• 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
Gie said:
Wow, how surprising. Not only did Catawba run for the hills where his "17.2" percent argument went to die, but this must also be the place where the DNC hid the whole "requiring an ID to vote will disenfranchise voters" brain fart. Too bad, who knew that this is really all about getting illegal votes from non citizens so ya can get into office ala politics as usual? I mean aside from everyone but passionate defender of the same Catawba?
Click to expand...

Catawba said:
600a6aa6-1217-4eee-818c-e275dd7b1b49.jpg
Click to expand...

Moderator's Warning:
Both of you cease the personal attacks and stick to the topic.
 
Gie said:
I did not say you postured. The border towns in Texas are statistically safer than most parts of the US. I thought you said "don't believe" Rick Perry? You paying attention here?
Click to expand...

Okay, Gie... Whooooaaaa, slow down there big fellar....

I don't believe Rick Perry. I didn't believe GWB. And where do you get your statistics from? As I said, I'm a native Texan. I've lived here for all my life, I know the politics and the situation we have at our borders. The border is dangerous as hell...and you can drive bus loads of terrorists across at most anytime you want.
 
Removable Mind said:
Okay, Gie... Whooooaaaa, slow down there big fellar....

I don't believe Rick Perry. I didn't believe GWB. And where do you get your statistics from? As I said, I'm a native Texan. I've lived here for all my life, I know the politics and the situation we have at our borders. The border is dangerous as hell...and you can drive bus loads of terrorists across at most anytime you want.
Click to expand...
Quite a few sources, a friend of mine (O. Ricardo Pimentel) wrote a hilarious piece about the issue here. And he cites his sources, but common sense should clue you in already IMO.
My visit to Del Rio makes Perry look wrong - San Antonio Express-News

Yeah the border is dangerous as hell, on the other side of the border. So far, here in the US? Statistically safer than most of the US. Don't blame the messenger!
 
Last edited:
teamosil said:
So, just requiring a voter ID disenfranchises around 1% of the voters- about 2.5 million people, where requiring a photo ID that was issued by the state in which you are voting and which has your current address disenfranchises around 25 million people. Maybe if you figure 1 in 5 would go get a new ID just to vote, that'd be 2 million and 20 million.
Click to expand...

Hmm.

"Disfranchisement (also called disenfranchisement) is the revocation of the right of suffrage (the right to vote) of a person or group of people, or rendering a person's vote less effective, or ineffective. Disfranchisement may occur explicitly through law, or implicitly by intimidation or by placing unreasonable registration or identification impediments in the path of voters."

Are you arguing that it is unreasonable for the state to insist on proof that you are who you say you are? If the requirement is uniform and if everybody else can meet it in the normal course of living their lives why would you consider it disenfranchisement? It seems that the threat to democracy is your insistence that those who are too lazy, too stupid or too illegal to get a state issued photo ID should be allowed to vote. If they cannot meet this reasonable requirement of a representative republic perhaps it is better that they don't vote.
 
Misterveritis said:
Hmm.

"Disfranchisement (also called disenfranchisement) is the revocation of the right of suffrage (the right to vote) of a person or group of people, or rendering a person's vote less effective, or ineffective. Disfranchisement may occur explicitly through law, or implicitly by intimidation or by placing unreasonable registration or identification impediments in the path of voters."

Are you arguing that it is unreasonable for the state to insist on proof that you are who you say you are? If the requirement is uniform and if everybody else can meet it in the normal course of living their lives why would you consider it disenfranchisement? It seems that the threat to democracy is your insistence that those who are too lazy, too stupid or too illegal to get a state issued photo ID should be allowed to vote. If they cannot meet this reasonable requirement of a representative republic perhaps it is better that they don't vote.
Click to expand...

I have been voting regularly since 1972. That is forty years of elections. I have identified myself each and every time to the satisfaction of the poll worker and they did their due dilligence and verified that I was who I said I was.

And all that has been accomplished without me once presenting a photo ID.

Unnecessary requirements are not by definition reasonable requirements.
 
haymarket said:
I have been voting regularly since 1972. That is forty years of elections. I have identified myself each and every time to the satisfaction of the poll worker and they did their due dilligence and verified that I was who I said I was.

And all that has been accomplished without me once presenting a photo ID.

Unnecessary requirements are not by definition reasonable requirements.
Click to expand...
Do you believe that your personal example overrides the need for proving that you are eligible to vote? The fact that no one bothered to confirm that you were eligible to vote does not invalidate its importance. It highlights it.
 
Misterveritis said:
Do you believe that your personal example overrides the need for proving that you are eligible to vote? The fact that no one bothered to confirm that you were eligible to vote does not invalidate its importance. It highlights it.
Click to expand...

All voting experiences are personal examples. My city clerk confirmed that I was eligible to vote when I first registered. The person working the polls confirmed that I was who I said I was. The system worked perfectly and no photo ID has ever been necessary for it to work.
 
I don't know how much voter fraud there is, and doubt anyone else does either.

One thing is certain, however. No one is going to be disenfranchised by requiring an ID to vote unless they are willing to be disenfranchised.

The people who make no effort to exercise their right to vote, the slack jawed morons who sit passively and watch the attack ads, then decide whether to vote for the Marxist or the vulture capitalist aren't necessarily the ones we want to be voting anyway.

If the potential voter can't even get an ID to vote, then good riddance. We already have too many such people voting.
 
Removable Mind said:
Sunbelt, apparently you're not from Texas. GWB did and Perry allows the borders to be weak for political reasons. Think about it.
Click to expand...
Removable Mind, perhaps you're not from Arizona. Janet Napolitano allowed the borders to be weak for political reasons, and now she's directing all our border enforcement. GWB was no friend to conservatives, and neither is Rick Perry.
 
Last edited:
Dittohead not! said:
I don't know how much voter fraud there is, and doubt anyone else does either.

One thing is certain, however. No one is going to be disenfranchised by requiring an ID to vote unless they are willing to be disenfranchised.

The people who make no effort to exercise their right to vote, the slack jawed morons who sit passively and watch the attack ads, then decide whether to vote for the Marxist or the vulture capitalist aren't necessarily the ones we want to be voting anyway.

If the potential voter can't even get an ID to vote, then good riddance. We already have too many such people voting.
Click to expand...

Elitism anyone?
 
haymarket said:
Elitism anyone?
Click to expand...

Call it elitism if you want, but most of us are the "elite" by that definition.

who was it that made the famous saying about people who expect to be both ignorant and free, want what never was and never could be?

Whoever it was was right.
 
Misterveritis said:
Hmm.

"Disfranchisement (also called disenfranchisement) is the revocation of the right of suffrage (the right to vote) of a person or group of people, or rendering a person's vote less effective, or ineffective. Disfranchisement may occur explicitly through law, or implicitly by intimidation or by placing unreasonable registration or identification impediments in the path of voters."

Are you arguing that it is unreasonable for the state to insist on proof that you are who you say you are? If the requirement is uniform and if everybody else can meet it in the normal course of living their lives why would you consider it disenfranchisement? It seems that the threat to democracy is your insistence that those who are too lazy, too stupid or too illegal to get a state issued photo ID should be allowed to vote. If they cannot meet this reasonable requirement of a representative republic perhaps it is better that they don't vote.
Click to expand...

I don't care if it is reasonable or unreasonable, I just care how much impact it will have on election results. Tweaking the rules of elections to try to get certain results is completely unacceptable. That is fraud on a scale radically beyond anything happening now in my view.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Call it elitism if you want, but most of us are the "elite" by that definition.

who was it that made the famous saying about people who expect to be both ignorant and free, want what never was and never could be?

Whoever it was was right.
Click to expand...

Well, its a step that you admit it is elitism.
 
teamosil said:
I don't care if it is reasonable or unreasonable, I just care how much impact it will have on election results. Tweaking the rules of elections to try to get certain results is completely unacceptable. That is fraud on a scale radically beyond anything happening now in my view.
Click to expand...

As it has already been shown in states that have ID laws, it's affect was negligible in the elections from 2008 on, period.
 
Voter picture ID law? No way, not unless photo ID's and every piece of documentation required to get that photo ID are provided 100% at the State's expense. Otherwise it is a de facto poll tax.


And while I'm usually not a fan of mandatory sentences, this is an exception. To discourage voter fraud there should be a MANDATORY death penalty for anyone convicted of voter fraud.
 
Last edited:
Muhammed said:
Voter picture ID law? No way, not unless photo ID's and every piece of documentation required to get that photo ID are provided 100% at the State's expense. Otherwise it is a de facto poll tax.


And while I'm usually not a fan of mandatory sentences, this is an exception. To discourage voter fraud there should be a MANDATORY death penalty for anyone convicted of voter fraud.
Click to expand...

I agree it is a poll tax. Seems overkill to require the death penalty though, pardon the pun. With the current 5 years in jail/$5,000 fine, there are less cases of individual fraud each year than can be counted on ones toes.
 
Catawba said:
I agree it is a poll tax. Seems overkill to require the death penalty though, pardon the pun. With the current 5 years in jail/$5,000 fine, there are less cases of individual fraud each year than can be counted on ones toes.
Click to expand...
I've seen no evidence that voter fraud is not rampant. The stuff I've seen indicates that it is widespread. I live in Ohio, a swing state. In 2004, 2006, and 2008 people were going door to door offering crack cocaine for completed voter registration forms in my neighborhood.

Do you think they are just doing that for fun? Did they just have more coke than they knew what to do with?

Or do you think that maybee...just maaaabeee...there might have been some voter fraud going on?
 
Last edited:
Muhammed said:
I've seen no evidence that voter fraud is not rampant. The stuff I've seen indicates that it is widespread. I live in Ohio, a swing state. In 2004, 2006, and 2008 people were going door to door offering crack cocaine for completed voter registration forms in my neighborhood.

Do you think they are just doing that for fun? Did they just have more coke than they knew what to do with?

Or do you think that maybee...just maaaabeee...there might have been some voter fraud going on?
Click to expand...
What is really telling about this whole topic is that most making the 'a little bit of fraud never hurt anybody' argument are self identified "liberals" or lefties. Must something in the water.
 
Last edited:
Muhammed said:
I've seen no evidence that voter fraud is not rampant. The stuff I've seen indicates that it is widespread. I live in Ohio, a swing state. In 2004, 2006, and 2008 people were going door to door offering crack cocaine for completed voter registration forms in my neighborhood.

Do you think they are just doing that for fun? Did they just have more coke than they knew what to do with?

Or do you think that maybee...just maaaabeee...there might have been some voter fraud going on?
Click to expand...


It has been well documented and was referenced just a few pages back on this very thread that individual voter fraud is "extraordinarily rare.”:

"Indeed, despite the Department of Justice’s 2002 “Ballot Access and Voting Integrity Initiative” promising to vigorously prosecute allegations of voter fraud, the federal government obtained only 26 convictions or guilty pleas for fraud between 2002 and 2005. And other studies of voter fraud consistently find that it is exceedingly rare – a 2007 Demos study concluded that “voter fraud appears to be very rare” and a 2007 study by the Brennan Center found that “by any measure, voter fraud is extraordinarily rare.”
 
Catawba said:
It has been well documented and was referenced just a few pages back on this very thread that individual voter fraud is "extraordinarily rare.”:

"Indeed, despite the Department of Justice’s 2002 “Ballot Access and Voting Integrity Initiative” promising to vigorously prosecute allegations of voter fraud, the federal government obtained only 26 convictions or guilty pleas for fraud between 2002 and 2005. And other studies of voter fraud consistently find that it is exceedingly rare – a 2007 Demos study concluded that “voter fraud appears to be very rare” and a 2007 study by the Brennan Center found that “by any measure, voter fraud is extraordinarily rare.”
Click to expand...
I'll bet you'd sneak in an illegal immigrant to vote Democrat, that's probably why you think IDs should be required.
 
American said:
I'll bet you'd sneak in an illegal immigrant to vote Democrat, that's probably why you think IDs should be required.
Click to expand...

What makes you think that illegals would vote Democrat? It was a Republican president, after all, who signed amnesty into law.
 
Dittohead not! said:
What makes you think that illegals would vote Democrat? It was a Republican president, after all, who signed amnesty into law.
Click to expand...
Because Democrats love giving away free stuff, but you knew that.
 
American said:
I'll bet you'd sneak in an illegal immigrant to vote Democrat, that's probably why you think IDs should be required.
Click to expand...

"As of September 12, 2011, the Obama Administration had deported roughly 1.06 million in just 2.5 years, putting him in a good position to deport more than President Bush did in his four year term, which was 1.57 million illegal immigrants."
Obama Has Deported More Illegal Immigrants Than President Bush Says Miami Immigration Lawyer - Law Firm Newswire

What else you got?
 
Blackdog said:
As it has already been shown in states that have ID laws, it's affect was negligible in the elections from 2008 on, period.
Click to expand...

You're blurring together all ID laws into one bucket, but they vary dramatically. The ones that have had a minor effect have been ones that only require a valid ID. The ones that threaten to radically rig elections are the new ones in some states that would not allow valid IDs that are issued by other states, that are issued by the federal government, that have an old address, etc. Only about 1% of people lack a valid ID, but 10% of people lack an ID that meets those requirements. So we can expect that the number of people disenfranchised by the newer ID laws with all those extra requirements will be about 10 times as severe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom