Senate and served until, in a special election in November 2002, she was narrowly defeated by James Talent, a Republican.
Carnahan is not the only candidate to have died during a U.S. Senate race in recent decades. Senator Paul Wellstone of Minnesota was killed in a plane crash in 2002, 11 days before his U.S. Senate election. Representative Jerry Litton, also of Missouri, died in a plane crash in 1976 on the day he was nominated by his party. Richard "Dick" Obenshain of Virginia died in a plane crash in 1978 shortly after receiving the Republican nomination. In the California State Senate race of 2010, voters in the Long Beach district re-elected Jenny Oropeza, who had died of illness the month previously.[2]
Click to expand...

What happened had nothing to do with voter fraud and there is no evidence which says there was.
 
Last edited:
Dickieboy said:
I am not attacking him but agreeing with him. He was/is right ‘elections do have consequences’. Is it your position that they do not?



Please notice in the previous post that I agreed with your ‘false voter fraud’ contention. What is the argument?
Click to expand...

thank you for clearing it up that you agree about the lack of evidence for voter fraud. :2wave:

I agree that elections have consequences. The question then becomes does an election justify all the things that then flow from it. I would hope that all would agree that simply winning an election does not give and faction or party 100% free license to do whatever they want to do.
 
haymarket said:
I agree that elections have consequences. The question then becomes does an election justify all the things that then flow from it.
Click to expand...

If not then what? And if it does not would you agree that there are ramification for 'overstepping' the desires of the electorate? I mean really, what purpose would elections have if not promoting the desires of the electorate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom