• 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 .
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...

My position is that I want everyone who is eligible regardless how or who they vote for to at least be informed first before voting.
 
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...

excellent point. What is funny is watching some dem advocates pretend that those who don't have IDs are not normally dem voters. The fact that its the dem party that is whining about these requirements proves that people who don't have IDs tend to be dems
 
It baffles me that there are people who are against showing ID to vote. WHY??
 
Yes, of course a photo ID should be required to vote. If it's not a photo ID that required proof of citizenship (most state DMV's require proof before issuance), then proof of citizenship should also be required.
 
jonny5 said:
The last time this was asked, 60% of respondants said YES, ID should be required to vote. http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/114863-photo-id-vote.html

I broke it down to a fundemental idea. Should the govt verify who is voting? If not, why not. If so, how so? What level of verification is neccesary?

-a signature?
-a voter registration card?
-a photo id?

So, given most people want secured elections, shouldnt congress just pass a law requiring the checking of photo ids? End this state by state nonsense.
Click to expand...
Here we already require some type of identification to vote, which can include but is not limited by a driver's license or State issued ID card. We issue hard paper voter ID cards, sent to the voter's address, after a voter's registration has been approved. If the voting place changes or the districts are changed then new cards are issued and sent. We've been doing this for decades and it works fine.

The last poll was about PHOTO ID, which I still oppose dispite the fact I have had a drivers license longer than many on this board have been alive.
 
Last edited:
Yes.


On a related note, I understand that my state (Pennsylvania) has just implemented a voter ID law..*checks google*...ah, photo ID required to vote law, basically...

Strict voter ID law passes in battleground Pennsylvania - Political Hotsheet - CBS News


I do see a problem here if obtaining all of the mentioned photo ID forms requires money – I know that the driver’s license does…


Unless a law requiring photo ID for voting ensures that free photo ID is available, I see a few possible issues...


But in general, I agree with the idea of verifying the ID of anyone who comes in to vote.


On a side note, the inevitable legal challenge has already begun: Pennsylvania ACLU Puts New Voter ID Law In Its Legal Crosshairs « CBS Philly
 
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.
Click to expand...

The myth that 50 years ago people were somehow better than people today continues. Lol. What's funny is that voter fraud was far more prevalent 50 years ago than it is today.
 
Hatuey said:
The myth that 50 years ago people were somehow better than people today continues. Lol. What's funny is that voter fraud was far more prevalent 50 years ago than it is today.
Click to expand...
If I had to guess I think she was referring to the increase in amount of illegals in the country currently, not our moral compass. Interesting claim about voter fraud in the 60's, I don't doubt it's true but do you have any supporting data?
 
Hare said:
If I had to guess I think she was referring to the increase in amount of illegals in the country currently,
Click to expand...

Illegals who can't vote? Mkay there. Can you show us a single election where illegal immigrants made any kind of statistical different? Maybe a 0.1 percent difference?

not our moral compass.
Click to expand...

Seeing some of Lizzie's posts, I'd beg to differ.

Interesting claim about voter fraud in the 60's, I don't doubt it's true but do you have any supporting data?
Click to expand...

Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88-352, 78 Stat. 241, enacted July 2, 1964) was a landmark piece of legislation in the United States[1] that outlawed major forms of discrimination against African Americans and women, including racial segregation. It ended unequal application of voter registration requirements and racial segregation in schools, at the workplace and by facilities that served the general public ("public accommodations").
Click to expand...

What do you think the Civil Rights Act was about? It was about entire states denying people the right to vote. That's a form of electoral fraud my "Centrist" friend.

Kennedy won Illinois by less than 9,000 votes out of 4.75 million cast, or a margin of 0.2%.[20] However, Nixon carried 92 of the state's 101 counties, and Kennedy's victory in Illinois came from the city of Chicago, where Mayor Richard J. Daley held back much of Chicago's vote until the late morning hours of November 9. The efforts of Daley and the powerful Chicago Democratic organization gave Kennedy an extraordinary Cook County victory margin of 450,000 votes—more than 10% of Chicago's 1960 population of 3.55 million,[26] although Cook County also included many suburbs outside of Chicago's borders—thus barely overcoming the heavy Republican vote in the rest of Illinois. Earl Mazo, a reporter for the pro-Nixon New York Herald Tribune, investigated the voting in Chicago and claimed to have discovered sufficient evidence of vote fraud to prove that the state was stolen for Kennedy.[20]
Click to expand...

I welcome you to read this:

Deliver the Vote: A History of Election Fraud, an American Political ... - Tracy Campbell - Google Books

Don't let the facts get in your way though. I'd take any year of the last 50 of "electoral fraud" over any of the last 200 of actual state endorse fraud.
 
The way I look at this, whatever form of verification is required needs to be free and easily obtainable by any citizen.


Sure as HELL it shouldn't require money to obtain - or any unreasonable amount of travel time.
After all, travel costs money, you know.


So in the case of my state’s recent bill requiring photo ID…

Well, having not read the thing, I’m unsure…but I hope they thought of that aspect…
 
Bob Blaylock said:
I mentioned a good example earlier in this thread.
Click to expand...

This example?

Loretta Sanchez - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In 1996, Sanchez changed parties and ran as a moderate Democrat in the 46th District against six-term Republican incumbent Bob Dornan. The bitterly fought race saw Sanchez charge that Dornan was out of touch with his constituency, especially after a distracting run for the 1996 Republican Presidential nomination. The 46th had always had a Democratic tilt, but became even more Democratic after the 1990 census when it received a considerably larger number of Hispanics than had previously been in the district. Sanchez won by 984 votes, and Dornan contested the election, alleging that many votes were cast by people who were not American citizens. A Congressional investigation found evidence that 624 votes were indeed cast by non-citizens. An additional 124 votes had already been thrown out by California officials. These votes were not enough to throw Sanchez's victory into doubt, so the investigation was halted and the outcome was upheld by a Republican-controlled Congress,[22] making Sanchez the first American of Mexican heritage to represent Orange County in Congress. Dornan continues to assert that illegal voter registration of non-citizens was decisive in Sanchez's victory. In consultation with the INS, the House committee identified as many as 4,700 questionable registration affidavits;[23] but the probe was dropped before these affidavits could be investigated. As Article I Section V of the Constitution of the United States provides that "Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members" the investigation was without binding authority.[24]
[edit]
Click to expand...

:roll:
 
Hatuey said:
This example?

Loretta Sanchez - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

The 124 votes that had originally been thrown out, and the 624 votes identified as invalid by the investigation that was conducted add up to 748 votes—76% of the original 984 margin by which Sanchez defeated Dornan. Throwing all those out reduces the margin to 238 votes.

An additional 4700 votes were identified as “questionable”, but these weren't investigated. As the article states, “…the probe was dropped before these affidavits could be investigated.” If only 5% of those were illegally cast votes for Sanchez, that would have been enough to change the outcome of the election. We won't ever know for sure, but I have to think that anyone who has a proper understanding of the relevant basic principles of data analysis, and who applies those principles to this number, will have to conclude that it is more likely than not that the outcome of this election was changed as a result of illegal voting.
 
The Mark said:
The way I look at this, whatever form of verification is required needs to be free and easily obtainable by any citizen.


Sure as HELL it shouldn't require money to obtain - or any unreasonable amount of travel time.
After all, travel costs money, you know.


So in the case of my state’s recent bill requiring photo ID…

Well, having not read the thing, I’m unsure…but I hope they thought of that aspect…
Click to expand...

I dont think anyone has a problem with that. We pay taxes, those taxes pay for voter id cards.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom