• 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
Catawba said:
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????
Click to expand...

Because it is more prevalent in local and state elections, this is what people screaming "disfranchisement" want to ignore.
 
haymarket said:
Actually without a conviction, there is no proof that voting fraud ever took place.
Click to expand...

Blackdog said:
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
Click to expand...

Pleading out is a conviction. That means pleading guilty or nolo contendre, but of which are convictions. Not having enough evidence to convict is not having proof that voting fraud ever took place. So I think you're actually supporting what haymarket claims.
 
Blackdog said:
Because it is more prevalent in local and state elections, this is what people screaming "disfranchisement" want to ignore.
Click to expand...

No, there are actually very, very, few incidents of actual voter fraud committed by people actually voting in a polling place that were not allowed to. There have been a tiny handful of incidents where they've found that that happened in tiny numbers, but that's it.

Now, voting fraud does happen for sure, but that isn't how it happens. The actual incidents of voting fraud have involved absentee ballots, polling place workers "losing" ballots or "finding" suspect ballots and computer tampering. The reality is that getting actual illegal voters into actual polling places would be a ridiculously inefficient way to try to rig an election.
 
teamosil said:
Pleading out is a conviction. That means pleading guilty or nolo contendre, but of which are convictions. Not having enough evidence to convict is not having proof that voting fraud ever took place. So I think you're actually supporting what haymarket claims.
Click to expand...

Pleading out also means giving evidence against others to get out of a conviction. Not having enough evidence does not mean it did not happen, it means they do not have enough evidence to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

I think you two have no clue how the criminal justice system works.
 
teamosil said:
No, there are actually very, very, few incidents of actual voter fraud committed by people actually voting in a polling place that were not allowed to. There have been a tiny handful of incidents where they've found that that happened in tiny numbers, but that's it.
Click to expand...

Right, we know why liberals don't want ID laws etc...

Most of those charged have been Democrats, voting records show. - In 5-Year Effort, Scant Evidence of Voter Fraud - New York Times

In reality lots of things are minor or happen infrequently, this however does not mean we should ignore it.

teamosil said:
Now, voting fraud does happen for sure, but that isn't how it happens. The actual incidents of voting fraud have involved absentee ballots, polling place workers "losing" ballots or "finding" suspect ballots and computer tampering. The reality is that getting actual illegal voters into actual polling places would be a ridiculously inefficient way to try to rig an election.
Click to expand...

And yet it happens in places like Chicago every time.

LiveLeak.com - More Democratic Voter Fraud in Chicago, IL
Signs of vote fraud - Chicago Tribune
ICE arrests Grayslake Filipino woman on voter fraud - Chicago Breaking News

Many many stories.
 
Last edited:
Blackdog said:
Right, we know why liberals don't want ID laws etc...
Click to expand...

You're just confirming exactly what I'm saying- very few incidents of voter fraud by going into polling places, more of other types of fraud. So voter ID laws aren't well matched to the actual problem.

As for whether there is more voter fraud by Democrats or Republicans, that's certainly always hotly debated. Most Democrats will say that Republicans do it more and vice versa. For example, a Republican may point to the new black panthers incident, but did you know that on that same day in the same city over 100,000 fraudulent fliers claiming to be from the elections board were distributed in low income black neighborhoods claiming that if you showed up to vote and had an outstanding parking ticket you would be arrested? You can't make a reasonable conclusion about which party does it more just by looking at a handful of individual incidents. Most incidents aren't even reported, and of those that are, there are plenty to spend all day just reading about incidents committed by one side or the other.
 
Blackdog said:
Pleading out also means giving evidence against others to get out of a conviction. Not having enough evidence does not mean it did not happen, it means they do not have enough evidence to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
Click to expand...

Maybe you're just using the wrong term. Pleading out means that you entered a guilty plea, or a no contest plea, as part of a deal. Like they let you take a lesser charge or a beneficial sentencing recommendation. That's a conviction. If you get out of the conviction, you didn't plead out.

Blackdog said:
I think you two have no clue how the criminal justice system works.
Click to expand...

I'm in law school. I ran a court sponsored program working with kids on probation in the district of columbia for 3 years. I know way more about how the criminal justice system works than most folks.
 
Blackdog said:
Because it is more prevalent in local and state elections, this is what people screaming "disfranchisement" want to ignore.
Click to expand...

Did we miss the part where you cited that evidence/

Or is this more of "listen to me me and bow before me?"

You really don't get it do you?

1 - you have presented no evidence of voter fraud.
2- thus,there is nor reason to institute a restrictive program which could hurt voters rights
3- perhaps you are not understand because you are saying things that are beyodn understanding?
4 - as ou have been told already, nobody is takign issues with IF this can be done, but the questions is IF it should be done if view of the Constititution mentioning the right to vote no less than five times infive different sec tions.

ps. how does that compare to the right to bear arms? ;) thats a joke in case you do not get it rightt off.
 
Blackdog said:
Because it is more prevalent in local and state elections, this is what people screaming "disfranchisement" want to ignore.
Click to expand...

Lets see your statistics on the so-called "problem", that is worth disenfranchising 5 million voters?
 
teamosil said:
You're just confirming exactly what I'm saying- very few incidents of voter fraud by going into polling places, more of other types of fraud. So voter ID laws aren't well matched to the actual problem.
Click to expand...

It is a step in the right direction.

teamosil said:
As for whether there is more voter fraud by Democrats or Republicans, that's certainly always hotly debated. Most Democrats will say that Republicans do it more and vice versa. For example, a Republican may point to the new black panthers incident, but did you know that on that same day in the same city over 100,000 fraudulent fliers claiming to be from the elections board were distributed in low income black neighborhoods claiming that if you showed up to vote and had an outstanding parking ticket you would be arrested? You can't make a reasonable conclusion about which party does it more just by looking at a handful of individual incidents. Most incidents aren't even reported, and of those that are, there are plenty to spend all day just reading about incidents committed by one side or the other.
Click to expand...

Yes it is hotly debated but fact are facts. Most convictions were Democrats. End of story.
 
Catawba said:
Very interesting, thanks for making my point!
Click to expand...

We all know they only had 2 Federal elections. We also don't know how many were affected. How many may have pleaded out, did not have enough evidence etc.

So your point is irrelevant.
 
teamosil said:
Maybe you're just using the wrong term. Pleading out means that you entered a guilty plea, or a no contest plea, as part of a deal. Like they let you take a lesser charge or a beneficial sentencing recommendation. That's a conviction. If you get out of the conviction, you didn't plead out.
Click to expand...

Maybe, that is the term we used on the PD.

teamosil said:
I'm in law school. I ran a court sponsored program working with kids on probation in the district of columbia for 3 years. I know way more about how the criminal justice system works than most folks.
Click to expand...
Working in the juvenile system one thing, adult is a different world with much fewer restrictions etc. Saying you know more than most folks is probably true, but your comment is still wrong.
 
haymarket said:
Did we miss the part where you cited that evidence/

Or is this more of "listen to me me and bow before me?"

You really don't get it do you?

1 - you have presented no evidence of voter fraud.
2- thus,there is nor reason to institute a restrictive program which could hurt voters rights
3- perhaps you are not understand because you are saying things that are beyodn understanding?
4 - as ou have been told already, nobody is takign issues with IF this can be done, but the questions is IF it should be done if view of the Constititution mentioning the right to vote no less than five times infive different sec tions.

ps. how does that compare to the right to bear arms? ;) thats a joke in case you do not get it rightt off.
Click to expand...

I'll respond as soon as you respond to this post. http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/114863-photo-id-vote-33.html#post1060045609 :2wave:
 
Blackdog said:
We all know they only had 2 Federal elections. We also don't know how many were affected. How many may have pleaded out, did not have enough evidence etc.

So your point is irrelevant.
Click to expand...


Your lack of evidence for voter fraud shows you want to create further regulatory hurdles to fix a problem that doesn't exist (a libertarian nightmare), or you want to limit elderly, minority, and student voting as its the only way the GOP has a chance of winning elections given their now open class warfare against the working class.

Either way, it is a big turn off to voters.:)
 
Blackdog said:
Right, we know why liberals don't want ID laws etc...

Most of those charged have been Democrats, voting records show. - In 5-Year Effort, Scant Evidence of Voter Fraud - New York Times

In reality lots of things are minor or happen infrequently, this however does not mean we should ignore it.



And yet it happens in places like Chicago every time.

LiveLeak.com - More Democratic Voter Fraud in Chicago, IL
Signs of vote fraud - Chicago Tribune
ICE arrests Grayslake Filipino woman on voter fraud - Chicago Breaking News

Many many stories.
Click to expand...
I have to repeat what you wrote "In reality lots of things are minor or happen infrequently, this however does not mean we should ignore it." This is a statement that is not conservative. It's a pro big government statement. Think of the result of applying it to everything that is minor or infrequent as your statement states. Note that monitoring a potential problem is not equivalent to ignoring it.
 
I voted 'No' even though Texas passed it's voter picture ID legislation recently.

I have a gut feeling, after thinking about retirement homes, students, military members, absentee ballots, etc. that voters will be disenfranchised equally on both sides. There's just too many ways to cancel a vote with the picture ID requirement.

Used to be people were taken on their word. This new law basically calls all of us liars.
 
Blackdog said:
It is a step in the right direction.



Yes it is hotly debated but fact are facts. Most convictions were Democrats. End of story.
Click to expand...

You have to first have a story before you can say "end of story". You have nothing except a rightwing agenda to disenfranchise voters who do not vote the way you want them to vote.
 
Mickey Shane said:
I voted 'No' even though Texas passed it's voter picture ID legislation recently.

I have a gut feeling, after thinking about retirement homes, students, military members, absentee ballots, etc. that voters will be disenfranchised equally on both sides. There's just too many ways to cancel a vote with the picture ID requirement.

Used to be people were taken on their word. This new law basically calls all of us liars.
Click to expand...

I see the issue with absentee ballots, which should certainly be an exception (just have them show their ID to register to vote and request their absentee ballot, I've done it on board ship a couple of times and I'll be doing it again this next election, possibly a couple of times). If a person has registered to vote and is expecting an absentee ballot/ballot by mail, then they should tell someone if they didn't get their ballot within a set time frame.

But if you are showing up to the actual polling booth, then why not require ID? Most people have them, even if they are old, students, and the poor. And those who don't should be able to get them for free if they are required for voting, and the person cannot afford them.

Now, I don't necessarily think that this should be a federal law, but I absolutely don't have any issue with it being in state laws.
 
Catawba said:
Your lack of evidence for voter fraud shows you want to create further regulatory hurdles to fix a problem that doesn't exist (a libertarian nightmare), or you want to limit elderly, minority, and student voting as its the only way the GOP has a chance of winning elections given their now open class warfare against the working class.
Click to expand...

Asking for a photo id is now a regulatory hurdle? :lol:

Catawba said:
Either way, it is a big turn off to voters.:)
Click to expand...

Good, maybe it will keep the apathetic morons who have no clue from voting.
 
OhIsee.Then said:
I have to repeat what you wrote "In reality lots of things are minor or happen infrequently, this however does not mean we should ignore it." This is a statement that is not conservative.
Click to expand...

So what? Everything I do is not "conservative" we are most of us someplace in the middle.

OhIsee.Then said:
It's a pro big government statement. Think of the result of applying it to everything that is minor or infrequent as your statement states. Note that monitoring a potential problem is not equivalent to ignoring it.
Click to expand...

We already have to show id for many things, it is part of life in the us. Has nothing to do with big government, or even more. The structure is already in place.

Nice try, trying to play the "well your not conservative card" moronic fallacy argumentation.
 
haymarket said:
You have to first have a story before you can say "end of story". You have nothing except a rightwing agenda to disenfranchise voters who do not vote the way you want them to vote.
Click to expand...

Since when is a New York Times article a "right wing agenda?" This has nothing to do with the ridicules claims of disfranchisement, it is about legally providing proof you are a citizen to vote, nothing more.
 
Blackdog said:
Asking for a photo id is now a regulatory hurdle? :lol:
Click to expand...

As has been documented, it is for 5 million voters.



Good, maybe it will keep the apathetic morons who have no clue from voting.
Click to expand...

Which is of course the motive for the push by Republicans for the extra voter requirements, to limit votes by the poor, seniors, minorities, and students.

At least you were honest enough to admit it.
 
Blackdog said:
Since when is a New York Times article a "right wing agenda?" This has nothing to do with the ridicules claims of disfranchisement, it is about legally providing proof you are a citizen to vote, nothing more.
Click to expand...

Actually the story says there is no real evidence of any significant voter fraud.

But you know that well because you have not been able to present any here as well.
 
Catawba said:
As has been documented, it is for 5 million voters.
Click to expand...

According to whom? The Demoractic party, lol.

Catawba said:
Which is of course the motive for the push by Republicans for the extra voter requirements, to limit votes by the poor, seniors, minorities, and students.

At least you were honest enough to admit it.
Click to expand...

I will take that as you have no argument? OK thanks for playing. :mrgreen:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom