• 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
I voted no, as the negative effect in disenfranchising voters is greater than any good from addressing a non-existent voter fraud problem.
The danger of franchising 12 to 20 million illegal alien voters far outweighs any "negative effect" of disenfranchising a few legal voters which is "non-existent" due to being extremely cheap and easy to remedy and therefore avoid.

After all, it's not like their being rushed__They have eleven months to obtain a photo ID__There is absolutely no excuse not to have the proper identification by November 2012__Common Sense people!
 
No I am not. They were screaming about vote fraud. The whole Jesse Jackson with his people out there yelling "re-vote" etc. No, I know exactly what I am talking about.
In 2000, the big thing was "hanging chads" if you remember and problems with counting votes. I don't remember much from 2004 because it was as big of deal.
 
When you say stuff like "who cares if only a few thousand people get illegally registered and then illegally vote. Not your problem, I understand.", that's called an emotional appeal because your appealing to how much I "care". It's boring, it's a fallacy and it doesn't ever work.

Your whole argument is "it does not happen that much, so it's not a problem." So you tell me how else someone is to take it?

All of those questions you asked me are questions you should answer yourself. I have no idea how many were not reported. Why would I? I do know how many convictions there were and that's the best gauge we have. Do you have numbers that would make a better gauge?

No. And that is EXACTLY my point.

This, however, is a great read as it dispels the myth that requiring IDs will actually do something.

Oh yea I trust the people fighting against id laws to be fair and balanced on this issue screaming the disfranchisement mantra.

ee the hyperlinked timeline of the Brennan Center's work on voter fraud,
including work on restrictive photo ID requirements.
- The Truth About Fraud

Sorry no dice.
 
In 2000, the big thing was "hanging chads" if you remember and problems with counting votes. I don't remember much from 2004 because it was as big of deal.

So because you did not know or don't remember that somehow makes my point invalid? :lol:
 
You know what? Playdrive, I don't even know why I bother.

You have a good night.
 
You know what? Playdrive, I don't even know why I bother.

You have a good night.
I do always love how you stop "bothering" after someone (me or another poster) both asks you to substantiate your claims and presents you with an actual academic study of the topic rather than just hearsay to support their argument. There's beauty in that.

I'm already having a good night.
 
Reading is essential which is why I read your words and used them exactly as you wrote them. Sorry. Next time instead of using your exact words in order to remain faithful to them, I'll make something up.
Fiegning ignorance is pretty much the same thing.
 
Fiegning ignorance is pretty much the same thing.
Meh. I used your words. All of sudden, you decided that your words didn't mean what they said. That's not my problem. I can only read what you wrote.
 
Meh. I used your words. All of sudden, you decided that your words didn't mean what they said. That's not my problem. I can only read what you wrote.
No, you used a weak semantics ploy. It was obvious what I said, thus you are feigning ignorance.
 
Requiring an ID only eliminates half the voter fraud issue.
The other is election workers at the polling places themselves. Even with the ID requirement, they can cast hundreds of votes themselves at the poll with essentially nothing to prevent it, no real way to prosecute, and no way to remove the votes even if the votes they cast were for dead voters as there is no manner to know who those votes were for.
The greatest election fraud is not by disqualifed voters voting nor people voting more than once coming to polls. It is the poll workers themselves.
I was an election judge at a poll in the past. I could have easy cast at least 100 votes if I was so inclined. Just vote 100 times and falsify 100 signatures. Even if it proven those signatures false, they couldn't prove I did it nor any manner to figure out which of the 100 votes to erase as there is no linkage of votes cast to the voter.
In some counties, that is so common that Republicans and Democrats negotiate - "you turn in one precinct and we'll turn in one precinct" back and forth so neither side can know how many votes to add for their side in tight elections. There have been precincts that have turned in more votes than all registered voters in the precinct. It really is simple. The election workers - partisan picked for most jurisdictions, just keep casting more votes. Since they are the polling place "cops", there is nothing to stop it.
My practice as election judge? I allowed anyone to vote. I'd remember if someone came in more than once. Election fraud so common, I felt mine still the most "accurate" because I didn't cast votes myself nor allow such fake votes cast by anyone. But I didn't challenge anyone either, whether or not they had a voter registration card. Even if not on the voter list I had, those are so screwed up it didn't matter. I just filled out a lost-card form for the person and gave the person a ballot after he/she signed in.

The only thing that would truly stop voter fraud would be to use biometrics and electronic voter machines (unique thumb print - only I ballot per.) Hard copy paper print out after each vote would address computer manipulation for the most part as the other problem.

I have no problem with requiring an ID, though I do understand the problem with it and why Democrats would object. Both sides have valid points. But that is NOT the main source of election fraud. Its the poll workers themselves.
 
Last edited:
I do always love how you stop "bothering" after someone (me or another poster) both asks you to substantiate your claims and presents you with an actual academic study of the topic rather than just hearsay to support their argument. There's beauty in that.

What would be the point? No matter what anyone asks or says you come back with exactly the same reply over and over. So I have decided it is no longer worth even arguing about it with you.

I'm already having a good night.

Yep, I am certain you are.
 
I have to show a photo ID in Virginia where I live, and I don't see anything wrong with it, what with all the dead people clamoring to vote in recent Presidential elections, not to mention all those illegal aliens being registered to vote by Acorn activists.

You can count on your hands an toes the number of fraudulent voting in a year in this country. Seems like to me the deterrent of five years in prison and a $10,000 fine is working great, why risk disenfranchising 5 million voters???
 
And i posted factual cases of voter fraud with real live people found and convicted. It is real, it happens, and all you care about is hey...as long as its OUR guys committing the fruad (which shockingly enough ALWAYS seems to be the case).

Go back and read your reference again.
 
Why would that be the case when only 86 people from 2002-2007 have been convicted of committing federal election related crimes? OUR side doesn't benefit from the less than 86 people who were convicted of fraud. Your argument doesn't even make any sense.

His link didn't cite voter fraud.
 
Requiring an ID only eliminates half the voter fraud issue.
The other is election workers at the polling places themselves. Even with the ID requirement, they can cast hundreds of votes themselves at the poll with essentially nothing to prevent it, no real way to prosecute, and no way to remove the votes even if the votes they cast were for dead voters as there is no manner to know who those votes were for.
The greatest election fraud is not by disqualifed voters voting nor people voting more than once coming to polls. It is the poll workers themselves.
I was an election judge at a poll in the past. I could have easy cast at least 100 votes if I was so inclined. Just vote 100 times and falsify 100 signatures. Even if it proven those signatures false, they couldn't prove I did it nor any manner to figure out which of the 100 votes to erase as there is no linkage of votes cast to the voter.
In some counties, that is so common that Republicans and Democrats negotiate - "you turn in one precinct and we'll turn in one precinct" back and forth so neither side can know how many votes to add for their side in tight elections. There have been precincts that have turned in more votes than all registered voters in the precinct. It really is simple. The election workers - partisan picked for most jurisdictions, just keep casting more votes. Since they are the polling place "cops", there is nothing to stop it.
My practice as election judge? I allowed anyone to vote. I'd remember if someone came in more than once. Election fraud so common, I felt mine still the most "accurate" because I didn't cast votes myself nor allow such fake votes cast by anyone. But I didn't challenge anyone either, whether or not they had a voter registration card. Even if not on the voter list I had, those are so screwed up it didn't matter. I just filled out a lost-card form for the person and gave the person a ballot after he/she signed in.

The only thing that would truly stop voter fraud would be to use biometrics and electronic voter machines (unique thumb print - only I ballot per.) Hard copy paper print out after each vote would address computer manipulation for the most part as the other problem.

I have no problem with requiring an ID, though I do understand the problem with it and why Democrats would object. Both sides have valid points. But that is NOT the main source of election fraud. Its the poll workers themselves.

That sounds kind of complicated, technical, and probably expensive.

Why don't we just dip our finger into indelible ink after casting a ballot? That way, anyone with a purple finger would be ineligible to vote, and no one could vote twice. It seems like I've seen that idea put into place somewhere, haven't you?

But, there is no reason not to have a photo ID requirement as well.
 
That sounds kind of complicated, technical, and probably expensive.

Why don't we just dip our finger into indelible ink after casting a ballot? That way, anyone with a purple finger would be ineligible to vote, and no one could vote twice. It seems like I've seen that idea put into place somewhere, haven't you?

But, there is no reason not to have a photo ID requirement as well.
I'm in favor of that actually. Wouldn't be a bad idea in the least.
 
Originally Posted by Blackdog

You know what? Playdrive, I don't even know why I bother.

You have a good night.
I do always love how you stop "bothering" after someone (me or another poster) both asks you to substantiate your claims and presents you with an actual academic study of the topic rather than just hearsay to support their argument. There's beauty in that.

I'm already having a good night.
Is it really neccessary to show real time satelite imagery to "substantiate" whether the part of the planet you are currently occupying is bathed in sunlight or shrouded in darkness?!
 
Last edited:
I have no problem with a Federal law requiring all Americans show a government issued picture ID, in order to vote.

However, the cost of such an ID must be paid for by the govt.
They don't pay for you passport.
 
I don't have a constitutional right to a vacation in Paris.

why would you want to put a financial burden upon the right to vote? perhaps to keep the poor from voting?
They put financial burdens on the right to license a firearm don't they? If someone violates your 1st amendment right, you have to hire an attorney to represent you. And aren't you already using an ID for many other purposes?
 
They put financial burdens on the right to license a firearm don't they? If someone violates your 1st amendment right, you have to hire an attorney to represent you. And aren't you already using an ID for many other purposes?
Bolded is exactly the point. The only people who may not have any form of photo ID are those "living off the grid" paying cash for all transactions, using little in the way of utilities, subsistence hunting/farming, even then if they use a bank or any other form of financial service they still would have to maintain some form of identification. I don't see how anyone could survive as an adult without at least a basic photo ID, so asking them to show it to vote is not really any big deal.
 
I don't see the big conundrum of simply providing a photo ID for something as important as voting.
 
There is no evidence that voter fraud of this kind (showing up claiming to be someone you are not) is becoming even a minuscule threat to our voting system. Conservatives and Libertarians should agree that there should be no restrictions on people's fundamental rights (and which right is more fundamental than voting) unless there is some very good reason for it. Until it becomes apparent that voter fraud, and not political corruption, is the objective behind these laws, I wholly oppose them.
 
Bolded is exactly the point. The only people who may not have any form of photo ID are those "living off the grid" paying cash for all transactions, using little in the way of utilities, subsistence hunting/farming, even then if they use a bank or any other form of financial service they still would have to maintain some form of identification. I don't see how anyone could survive as an adult without at least a basic photo ID, so asking them to show it to vote is not really any big deal.

I'd be willing to bet that very few such people actually exist, and fewer still vote. The cost to the state/federal government to provide IDs would be miniscule. If it cost a million bucks, that's 33 cents per person. I think we can afford that.

What can I buy for 33 cents nowadays?
 
Back
Top Bottom