• 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
Blackdog said:
How about 86 convictions in 5 years? So we know it is happening? And requiring an id is about as statist as requiring id to buy smokes. Nice try again at the "your a conservative and should believe this." Another lame attempt because the "study" as you want to call it is partisan crap and highly flawed, contradictory speculation at best.
Click to expand...

86 convictions in five years?!?!?!? And the support for that is found where... I seem to have missed in in the post.

And that would be 86 out of how many votes cast in those same five years?
 
haymarket said:
86 convictions in five years?!?!?!? And the support for that is found where... I seem to have missed in in the post.
Click to expand...

Yes you missed it. Theplaydrive posted it. Look it up.

haymarket said:
And that would be 86 out of how many votes cast in those same five years?
Click to expand...

Well there were only 2 Federal elections in that span, and the report as I pointed out listed no details, just conviction rate. It did not include numbers from local or state elections either.
 
Blackdog said:
Yes you missed it. Theplaydrive posted it. Look it up.



Well there were only 2 Federal elections in that span, and the report as I pointed out listed no details, just conviction rate. It did not include numbers from local or state elections either.
Click to expand...

is this what you mean?

REPORT: From Poll Taxes To Voter ID Laws: A Short History of Conservative Voter Suppression | ThinkProgress

And the Bush administration’s five-year national “war on voter fraud” resulted in only 86 convictions of illegal voting out of more than 196 million votes cast.
Click to expand...

And no details are provided. If you have any I would certainly welcome reading them to determine what constituted these 86 convictions out of almost 200 million votes.

Somebody should do the match to find out the percentage there to measure "this serious problem'. What a bad joke!
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
Can see no evidence of it at all. It must not exist. If you allege that it does, where is the evidence for I can find none.
Click to expand...

Then you are to stupid to find the obvious.

Next!
 
teamosil said:
Right, we can't know for sure how it will play out until it happens, but it looks like it will be bad. What do you have to suggest otherwise?
Click to expand...

We already have photo id's in what? 15 states that require a picture? I have heard no massive outcry of hardship or anything else? Have you?

So please fill me in on where all of the "it looks like it will be bad" ran off to?
 
Last edited:
Blackdog said:
So far you have a study based on speculation and it even contradicts itself. What more do you need?
Click to expand...

We have a study by experts vs no documentation from you to back up your claims. All we have from you is the concession that it would be good to prevent people that you don't agree with you from voting.
 
Blackdog said:
We already have photo id's in what? 15 states that require a picture? I have heard no massive outcry of hardship or anything else? Have you?

So please fill me in on where all of the "it looks like it will be bad" ran off to?
Click to expand...

See I knew you didn't really read the study... It found that 99% of citizens have a valid photo ID, so requiring that doesn't have a massive impact, but only 90% of citizens have a valid photo ID that meets the requirements of the strictest of the voter ID laws that are now being proposed or that will be in effect for the first time this election. For example, they have a valid ID, but it was issued by another state or they have a valid ID with their previous address on it. All those people- roughly 25 million voters nationwide- would need to go get a new ID to vote. Now, you tell me, what percentage of them do you think actually will do that? Half? That'd be 12.5 million legal voters disenfranchised. Roughly on par with the disenfranchisement of black voters in the south in the 60s. Even if 80% of them do it, that's still 5 million. Personally, I think really its more like 20% that will go get a new ID, so that'd be 20 million, but just to be super conservative, lets say 5 million.

Now that means that in order for these laws to be an improvement in the accuracy of elections, you'd need to find strong evidence suggesting that more than 5 million votes per election are cast illegally by people actually going into the polling place. Everything I've seen suggests it's more like 1,000 votes per election, but if you have any evidence showing it might be up in the 5 million neighborhood, lets see it.
 
Last edited:
do all the libs (yes everyone voting no is a well known lefty) oppose having to show an ID to buy a gun as well?
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
do all the libs (yes everyone voting no is a well known lefty) oppose having to show an ID to buy a guy as well?
Click to expand...

If you want to buy a guy, does he usually ask for a photo ID or just if you have the right amount of money for the services?

You may want to go back and correct that to GUN Turtle. ;):mrgreen:
 
TurtleDude said:
do all the libs (yes everyone voting no is a well known lefty) oppose having to show an ID to buy a guy as well?
Click to expand...

Just a plain old valid ID? No, I would not oppose that. I would oppose it if they tried to add on all kind of unrelated requirements just to try to prevent people from buying guns like requiring that it be issued by the state in which they are buying the gun, have their current address, etc.
 
teamosil said:
See I knew you didn't really read the study... It found that 99% of citizens have a valid photo ID, so requiring that doesn't have a massive impact, but only 90% of citizens have a valid photo ID that meets the requirements of the strictest of the voter ID laws that are now being proposed or that will be in effect for the first time this election.
Click to expand...

Ummm....that has nothing to do with what you asked or my reply...

Right, we can't know for sure how it will play out until it happens, but it looks like it will be bad. What do you have to suggest otherwise? - teamosil

I pointed out that it is already used in 15 states with no real issues, that's it. Your question and my answer had nothing at all to do with the study.

teamosil said:
For example, they have a valid ID, but it was issued by another state or they have a valid ID with their previous address on it. All those people- roughly 25 million voters nationwide- would need to go get a new ID to vote. Now, you tell me, what percentage of them do you think actually will do that? Half? That'd be 12.5 million legal voters disenfranchised.
Click to expand...

God forbid they get pulled over and miss the court date because it was sent to the wrong address etc. Sorry they are disfranchised because of stupidity, not a photo id.

PS most if not all states require you update you driver licence or id within 30 days of moving or moving to a new state. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, never has been and never will be.

teamosil said:
Roughly on par with the disenfranchisement of black voters in the south in the 60s. Even if 80% of them do it, that's still 5 million. Personally, I think really its more like 20% that will go get a new ID, so that'd be 20 million, but just to be super conservative, lets say 5 million.
Click to expand...

Most states like Indiana offer free photo id's to those who can't afford them. Still no excuse.

teamosil said:
Now that means that in order for these laws to be an improvement in the accuracy of elections, you'd need to find strong evidence suggesting that more than 5 million votes per election are cast illegally by people actually going into the polling place. Everything I've seen suggests it's more like 1,000 votes per election, but if you have any evidence showing it might be up in the 5 million neighborhood, lets see it.
Click to expand...

That is completely arbitrary and comparing to blacks in the 60's is even more ridicules as I have pointed out above.
 
Catawba said:
We have a study by experts vs no documentation from you to back up your claims. All we have from you is the concession that it would be good to prevent people that you don't agree with you from voting.
Click to expand...

It would also keep people who should not be voting from voting. Damn what a concept!
 
Blackdog said:
Ummm....that has nothing to do with what you asked or my reply...

Right, we can't know for sure how it will play out until it happens, but it looks like it will be bad. What do you have to suggest otherwise? - teamosil

I pointed out that it is already used in 15 states with no real issues, that's it. Your question and my answer had nothing at all to do with the study.
Click to expand...

You're not following. We require valid ID in 15 states. 99% of people have an ID that is valid, so that hasn't been a huge problem. But these new laws are much stricter. Only 90% of people have an ID that meets the requirements in the worst of them.

Blackdog said:
Sorry they are disfranchised because of stupidity, not a photo id.
Click to expand...

Whether you think somebody is "stupid" or not isn't the standard for who gets to vote.

Blackdog said:
PS most if not all states require you update you driver licence or id within 30 days of moving or moving to a new state. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, never has been and never will be.
Click to expand...

If you drive.

You're just trying to avoid the question. Where is your evidence that there are more than 5 million, or even anywhere near that number, votes fraudulently cast by people actually going into the polling place? Without that you have no choice but to concede that these laws would actually mess up elections more than they would help them. They would make them less accurate.
 
teamosil said:
Just a plain old valid ID? No, I would not oppose that. I would oppose it if they tried to add on all kind of unrelated requirements just to try to prevent people from buying guns like requiring that it be issued by the state in which they are buying the gun, have their current address, etc.
Click to expand...

If the id does not have your current address or is not current in the state you live in. If it does not have those it is not a valid ID.
 
Blackdog said:
It would also keep people who should not be voting from voting. Damn what a concept!
Click to expand...

Ah... There we go. So you admit it. See that wasn't so hard. It is indeed an attempt to disenfranchise people you disagree with. Just like we've been saying all along.
 
Blackdog said:
If the id does not have your current address or is not current in the state you live in. If it does not have those it is not a valid ID.
Click to expand...

Nah, that's not true. You can do anything that requires an ID with an out of state ID or an ID with a previous address.
 
teamosil said:
You're not following. We require valid ID in 15 states. 99% of people have an ID that is valid, so that hasn't been a huge problem. But these new laws are much stricter. Only 90% of people have an ID that meets the requirements in the worst of them.
Click to expand...

The new laws as in 1 state has been shot down. It was deemed unconstitutional. The problem is you seem to want to throw out the baby with the bath water.

teamosil said:
Whether you think somebody is "stupid" or not isn't the standard for who gets to vote.
Click to expand...

irrelevant in terms of the law no matter what I think. Nice way to try and dodge my point.

teamosil said:
If you drive.

You're just trying to avoid the question. Where is your evidence that there are more than 5 million, or even anywhere near that number, votes fraudulently cast by people actually going into the polling place? Without that you have no choice but to concede that these laws would actually mess up elections more than they would help them. They would make them less accurate.
Click to expand...

I don't need evidence to prove something you are making up. It is nothing more than speculation. It is not based on anything that has happened yet. It came close one time and the courts shut it down. So your reasoning is flawed which brings a flawed conclusion based on again a guess.

PS the law is for regular id's as well. In most states laws exist that if an officer ask's you for id, it must be up to date and from your state of residence.
 
teamosil said:
Nah, that's not true. You can do anything that requires an ID with an out of state ID or an ID with a previous address.
Click to expand...

Yes it is, I was a police officer. You can't do "anything" the only reason some people do is because they don't have the resources to run it. If you are stopped for any reason pedestrian, bicycle or motor vehicle and your id is found to be wrong you are warned to get it updated right away. I know, I had to do this literally hundreds of times.
 
Blackdog said:
The new laws as in 1 state has been shot down. It was deemed unconstitutional. The problem is you seem to want to throw out the baby with the bath water.
Click to expand...

No, there are a ton of them. Somebody posted a list of some 10 or so states with new laws that will go into effect this election that will require current address and that they're issued by the state and whatnot.

Blackdog said:
I don't need evidence to prove something you are making up. It is nothing more than speculation. It is not based on anything that has happened yet. It came close one time and the courts shut it down. So your reasoning is flawed which brings a flawed conclusion based on again a guess.
Click to expand...

Making up? Again, the study found that 10% of legal voters don't have an ID that meets those requirements. You keep claiming that was just made up, but it wasn't.

This is the only question that matters. Will it prevent more fraud or will it disenfranchise more people. All the evidence seems to point resoundingly to that it will disenfranchise more people than it will prevent fraud. If you really have zero evidence showing otherwise, that's it, you lose by default. You failed to show up for the match and the other team won because of it.

Blackdog said:
PS the law is for regular id's as well. In most states laws exist that if an officer ask's you for id, it must be up to date and from your state of residence.
Click to expand...

That is flat out false. You aren't even required to have an ID in this country. A couple states have tried making mandatory ID laws- AZ for one- but they have been struck down by the courts.
 
teamosil said:
Ah... There we go. So you admit it. See that wasn't so hard. It is indeed an attempt to disenfranchise people you disagree with. Just like we've been saying all along.
Click to expand...

What? So because felons and illegal aliens should not be voting I am trying to disenfranchise people? Oh my goodness, your an idiot.
 
Blackdog said:
What? So because felons and illegal aliens should not be voting I am trying to disenfranchise people? Oh my goodness, your an idiot.
Click to expand...

No kiddo. The people who don't have IDs that meet those requirements aren't felons and illegal aliens, they're college students, people who live in big cities and don't drive or move a lot, elderly people, etc. Heck, my grandmother couldn't vote if they passed one of those laws in her state. She hasn't driven in 20 years.
 
teamosil said:
No, there are a ton of them. Somebody posted a list of some 10 or so states with new laws that will go into effect this election that will require current address and that they're issued by the state and whatnot.
Click to expand...

And if they are found to be unconstitutional they will be shot down, if not they will stay. End of story.

teamosil said:
Making up? Again, the study found that 10% of legal voters don't have an ID that meets those requirements. You keep claiming that was just made up, but it wasn't.
Click to expand...

Then they can get one that does. Just because they did not have one in Nov of 2006, means little in 2011. I mean lets take into account some just needed them updated, other needed them replaced, , either way you are guessing.

teamosil said:
This is the only question that matters. Will it prevent more fraud or will it disenfranchise more people. All the evidence seems to point resoundingly to that it will disenfranchise more people than it will prevent fraud. If you really have zero evidence showing otherwise, that's it, you lose by default. You failed to show up for the match and the other team won because of it.
Click to expand...

It will not disenfranchise anyone. Keep your id up to date and no problem.

teamosil said:
That is flat out false. You aren't even required to have an ID in this country. A couple states have tried making mandatory ID laws- AZ for one- but they have been struck down by the courts.
Click to expand...

That's true, I was thinking in terms of arresting someone. If they don't present and are suspected of a crime with no ID we had to arrest them and go before a judge. Drivers licences of course are a different story.
 
Last edited:
teamosil said:
No kiddo. The people who don't have IDs that meet those requirements aren't felons and illegal aliens
Click to expand...

I did not know you could read minds now? How do you know?

teamosil said:
they're college students, people who live in big cities and don't drive or move a lot, elderly people, etc. Heck, my grandmother couldn't vote if they passed one of those laws in her state. She hasn't driven in 20 years.
Click to expand...

I am sorry but if you need a simple photo id, get one. This is not rocket science.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom