• 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'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?
I don't know what the stats are on non-ID carrying citizens but would bet it would cost more than a million U.S.D. this is the federal government we are talking about. Still, if a person wants to do a basic transaction it often requires some form of photo ID so it's just not likely that most adults don't have them already. I am positive that the issue is raised to protect "ghost voting", that's the best way I can describe someone not having the actual right to the vote casting it. I'm still on board with adopting the ink finger in use in the ME, it seems to be pretty effective.
 
Again, warriors of the right who advocate for these so called 'reforms' ...where is the mountain of evidence proving voter fraud is a problem?

This is a phony soluton in search of a problem.
 
Again, warriors of the right who advocate for these so called 'reforms' ...where is the mountain of evidence proving voter fraud is a problem?

This is a phony soluton in search of a problem.

In 2005, the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that up to 3 percent of the 30,000 individuals called for jury duty from voter registration rolls over a two-year period in just one U.S. district court were not U.S. citizens. While that may not seem like many, just 3 percent of registered voters would have been more than enough to provide the winning presiden*tial vote margin in Florida in 2000. - The Cutting Edge News

Charges were made in at least three federal elections in California 3 4 and twice in Florida5 that voting by ineligible aliens may have determined the outcome of the election. For instance:

In Florida, election observers say a “sizable number” of Florida votes in the 2000 election may have been cast by ineligible felons, illegal immigrants, and non-citizens. 6
In California, former Republican Rep. Robert K. Dornan was defeated by Democrat Loretta Sanchez by 984 votes in the 1996 election. State officials found that at least 300 votes were cast illegally by non-citizens.7 Investigation of the allegations established that aliens had illegally voted in those elections, but not in sufficient numbers to have changed the result. Authorities appear not to have prosecuted any of the aliens who voted illegally.
- FAIR: Non-Citizen Voting in Federal Elections

» #OccupyMilwaukee Protester May Have Voted Illegally in Wisconsin - Big Government

Dead people can't vote - they need to have their names removed. Felons can't vote - they need to have their names removed. If not, then they can vote - and the law can not be enforced and no conviction.
 
In 2005, the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that up to 3 percent of the 30,000 individuals called for jury duty from voter registration rolls over a two-year period in just one U.S. district court were not U.S. citizens. While that may not seem like many, just 3 percent of registered voters would have been more than enough to provide the winning presiden*tial vote margin in Florida in 2000. - The Cutting Edge News

Charges were made in at least three federal elections in California 3 4 and twice in Florida5 that voting by ineligible aliens may have determined the outcome of the election. For instance:

In Florida, election observers say a “sizable number” of Florida votes in the 2000 election may have been cast by ineligible felons, illegal immigrants, and non-citizens. 6
In California, former Republican Rep. Robert K. Dornan was defeated by Democrat Loretta Sanchez by 984 votes in the 1996 election. State officials found that at least 300 votes were cast illegally by non-citizens.7 Investigation of the allegations established that aliens had illegally voted in those elections, but not in sufficient numbers to have changed the result. Authorities appear not to have prosecuted any of the aliens who voted illegally.
- FAIR: Non-Citizen Voting in Federal Elections

» #OccupyMilwaukee Protester May Have Voted Illegally in Wisconsin - Big Government

Dead people can't vote - they need to have their names removed. Felons can't vote - they need to have their names removed. If not, then they can vote - and the law can not be enforced and no conviction.

3%? In Florida?

That could have been enough to have gotten Bush elected.
 
3%? In Florida?

That could have been enough to have gotten Bush elected.

Yes it could. Photo id's would go a long way in helping this situation.

PS It is well known that the Cuban community did not support the Democrats at the time due to the Illias Gonzalez raid under Clinton.
 
Last edited:
Yes it could. Photo id's would go a long way in helping this situation.

PS It is well known that the Cuban community did not support the Democrats at the time due to the Illias Gonzalez raid under Clinton.

OMG! If we had a photo ID requirement back in 2000, we might not have had to survive the Bush administration.

But, hold on a minute.... we would have had a Gore Administration instead.

Holy crap, what a choice.
 
OMG! If we had a photo ID requirement back in 2000, we might not have had to survive the Bush administration.

But, hold on a minute.... we would have had a Gore Administration instead.

Holy crap, what a choice.

Hehehe! Either way we lose.
 
In 2005, the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that up to 3 percent of the 30,000 individuals called for jury duty from voter registration rolls over a two-year period in just one U.S. district court were not U.S. citizens. While that may not seem like many, just 3 percent of registered voters would have been more than enough to provide the winning presiden*tial vote margin in Florida in 2000. - The Cutting Edge News

Charges were made in at least three federal elections in California 3 4 and twice in Florida5 that voting by ineligible aliens may have determined the outcome of the election. For instance:

In Florida, election observers say a “sizable number” of Florida votes in the 2000 election may have been cast by ineligible felons, illegal immigrants, and non-citizens. 6
In California, former Republican Rep. Robert K. Dornan was defeated by Democrat Loretta Sanchez by 984 votes in the 1996 election. State officials found that at least 300 votes were cast illegally by non-citizens.7 Investigation of the allegations established that aliens had illegally voted in those elections, but not in sufficient numbers to have changed the result. Authorities appear not to have prosecuted any of the aliens who voted illegally.
- FAIR: Non-Citizen Voting in Federal Elections

» #OccupyMilwaukee Protester May Have Voted Illegally in Wisconsin - Big Government

Dead people can't vote - they need to have their names removed. Felons can't vote - they need to have their names removed. If not, then they can vote - and the law can not be enforced and no conviction.

Those stories do not cite a single conviction for even one lone individual for voter fraud. Not a single one.

The material you cited is based on speculation, conjecture and wishful thinking by losers of elections looking for a scapegoat for their defeats as in the Sanchez case.

Are there people who vote who should not be legally able to vote? I would suspect there are a very small number.
Are there people who commit voter fraud but get away with it? I would also suspect there are a very small number.
However, I can prove neither.

Before we go imposing burdens on a right which is mentioned in the US Constitution in no less than five different places, we better be darn sure there is a real and significant problem that does exist. And when we talk about the voting rights of well over 100 million people, an isolated case here or there does not achieve that level of significance requiring action which could cost honest voters their rights.
 
Last edited:
I look so different from the photo on my DL that I might just get turned away.
 
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.
The obama administration also claims the US/Mexican border is secure.

The estimated 12 to 20 million illegal aliens who support pro-amnesty politicians have a very good reason to subvert a US election with very little danger of jail time if caught.

Does anybody seriously believe that an Obama/Eric Holder Department of Justice would actually prosecute these people?

Does anybody seriously believe the democrat party is actually concerned that a few voters without picture IDs will be denied ballot access?

Their only concern is that potential illegal aliens will be denied the opportunity to cast a ballot for their far-left progressive agenda.

Be assured, there's no level too low that the democrat party will not stoop to win the 2012 elections__They can smell the blood in the water.

They are way too close to the marxist utopia of their dreams to allow it to slip away because of a little thing like the rule of law.

It's come down to all or nothing__If they don't do it now it may be decades before they get this close again.
 
Does anybody seriously believe the democrat party is actually concerned that a few voters without picture IDs will be denied ballot access?
You mean millions. Studies have shown that millions of Americans...genearlly the low income and elderly do not have the ID's that states are passing that are required to vote.

Those that want to change the law have the burden to prove some wide spread systematic voter fraud that could possibley disenfranchise millions of individuals.

As of now...that proof is in the double digits spanning years.
 
More importantly, how would requiring ID have prevented any of these problems? I am looking at my driver's license right now, and I can't find anywhere where it gives my immigration status or criminal history :p This simple fact should be obvious, but I guess it needs to be repeated: YOU DON'T NEED TO BE A CITIZEN TO GET A DRIVER'S LICENSE!!!!! The indisputable fact is that voter ID laws stop many more people from voting legally than illegally. I live in Minnesota, and we know a thing or two about close elections. The Republicans in the legislature here are trying to pass a constitutional amendment requiring photo ID (amongst other requirements) to vote. This would stop most students from voting on campus (unless they live in the dorms and the school elects to pre-register them), as student IDs would not be considered acceptable, and virtually all students do not have their school address on their driver's license. If you live somewhere 9 months out of the year, you should be able to vote there. Furthermore, it would ban anyone with physical disabilities from receiving assistance in filling out a ballot, unless they are accompanied by 2 people, 1 from each party. Speaking of which, it would establish party registration, which we don't currently have in MN. It would also get rid of same day registration, so if there is anything wrong with your registration, you're SOL, even if you are an eligible voter. This (and all other voter ID laws and proposals) has nothing to do with preventing fraud, but rather is a means of banning those who are less likely to vote GOP from voting.


Those stories do not cite a single conviction for even one lone individual for voter fraud. Not a single one.

The material you cited is based on speculation, conjecture and wishful thinking by losers of elections looking for a scapegoat for their defeats as in the Sanchez case.

Are there people who vote who should not be legally able to vote? I would suspect there are a very small number.
Are there people who commit voter fraud but get away with it? I would also suspect there are a very small number.
However, I can prove neither.

Before we go imposing burdens on a right which is mentioned in the US Constitution in no less than five different places, we better be darn sure there is a real and significant problem that does exist. And when we talk about the voting rights of well over 100 million people, an isolated case here or there does not achieve that level of significance requiring action which could cost honest voters their rights.
 
As far as the cost, even if a state makes IDs free, the documents required to get that ID (birth certificate, etc) are still not free. Unless these laws include a provision to make the supporting documents free, it creates an unreasonable burden.
 
Those stories do not cite a single conviction for even one lone individual for voter fraud. Not a single one.

Convictions are evidence someone got caught, you asked for "where is the mountain of evidence proving voter fraud is a problem?" which I supplied. If you would have been honest, Theplaydrive has posted that the 2 elections in 2002 and 2004 resulted in 70 convictions for fraud.

The material you cited is based on speculation, conjecture and wishful thinking by losers of elections looking for a scapegoat for their defeats as in the Sanchez case.

Your statement is opinion, theirs is fact. 3% of 30,000 in 1 US court district is a fact.

Are there people who vote who should not be legally able to vote? I would suspect there are a very small number.
Are there people who commit voter fraud but get away with it? I would also suspect there are a very small number.
However, I can prove neither.

If you look at crime statistics the number of people charged vs convictions are very different. Just because someone did not get caught or convicted, does not erase a crime.

Before we go imposing burdens on a right which is mentioned in the US Constitution in no less than five different places, we better be darn sure there is a real and significant problem that does exist. And when we talk about the voting rights of well over 100 million people, an isolated case here or there does not achieve that level of significance requiring action which could cost honest voters their rights.

#1 Voting is not an enumerated right in the Constitution.

The Constitution contains many phrases, clauses, and amendments detailing ways people cannot be denied the right to vote. You cannot deny the right to vote because of race or gender. Citizens of Washington DC can vote for President; 18-year-olds can vote; you can vote even if you fail to pay a poll tax. The Constitution also requires that anyone who can vote for the "most numerous branch" of their state legislature can vote for House members and Senate members.

Note that in all of this, though, the Constitution never explicitly ensures the right to vote, as it does the right to speech, for example. It does require that Representatives be chosen and Senators be elected by "the People," and who comprises "the People" has been expanded by the aforementioned amendments several times. Aside from these requirements, though, the qualifications for voters are left to the states. And as long as the qualifications do not conflict with anything in the Constitution, that right can be withheld. For example, in Texas, persons declared mentally incompetent and felons currently in prison or on probation are denied the right to vote. It is interesting to note that though the 26th Amendment requires that 18-year-olds must be able to vote, states can allow persons younger than 18 to vote, if they chose to.


#2 Federal courts have already upheld photo id's as constitutional. It is not considered a restriction to voting.

#3 If the "disfranchised" cannot get id's to vote why can they get them for food stamps, welfare, Medicare ect? Amazing how that works.
 
Empiraca,

please read this and learn so that you can avoid these sort of mistakes again.

False equivalence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Voter fraud is one thing. Border problems are a different thing. Like Robert DeNiro said in THE DEERHUNTER
No, they are not "a different thing".

The fact that voter fraud will be most prevalent among the illegal aliens who crossed the border and the fact that the current administration downplayed both with their rediculous claims, directly links them.
 
from Blackdog replying to my post


Convictions are evidence someone got caught, you asked for "where is the mountain of evidence proving voter fraud is a problem?" which I supplied. If you would have been honest, Theplaydrive has posted that the 2 elections in 2002 and 2004 resulted in 70 convictions for fraud.

Suspicion of a crime does not equal a crime.
Accusation of a crime does not equal a crime.
Allegations of a crime does not equal a crime.

Playdrive shows 70 convictions (and where is that data please?) out of what - 200 million votes? In your mind, that constitutes a problem that warrants this type of solution? That is absurd in the extreme.


If you look at crime statistics the number of people charged vs convictions are very different. Just because someone did not get caught or convicted, does not erase a crime.

Sp present us with number of people charged with the crime of voter fraud then if you feel that is the benchmark.


#1 Voting is not an enumerated right in the Constitution.

The Constitution contains many phrases, clauses, and amendments detailing ways people cannot be denied the right to vote. You cannot deny the right to vote because of race or gender. Citizens of Washington DC can vote for President; 18-year-olds can vote; you can vote even if you fail to pay a poll tax. The Constitution also requires that anyone who can vote for the "most numerous branch" of their state legislature can vote for House members and Senate members.

You are engaging in semantics, smoke and mirrors and a version of intellectual three card Montie that is over the line of absurdity. If the Constitution does indeed discuss the right to vote five times, how can there be no "right to vote" when it clearly is mentioned and discussed with the exact phrase "RIGHT TO VOTE"?
 
Last edited:
No, they are not "a different thing".

The fact that voter fraud will be most prevalent among the illegal aliens who crossed the border and the fact that the current administration downplayed both with their rediculous claims, directly links them.

If you maintain it is the same, then do please present your data connecting the two. I would love to examine it.
 
from Blackdog replying to my post

Suspicion of a crime does not equal a crime.
Accusation of a crime does not equal a crime.
Allegations of a crime does not equal a crime.

Evidence is what you asked for, convictions are only part of an entire process.

Playdrive shows 70 convictions (and where is that data please?)

If you are that interested search the thread yourself.

out of what - 200 million votes? In your mind, that constitutes a problem that warrants this type of solution? That is absurd in the extreme.

The only thing I find absurd is that it happens and because you feel it does not happen on a larger scale it is not a problem. Yes lets talk about absurd.

Sp present us with number of people charged with the crime of voter fraud then if you feel that is the benchmark.

Don't really have to. People have been caught, if it was only 1 person it would be just as illegal.

You are engaging in semantics, smoke and mirrors and a version of intellectual three card Montie that is over the line of absurdity. If the Constitution does indeed discuss the right to vote five times, how can there be no "right to vote" when it clearly is mentioned and discussed with the exact phrase "RIGHT TO VOTE"?

You read what I said correct? What part of "enumerated" did you not understand?

PS here it is with the parts you cut out because you can't answer them...

#1 Voting is not an enumerated right in the Constitution.

The Constitution contains many phrases, clauses, and amendments detailing ways people cannot be denied the right to vote. You cannot deny the right to vote because of race or gender. Citizens of Washington DC can vote for President; 18-year-olds can vote; you can vote even if you fail to pay a poll tax. The Constitution also requires that anyone who can vote for the "most numerous branch" of their state legislature can vote for House members and Senate members.

Note that in all of this, though, the Constitution never explicitly ensures the right to vote, as it does the right to speech, for example. It does require that Representatives be chosen and Senators be elected by "the People," and who comprises "the People" has been expanded by the aforementioned amendments several times. Aside from these requirements, though, the qualifications for voters are left to the states. And as long as the qualifications do not conflict with anything in the Constitution, that right can be withheld. For example, in Texas, persons declared mentally incompetent and felons currently in prison or on probation are denied the right to vote. It is interesting to note that though the 26th Amendment requires that 18-year-olds must be able to vote, states can allow persons younger than 18 to vote, if they chose to.

#2 Federal courts have already upheld photo id's as constitutional. It is not considered a restriction to voting.

#3 If the "disfranchised" cannot get id's to vote why can they get them for food stamps, welfare, Medicare ect? Amazing how that works.
 
from Blackdog

Evidence is what you asked for, convictions are only part of an entire process.

Actually without a conviction, there is no proof that voting fraud ever took place. There is no dead body. There is no safe broken open and empty. There is no burned shell of a building. There is no bashed in head. There is no visible sign of any crime taking place in any way, shape or form. The only way you can prove that voter fraud actually did take place is to show me convictions of that crime.

Originally Posted by haymarket
Playdrive shows 70 convictions (and where is that data please?)



If you are that interested search the thread yourself.

Sorry but one cannot find what does not exist. If you feel it does, step up and present it. I find NOTHING.

Originally Posted by haymarket
out of what - 200 million votes? In your mind, that constitutes a problem that warrants this type of solution? That is absurd in the extreme.



The only thing I find absurd is that it happens and because you feel it does not happen on a larger scale it is not a problem. Yes lets talk about absurd.

You must really be an obsessive authoritarian statist who is willing to use the most meager of evidence - in this case no evidence - to strip basic voting rights from people.

Originally Posted by haymarket
So present us with number of people charged with the crime of voter fraud then if you feel that is the benchmark.


Don't really have to. People have been caught, if it was only 1 person it would be just as illegal.

Thank you for admitting you are impotent to present anything.



#1 Voting is not an enumerated right in the Constitution.

The Constitution contains many phrases, clauses, and amendments detailing ways people cannot be denied the right to vote. You cannot deny the right to vote because of race or gender. Citizens of Washington DC can vote for President; 18-year-olds can vote; you can vote even if you fail to pay a poll tax. The Constitution also requires that anyone who can vote for the "most numerous branch" of their state legislature can vote for House members and Senate members.

Which Lew Rockwell column did you cut and past that from?

If the Constitution does not recognize voting rights, can you explain why it uses the phrase RIGHT TO VOTE in FIVE different places in that same document? You seem unable to offer an answer for that.

You have no point about courts upholding this. I am not arguing this from that angle and you somehow someway refuse to see that. I am saying that there is no need for this because nobody has demonstrated there is a problem.

Welfare has not a damn thing to do with this outside of some sort of strawman that exists in your own mind.
 
Last edited:
IMO what is important about this issue gets lost in the way people discuss it. Just requiring a valid photo ID to vote is fine. 99% of US citizens have a valid photo ID already, so it wouldn't really exclude too many legal voters from voting. BUT, and this is VERY important, many of the voter ID laws go much further and that is where they go off the rails. Many of them don't accept IDs from other states, don't accept IDs from the federal government, don't accept certain forms of ID from even their own state, require that you have your current address on the ID, etc. That is where is gets to be more about election manipulation than fraud prevention. A Democrat in a district with a huge retirement community who knows the elderly people there tend to vote for Republicans pushes for a requirement that the IDs have their current address because he knows that many people in retirement homes don't update their IDs with the address of the retirement home. A Republican in a district with a big college pushes to exclude out of state IDs because he knows that most the students still have IDs issued by their home state. And so on. They can swing elections by up to 10% by manipulating that sort of additional requirements. It doesn't do anything to prevent fraud that just requiring a valid ID and registration wouldn't. The only reason they add all those extras on is to skew the election results in their favor and that is totally unacceptable. IMO if you want to vote for a voter ID law that JUST requires a valid photo ID, that's fine by me, but you need to read them very carefully first. If there are ANY additional requirements, reject is because you know that is just politicians trying to get a thumb on the election scale.
 
Excellent post Tea. You really brought up a very central point. Thank you.
 
Actually without a conviction, there is no proof that voting fraud ever took place. There is no dead body. There is no safe broken open and empty. There is no burned shell of a building. There is no bashed in head. There is no visible sign of any crime taking place in any way, shape or form. The only way you can prove that voter fraud actually did take place is to show me convictions of that crime.

Failure to convict means nothing of the sort. It can mean anything from someones civil rights were violated during the arrest to someone pleading out to not enough evidence to convict. :doh

Sorry but one cannot find what does not exist. If you feel it does, step up and present it. I find NOTHING.


Do a simple search on the playdrives posts in this thread. This is not rocket science.

You must really be an obsessive authoritarian statist who is willing to use the most meager of evidence - in this case no evidence - to strip basic voting rights from people.

Resorting to ad-hominems now, great.

Evidence has been posted, you don't like it. So your comment is at best untrue.

Please point out where anyone has suggested striping anyone's rights?

Here is what the supreme court had to say about Indiana's photo ID laws...

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that states can require voters to produce photo identification without violating their constitutional rights, validating Republican-inspired voter ID laws. - - Supreme Court upholds voter ID law - politics - msnbc.com

Indiana also provides free ID's for the poor. From the same story....

Indiana provides IDs free of charge to the poor and allows voters who lack photo ID to cast a provisional ballot and then show up within 10 days at their county courthouse to produce identification or otherwise attest to their identity.

So who's rights are being stripped again?


Thank you for admitting you are impotent to present anything.

Again I have presented evidence, so this is the best you have to offer? A little sarcasm? Wow.

Which Lew Rockwell column did you cut and past that from?

If the Constitution does not recognize voting rights, can you explain why it uses the phrase RIGHT TO VOTE in FIVE different places in that same document? You seem unable to offer an answer for that.

You have no point about courts upholding this. I am not arguing this from that angle and you somehow someway refuse to see that. I am saying that there is no need for this because nobody has demonstrated there is a problem.

Welfare has not a damn thing to do with this outside of some sort of strawman that exists in your own mind.

Wow not only do you keep ignoring what has been presented, you don't even understand anything I said.

You are completely wrong, as I said no such thing and neither did the quote, period.
 
No, they are not "a different thing".

The fact that voter fraud will be most prevalent among the illegal aliens who crossed the border and the fact that the current administration downplayed both with their rediculous claims, directly links them.

If that were true, why do we continue to see less cases of voter fraud in a year nationwide that you can count on your fingers and toes????
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom