• 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
and this has what direct connection with showing voter fraud in Alabama or Tennessee???
 
Forget about George Soros, the hated and feared boogey man who apparently induces dampness in the seats of trousers everywhere on the far right. Try the Bush Justice Department and argue with their statistics

In 5-Year Effort, Scant Evidence of Voter Fraud - New York Times

86 measley voter fraud convictions out of over 196 million who voted during the same time period. And what do we hear in response - George Soros!!!!!

read for heavens sake - please do read


that is 86 times the number of convictions involving weapons your party felt a need to ban sales of
 
You are aware that when Gore conceded the 2000 election the GOP decided not to push for prosecutions of vote fraud.

Convictions really aren't a good argument

in 1986, the democrats tried to derail the McClure-Volkmer firearm owners protection act by improperly and in violation of congressional rules attached a poison pill amendment known as the Hughes Amendment which effectively banned citizens from purchasing automatic weapons made after the date of the amendment (May 19, 1986). Hughes, an extremist democrat from NJ whined about lawfully owned machine guns even though THERE HAD ONLY BEEN ONE CONVICTION (indeed only one case) of a lawfully owned machine gun being used in a crime over a FIFTY YEAR PERIOD.

so the dems decided it was necessary to ban-for millions of gun owners-sales of such weapons based on ONE conviction

Yet again Turtle - guns and voting are two different things.

And the only evidence we have of voter fraud are convictions. There is no dead body. There is no burned out house. There is no empty cash register till.

The burden of proof is on your side to prove there is a problem of voter fraud. So please do it.
 
Yet again Turtle - guns and voting are two different things.

And the only evidence we have of voter fraud are convictions. There is no dead body. There is no burned out house. There is no empty cash register till.

The burden of proof is on your side to prove there is a problem of voter fraud. So please do it.

constitutional rights are constitutional rights and if you whine about one right supposedly being threatened based on arguments using 86 convictions as too thin an amount of evidence I rightly note that your party has used ONE conviction to deprive millions of people of another constitutional right based on ONE conviction
 
Glad you agree with the summary that concludes the new voter requirements could disenfranchise 5 million voters.
They are not disenfranchised. They may be too stupid, too lazy or too criminal to get a government issued ID. That is why the Democrats are so interested in them. They are drones.
 
Why is this an issue of laziness, intelligence or criminality? That is absurd and unfounded.

What other reasons are there? I cannot imagine that there won't be M-TV sponsored "Buy the Vote" campaigns to identify and harvest those pathetic people who just cannot do something as easy and getting a government issued ID on their own.
 
At my polling place in Michigan they compare my voters registration signature with my signature that I provide in front of them on the day I walk in to vote. If they DO NOT MATCH, then they ask for identification.

Okay. So that is what your state does. How do they determine that you are a citizen?
 
Yup - an axiom is what you BELIEVE because it is what you want to BELIEVE because you BELEIVE it.
If you say so. An axiom needs no definition. Do you take the opposite to be true, that requiring a government issued photo ID will increase the likelihood of voter fraud?
 
86 measley voter fraud convictions out of over 196 million who voted during the same time period. And what do we hear in response - George Soros!!!!!

read for heavens sake - please do read
I read widely and frequently.

States have an obligation to ensure that only citizens vote and then only once in each election. This is a reasonable way to do so. People who are too lazy, too stupid or too criminal to get a government issued ID are unlikely to vote anyway. What is the voter turnout for federal elections typically?

Personally, I like it. Your mileage may vary.
 
I will repeat this one last time in the hope that people will understand....

Photo ID's are not an infringement on anyone's right to vote. This the SCOTUS has affirmed in the case of Indiana...

Supreme Court upholds voter ID law - politics - msnbc.com

The problem is with voter ID laws that are to restrictive, like in Missouri which was struck down...

Supreme Court upholds voter ID law - politics - msnbc.com

So the problem is not photo id's as in this report...

In a 2008 survey, three out of 2,564 respondents said that they tried to vote but were not allowed because of voter ID, a fraction of a percent. - Ansolabehere, Stephen. “Effects on Identification Requirements on Voting: Evidence from Experiences of Voters on Election Day.” PS. 42.1 (2009): 127- 130. Web. 21 Sep. 2011. Sorry I have no internet link.

Studies have shown that states that require photo identification in elections have little to no significant difference in voter turnout or fraud - Young Americans for Liberty – Ole Miss Chapter

As long as we are watchful and don't let the ID laws get restrictive or equal a "poll tax", we will have no problem with disenfranchisement of voters. It will help cut down on this kind of fraud...

The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), the radical left-wing activist group, was convicted in a massive voter-fraud conspiracy. It has been committing identify theft for decades. - VADUM: Obama's favorite gangsters convicted again - Washington Times
 
I will repeat this one last time in the hope that people will understand....

Photo ID's are not an infringement on anyone's right to vote. This the SCOTUS has affirmed in the case of Indiana...

Supreme Court upholds voter ID law - politics - msnbc.com

The problem is with voter ID laws that are to restrictive, like in Missouri which was struck down...

Supreme Court upholds voter ID law - politics - msnbc.com

So the problem is not photo id's as in this report...

In a 2008 survey, three out of 2,564 respondents said that they tried to vote but were not allowed because of voter ID, a fraction of a percent. - Ansolabehere, Stephen. “Effects on Identification Requirements on Voting: Evidence from Experiences of Voters on Election Day.” PS. 42.1 (2009): 127- 130. Web. 21 Sep. 2011. Sorry I have no internet link.

Studies have shown that states that require photo identification in elections have little to no significant difference in voter turnout or fraud - Young Americans for Liberty – Ole Miss Chapter

As long as we are watchful and don't let the ID laws get restrictive or equal a "poll tax", we will have no problem with disenfranchisement of voters. It will help cut down on this kind of fraud...

The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), the radical left-wing activist group, was convicted in a massive voter-fraud conspiracy. It has been committing identify theft for decades. - VADUM: Obama's favorite gangsters convicted again - Washington Times

Did you not read this hole line?

"Studies have shown that states that require photo identification in elections have little to no significant difference in voter turnout or fraud."

So if it has no change, why do it?
 
Did you not read this hole line?

"Studies have shown that states that require photo identification in elections have little to no significant difference in voter turnout or fraud."

So if it has no change, why do it?
A study by the University of Missouri on turnout in Indiana showed that turnout actually increased by about 2 percentage points overall in Indiana in 2006 in the first election after the voter ID law went into effect. There was no evidence that counties with higher percentages of minority, poor, elderly, or less-educated populations suffered any reduction in voter turnout. In fact, “the only consistent and statistically significant impact of photo ID in Indiana is to increase voter turnout in counties with a greater percentage of Democrats relative to other counties.”

Huh... and Democrats are AGAINST photo ID's.

Studies? You can pretty much find a study to say whatever someone wants it to say. Case in point:

Voter Photo Identification: Protecting the Security of Elections
 
Did you not read this hole line?

"Studies have shown that states that require photo identification in elections have little to no significant difference in voter turnout or fraud."

So if it has no change, why do it?

I read the whole line. Because it will make a difference in fraud like ACORN employees were convicted of.

So why do you have a problem with someone showing an id to prove they are a legal citizen eligible to vote?
 
I read the whole line. Because it will make a difference in fraud like ACORN employees were convicted of.

So why do you have a problem with someone showing an id to prove they are a legal citizen eligible to vote?

I like your thoughts but...."an id to prove they are a legal citizen eligible to vote"....does nothing to prove one is a citizen eligible to vote. Even illegals can get a government photo ID. The beginning of the answer is to have those wishing to register to vote actually prove they are who they say they are and that they are an actual USA citizen that is eligible to vote. Also, there must be a check that this one person is not registered to vote in any other county in the entire nation. If more than one registration is found then all are put on hold till the problem of multiple registrations is terminated.
 
I like your thoughts but...."an id to prove they are a legal citizen eligible to vote"....does nothing to prove one is a citizen eligible to vote. Even illegals can get a government photo ID. The beginning of the answer is to have those wishing to register to vote actually prove they are who they say they are and that they are an actual USA citizen that is eligible to vote. Also, there must be a check that this one person is not registered to vote in any other county in the entire nation. If more than one registration is found then all are put on hold till the problem of multiple registrations is terminated.

This should be done when registering and has little to do with the ID itself.

Has nothing to do with my point either way. :shrug:
 
This should be done when registering and has little to do with the ID itself.

Has nothing to do with my point either way. :shrug:

It is only relevant in that you said...."...an id to prove they are a legal citizen eligible to vote..." which in fact is not true. Anyone can get a government photo ID.
 
Since I didn't read the summary, I'm glad the summary agrees with me, and it's not 5 million disenfranchised voters, as I've already pointed out, and your summary pointed out.

The study that I quoted above, clears says it may disenfranchise 5 million "eligible voters."
 
constitutional rights are constitutional rights and if you whine about one right supposedly being threatened based on arguments using 86 convictions as too thin an amount of evidence I rightly note that your party has used ONE conviction to deprive millions of people of another constitutional right based on ONE conviction

Again, this discussion is about voting.
This discussion is not about gun rights.
 
I read widely and frequently.

States have an obligation to ensure that only citizens vote and then only once in each election. This is a reasonable way to do so. People who are too lazy, too stupid or too criminal to get a government issued ID are unlikely to vote anyway. What is the voter turnout for federal elections typically?

Personally, I like it. Your mileage may vary.

No reasons have been established to institute a system which may cost hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of people their vote. The system works and works quite well.
 
No reasons have been established to institute a system which may cost hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of people their vote. The system works and works quite well.

Only if you are a Democrat and are interested only in the outcome no matter the cost, i.e., The end justifies the means.
 
It takes my fingerprint to get onto my computer. Maybe we should do that instead of photo ID....

I really don't know why some of you don't want to keep the voting process for the highest office in the land secure and fair. What's the downside to that?
 
It is only relevant in that you said...."...an id to prove they are a legal citizen eligible to vote..." which in fact is not true. Anyone can get a government photo ID.

Yes illegally, but people are getting caught now. Law of averages says it will make it even easier. So the fact is true. Just because some can beat the system, does not make it wrong.
 
No reasons have been established to institute a system which may cost hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of people their vote. The system works and works quite well.

It has already been instituted and successful in 15 states. After state houses return from break even more will be. You are spitting into the wind.

As for costing "millions of people" a vote. States had it operational in 2008 had no problems and noticed almost no effect on voter turnout. You can keep ignoring facts and that's OK. As I stated before the SCOTUS already won this argument and found it constitutional.
 
Back
Top Bottom