• 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!

Should the govt verify the identity of a person attempting to vote?

Should the govt verify the identity of a person attempting to vote?

  • Yes

    Votes: 33 97.1%

  • No

    Votes: 1 2.9%
  • Total voters
    34
  • Poll closed .
Thunder said:
that makes no sense, as crack dealers are small-business entrepreneurs. this makes them Republicans.
Click to expand...

No, because Republicans actually pay for business licenses, while Democrats don't. So these crackheads are Dems, also so they can get free substance abuse treatment.
 
haymarket said:
Actually you express an elitist viewpoint which is based on hating your chosen enemy. I want EVERYBODY to vote who is eligible regardless how or who they vote for.
Click to expand...

sure you do but the fact remains, the least intelligent and the least knowledgeable are the most easily swayed by the "we will give you the money of others" nonsense

Your own party proves I am right. If Voter ID's were an obstacle to GOP voters the DEM party wouldn't be the party fighting the imposition of ID laws

Your own party concedes that the least competent are the DNC's constituents
 
TurtleDude said:
sure you do but the fact remains, the least intelligent and the least knowledgeable are the most easily swayed by the "we will give you the money of others" nonsense

Your own party proves I am right. If Voter ID's were an obstacle to GOP voters the DEM party wouldn't be the party fighting the imposition of ID laws

Your own party concedes that the least competent are the DNC's constituents
Click to expand...

I have no idea what you are talking about and apparently neither do you since you have provided not one shred of any verifiable evidence to support your statements, your pontifications and your allegations.
 
American said:
No, because Republicans actually pay for business licenses, while Democrats don't. So these crackheads are Dems, also so they can get free substance abuse treatment.
Click to expand...

crack dealers aren't crackheads. that would interfere with their business enterprise.
 
haymarket said:
I have no idea what you are talking about and apparently neither do you since you have provided not one shred of any verifiable evidence to support your statements, your pontifications and your allegations.
Click to expand...

In law we call it an admission against interest

Its based on a presumption that if you admit something that can hurt you it is true

when the dems attack voter ID laws they are admitting such laws hurts their party because those laws serve as a barrier to the voting of those too stupid or incompetent to get an ID
 
Thunder said:
crack dealers aren't crackheads. that would interfere with their business enterprise.
Click to expand...

the ones who are doing time usually are
 
American said:
No, because Republicans actually pay for business licenses, while Democrats don't. So these crackheads are Dems, also so they can get free substance abuse treatment.
Click to expand...

democrats don't pay for business licenses?

how's that work?
 
TurtleDude said:
In law we call it an admission against interest

Its based on a presumption that if you admit something that can hurt you it is true

when the dems attack voter ID laws they are admitting such laws hurts their party because those laws serve as a barrier to the voting of those too stupid or incompetent to get an ID
Click to expand...

You are not in a courtroom. Nor do I care what you call anything unless its called verifiable evidence that stands up to scrutiny.

Present your verifiable evidence. This is debate not the Yale logic club.
 
haymarket said:
You are not in a courtroom. Nor do I care what you call anything unless its called verifiable evidence that stands up to scrutiny.

Present your verifiable evidence. This is debate not the Yale logic club.
Click to expand...

a courtroom is the ultimate debate forum.
 
TurtleDude said:
a courtroom is the ultimate debate forum.
Click to expand...

Perhaps some of what happens there may be construed as debate. As to the rest .......

But you are still not in one now.

Present your verifiable evidence - that is the way debate works. Of course you are again impotent to do so.

In fact, take all night and I will check back in the morning to see what you came up with. And if anybody cured cancer today, please post that too so I can be doubly surprised. ;):mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
Perhaps some of what happens there may be construed as debate. As to the rest .......

But you are still not in one now.

Present your verifiable evidence - that is the way debate works. Of course you are again impotent to do so.

In fact, take all night and I will check back in the morning to see what you came up with. And if anybody cured cancer today, please post that too so I can be doubly surprised. ;):mrgreen:
Click to expand...

do you admit or deny that it is the GOP pushing for VOTER ID laws and do you

admit or deny that the Dems are opposed to those laws
 
hazlnut said:
Voter fraud is NOT a real problem.

Voter fraud is NOT a significant problem.

Voter fraud is NOT a problem that requires any action.

Do I need to repeat myself?
Click to expand...

Given that most verified instances of voter fraud have tended to skew elections in the direction that you appear to favor, I can see why you would deny that it is a problem.
 
hazlnut said:
Baralis said:
Fraudulent votes can and could have changed the outcome in many elections.
Click to expand...

Please post evidence.
Click to expand...

One very clear example was the 1996 election for California's 47th Congressional district. Loretta Sanchez, the democratic candidate, ran a campaign that specifically encouraged illegal aliens to vote,(and, of course, to vote for her). She defeated the incumbent, Bob Dornan, by less than a thousand votes. 648 votes were proven to be illegal; credible estimates suggest that there may have been as many as approximately 4700 illegal votes cast in that election.

We cannot really know for certain, but it is extremely likely that this particular election outcome was changed as a direct result of illegal voting; that if not for such fraud, Dornan would have been reelected.
 
jamesrage said:
Are you suggesting that democrats are so stupid that they can't ho their happy ass to the DMV to get a ID, that only registered republicans are the only ones smart enough to go down to the DMV to get a ID or that only stupid people vote for democrats?
Click to expand...

It is certainly telling that, so far, only those on the side that tends to benefit from voter fraud have denied that it is a problem.
 
Ockham said:
Yes the should verify. How so? Via photo id - electronic registration. Votes by the dead, pets, non-citizens, or duplicates should be identified and removed. If a photo ID is not available during voting, a vote can still be taken (provisional) such that the vote can be verified and either successfully added or discounted. The FEC or State election body's should produce a public report of votes which were found to be duplicates or invalid with the reason why those items showed up. Nothing will be perfect or 100%, however it would be an improvement and it would give credibility to the voting process and reduce (IMO) the accusations of voter fraud and tampering.
Click to expand...

Without commenting on the ID issue etc... (which I have already done in a different thread, ad naseum) I just want to point out that provisional ballots are not counted right away. They are often not counted at all. So why make an attempt at voting if your vote will not be counted -- that is voter disenfranchisement. The rolls can be purged without ID as well.
 
lizzie said:
50 years ago, I would have said it wasn't necessary, but with the changes in society which have happened since then, I now think it's needed. It's sad to say that alot of people can't be trusted to be honest.
I would prefer a voter photo ID, and adequate polling workers to verify it.
Click to expand...

proof that people can't be trusted to be honest any more or less than in the past?
 
oh-- I keep forgetting this one for some reason...
Can someone please explain to me how the "stupid (ignorant, uneducated, incompetent etc...) people" are the ones who vote dem when you are arguing about this and in other cases the "elite liberals" educated by those fancy institutions are the ones voting dem? Does this mean the uneducated and the educated are voting dem? Who's left to vote on the republican line?

btw -- i despise the "two party" system and have never affiliated myself one way or the other.
 
TurtleDude said:
do you admit or deny that it is the GOP pushing for VOTER ID laws and do you

admit or deny that the Dems are opposed to those laws
Click to expand...

Right wing forces in America are pushing voter ID laws because they believe it will cause a disenfranchisement of non white voters and allow them to overcome the increasing demographic disadvantage that is going to occur over the next three or four decades. As a large segment of the right wing makes up the Republican Party, they are playing a major role in this drive.

People concerned about Constitutional rights and civil libertarians are rightly opposing this effort to disenfranchise people. As a significant part of the Democratic Party is made up of people who place a high value and priority on the right to vote, the tend to oppose it.

In the end, it is not political considerations or even ideological considerations that should decide this question but rather the first consideration should be the NEED or NECESSITY for such voter restrictions. Why, at this pint in time, do we need to adopt these restrictions which could effectively hurt the right of people to vote? In a democratic republic such as ours, no right is more central to our political health than the right to vote. So where is the need to do this?

Where is the list of voter fraud convictions that provide the underpinnings to show that this is needed and necessary? It simply does not exist. If you think it does, please present it.

So which side is arguing for change? And which side is failing to present any evidence of a significant problem of voter fraud to justify their schemes and plans to deny people the right to vote?

Of course, it is the Republican Party. There is no doubt about that.

Yes, I am a Democrat. Yes, I make my living working for a Democrat. Yes, I give political and election advice as part of that living. And yes, I support EVERYONE voting who is eligible to vote. We should be exploring laws to make voting easier - not harder.

What does it say about a particular political party when the stated assumption of even their own supporters and backers is that they need to disenfranchise others so they have a chance to win? What does it say about a particular political party when their members go on record as NOT wanting people to vote because it threatens their own selfish agenda?

It is sad. Very very sad.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
It is certainly telling that, so far, only those on the side that tends to benefit from voter fraud have denied that it is a problem.
Click to expand...

Please present your verifiable evidence of voter fraud convictions since the 2000 election cycle so we also can see that a real problem exists. The suggestion that one side rejects voter ID laws is irrelevant unless you can first demonstrate that a significant voter fraud problem does in deed exist.

And you have not done nor has anyone on your side of this issue.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
One very clear example was the 1996 election for California's 47th Congressional district. Loretta Sanchez, the democratic candidate, ran a campaign that specifically encouraged illegal aliens to vote,(and, of course, to vote for her). She defeated the incumbent, Bob Dornan, by less than a thousand votes. 648 votes were proven to be illegal; credible estimates suggest that there may have been as many as approximately 4700 illegal votes cast in that election.

We cannot really know for certain, but it is extremely likely that this particular election outcome was changed as a direct result of illegal voting; that if not for such fraud, Dornan would have been reelected.
Click to expand...

Could you please provide a link to the trials and convictions of voter fraud in this example you are citing?
 
Yes, voters' identities should be verified before they're allowed to vote. I'm fine with requiring photo ID as well.
 
i have no problem with a voter id bill so long as the id is either free or the voting place accepts things like a phone bill (which is a quite common form of identification). voting is too important for any sort of barrier to prevent people from participating in this country's governance. also all voting places should be equipped to issue cards on the spot.

Sent from my YP-G1 using Tapatalk. My YP-G1 is a very nice device that hardly ever explodes or shoots jets of burning acid at my face. Samsung has done a good job in that respect in building it. However one has to consider hamsters in regard to android as cyborg hamsters are very cool. Imagine how fast an Android hamster could run in their exercise wheel for example.
 
Thunder said:
hey, if they can't vote...then they shouldn't pay any taxes either.
Click to expand...


If they are paying taxes then wouldn't that mean they have a job and a bank account, two things that you need an ID for?
 
I still cannot imagine someone not having a photo ID. How would you function?
I can't think of any adult I have ever known in the US that did not have some form of ID.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom