• 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
If not then what? And if it does not would you agree that there are ramification for 'overstepping' the desires of the electorate? I mean really, what purpose would elections have if not promoting the desires of the electorate.

there may be. there may not be. In many cases you cannot demonstrate a clear connection between the winning of an election, the desires or the electorate and the program which comes out in legislation.
 
When you stop laughing can you please explain to all here what that election result has to do with evidence of voter fraud?

If you read a bit further in Wikipedia you would find a detailed summary of what happened in that election



What happened had nothing to do with voter fraud and there is no evidence which says there was.


What? Nothing to do with voter fraud? It is the essence of voter fraud. It was the Democrat powers in the State that conveniently forgot that the State had a Constitution and laws. But if they could cheat, lie by criminally breaking the spirit and letter of the law BUT get a Democrat elected, that was all that mattered.

That is the essence of voter fraud. All you as a Liberal see, is another Democrat "elected" to the Senate.

If it was not for the double standard Democrats would have no standards at all.
 
What? Nothing to do with voter fraud? It is the essence of voter fraud. It was the Democrat powers in the State that conveniently forgot that the State had a Constitution and laws. But if they could cheat, lie by criminally breaking the spirit and letter of the law BUT get a Democrat elected, that was all that mattered.

That is the essence of voter fraud. All you as a Liberal see, is another Democrat "elected" to the Senate.

If it was not for the double standard Democrats would have no standards at all.

If that is your allegation, you will have no problems at all of citing the law in that state and where it was violated with voter fraud. I await your evidence.
 
there may be. there may not be. In many cases you cannot demonstrate a clear connection between the winning of an election, the desires or the electorate and the program which comes out in legislation.

That’s true, in many cases I feel that either the electorate does not stay engaged to connect their desires to the legislation or, even more disturbing, they listen to the talking heads (foxnews, msnbc, etal) explain to them how legislation is connected to them. Both sides have the same issue with this. Ultimately the system allows for correction i.e. Wisconsin and Ohio recalls/referendums. I suggest those who feel strong enough about this to stand up and participate in getting the voter ID laws repealed. Anything less is wasteful whining.

As to the OP, my wife and I support the voter ID legislation in our state. It was not a platform that the pols ran on but we support it none the less. If the poll workers in our area used the technique used in yours I would feel uneasy depending on them to be ‘signature experts’ to validate ones identity. We feel that the showing a ‘dependable‘ identification alleviates their responsibility to judge one’s eligibility to vote.
 
If that is your allegation, you will have no problems at all of citing the law in that state and where it was violated with voter fraud. I await your evidence.

Well why don't we start with the fact that the Missouri State Constitution says a person has to run for an elective office. The body of what use to be a person is not a person but a body. That by anyone's (not Democrats however) is voter/election fraud.
 
That’s true, in many cases I feel that either the electorate does not stay engaged to connect their desires to the legislation or, even more disturbing, they listen to the talking heads (foxnews, msnbc, etal) explain to them how legislation is connected to them. Both sides have the same issue with this. Ultimately the system allows for correction i.e. Wisconsin and Ohio recalls/referendums. I suggest those who feel strong enough about this to stand up and participate in getting the voter ID laws repealed. Anything less is wasteful whining.

As to the OP, my wife and I support the voter ID legislation in our state. It was not a platform that the pols ran on but we support it none the less. If the poll workers in our area used the technique used in yours I would feel uneasy depending on them to be ‘signature experts’ to validate ones identity. We feel that the showing a ‘dependable‘ identification alleviates their responsibility to judge one’s eligibility to vote.

I guess I fall on the side of pragmatics. The system works, has worked for quite a well and will - in all probable likelyhood - continue to work without voter ID.

Regarding your statement about voter correction and whining ---- while I can understand and sympathize, I do think that recalls like in Wisconsin and referendum like in Ohio, begin as whining and complaining and that stage of just bitching is part of the process. If it gets loud enough and gets enough citizens angered, then it is taken to the next level.

I certainly agree with you that the voters and citizens need to be far more engaged than many are.
 
Well why don't we start with the fact that the Missouri State Constitution says a person has to run for an elective office. The body of what use to be a person is not a person but a body. That by anyone's (not Democrats however) is voter/election fraud.

A person did run for office and get on the ballot. The law was followed to the letter. It was Missouri State Law which would not allow his name to be removed after his death three weeks before the general election. That also was a following of the law.

There was no fraud involved and you have not presented any. The article from wikikpedia that I submitted to you made it very very clear that his wife continued the campaign and the people who voted knew two things - they were voting for a dead man and his wife would be appointed should he win in death. There was no fraud of any type.
 
A person did run for office and get on the ballot. The law was followed to the letter. It was Missouri State Law which would not allow his name to be removed after his death three weeks before the general election. That also was a following of the law.

There was no fraud involved and you have not presented any. The article from wikikpedia that I submitted to you made it very very clear that his wife continued the campaign and the people who voted knew two things - they were voting for a dead man and his wife would be appointed should he win in death. There was no fraud of any type.

Except for the fact that a dead person won the election. The Democrat Governor said, before the election, that if the dead man won he would appoint the dead man's widow as the State's Senator. That is not legal. There should have been a special election after the General election. Why do I say that appointment of the widow as the Senator was illegal? Easy, a new Senator was never sworn in so there is no way the Governor had the legal right to appoint a successor.

But in the wide world of election fraud in the Democrat Party....the end justifies the means.
 
p.s., At the time this took place, the election fraud of electing a dead person, the Governor of Missouri, the Secretary of State of Missouri, the Attorney General of Missouri and the Control of the US Senate were all Democrats. So the fix was in.

The end justifies the means.
 
I guess I fall on the side of pragmatics. The system works, has worked for quite a well and will - in all probable likelyhood - continue to work without voter ID.

Pragmatism would dictate more efficient and effective practices. There are those who believe having to provide more positive identification would promote this. I do however respect your opinion.

Regarding your statement about voter correction and whining ---- while I can understand and sympathize, I do think that recalls like in Wisconsin and referendum like in Ohio, begin as whining and complaining and that stage of just bitching is part of the process. If it gets loud enough and gets enough citizens angered, then it is taken to the next level.

I certainly agree with you that the voters and citizens need to be far more engaged than many are.

Points taken succinctly, we’ll see if it gets loud enough.
 
Except for the fact that a dead person won the election. The Democrat Governor said, before the election, that if the dead man won he would appoint the dead man's widow as the State's Senator. That is not legal. There should have been a special election after the General election. Why do I say that appointment of the widow as the Senator was illegal? Easy, a new Senator was never sworn in so there is no way the Governor had the legal right to appoint a successor.

But in the wide world of election fraud in the Democrat Party....the end justifies the means.

Your opinion is only your opinion and has no force of law. As such, it needs much much more, So please do provide it here.

By all means present the law and proof of the illegality.

By all means do present the findings of a court when this challenge was made in the proper court.

I await your verifiable evidence.
 
Your opinion is only your opinion and has no force of law. As such, it needs much much more, So please do provide it here.

By all means present the law and proof of the illegality.

By all means do present the findings of a court when this challenge was made in the proper court.

I await your verifiable evidence.

Mr. Ashcroft did not take this to a Federal Court. Good for him. He would have won the case but then would never have won the special election.

Do I have to do all your research for you?
 
Mr. Ashcroft did not take this to a Federal Court. Good for him. He would have won the case but then would never have won the special election.

Do I have to do all your research for you?

So there was no legal challenge and no court ruled supporting the argument that you are making here.

So in summary then what we have was
1) a legal election won my Mel Carnahan
2) a vacancy declared in the office by the leal authorities
3) a legal appointment made by the proper authorities
4) a refusal to challenge by the one person who had legal standing to do so
5) no legal ruling saying that anything done in this election was illegal, fraudulent or outside the law

You seem to have great trouble separating your own opinion and views on this matter and the reality of what actually did happen.
 
86 (that there was enough proof to convict) divided by 5 is still 17.2 by my calculator. The red font doesn't change that. Sorry! As your link points out:

#1 It makes your article wrong.

Red font makes my article wrong??? Really? LOL!

#2 Not my link, the play drive.

Then you should have read it before posting it.


#3 My argument has never been that the fraud was perpetrated by allot of people. My contention is that it happens.


#4 there were only 86 cases of individual voter fraud nationwide - Subject: Voter ID Op-Ed by State Sen. Daylin Leach

Over 5 years, yep! You got it! That's 17.2 people out of 190,000,000 voters in an election. What other penalty for a crime works as effectively as the current $5,000 and 5 years in jail?

Since you don't seem to have a reasonable case to be made for further regulatory hurdles for people to jump through to vote, I can only conclude that you have an ulterior motive which you have alluded to before, your desire is to limit some of the "morons" from voting.
 
Red font makes my article wrong??? Really? LOL!

Not at all. The fact it got the number of people arrested and convicted wrong.

Then you should have read it before posting it.

Again because you seem to be having issues....

Theplaydrive posted the article initially, not me.

Can make it no clearer for you.

Over 5 years, yep! You got it! That's 17.2 people out of 190,000,000 voters in an election. What other penalty for a crime works as effectively as the current $5,000 and 5 years in jail?

It would depend on how rigorously people are prosecuted etc. Of course that has nothing to do with my response or overall argument.

Since you don't seem to have a reasonable case to be made for further regulatory hurdles for people to jump through to vote, I can only conclude that you have an ulterior motive which you have alluded to before, your desire is to limit some of the "morons" from voting.

I have not only made the case 15 states and the Supreme Court of the United States also agree, and have made my case for me. Many more states will be following after the holidays, and the state legislatures get back into session.

As for your comments in red. Please, are you really going to state something that stupid and unbelievable?
 
If capitalists are going to employ these people in order to increase their profits or keep their prices low, thereby making themselves rich or richer, than I'm not going to deny these people the right to vote -- regardless of their immigration status. They're working, they're being used for profit, they are contributing to the economy -- they vote. Period.

Anyone who doesn't like that should address the incentive for them to come here for a better life -- the people (capitalists) that employ them as an underclass. End of story.
 
Not at all. The fact it got the number of people arrested and convicted wrong.

Bush's Department of Justice got their 5 year study wrong???
 
Bush's Department of Justice got their 5 year study wrong???

Typical of you to get it completely wrong.

Here is your post - http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/114863-photo-id-vote-58.html#post1060058132

Here is your statement from the article - A five year study conducted by President Bush’s Justice Department found that out of more than 300 million votes, there were only 86 cases of individual voter fraud nationwide, and most of them involved immigrants who misunderstood their eligibility.

The part in red is wrong.

86 individuals were convicted, 120 were arrested, and we don't know how many were under investigation and did not have enough evidence to prosecute. Now many of them (convicted felons and illegals) say "well we didn't know," and did not get charged? So they were not prosecuted. Do you honestly believe that? Honestly? Besides ignorance of the law is no excuse. If I run a stop sign and said I did not know it was illegal, how far would I get?

In either case it is wrong information as I already said... twice. ;)
 
Last edited:
If capitalists are going to employ these people in order to increase their profits or keep their prices low, thereby making themselves rich or richer, than I'm not going to deny these people the right to vote -- regardless of their immigration status. They're working, they're being used for profit, they are contributing to the economy -- they vote. Period.

Anyone who doesn't like that should address the incentive for them to come here for a better life -- the people (capitalists) that employ them as an underclass. End of story.

OK Karl, here lie down and relax. I will get you a cool drink of water. Now please stay out of the sun.
 
[...] 120 were arrested [...]
So those who are arrested are guilty? Wow! We can save tons of money on judges and juries!

[...] and we don't know how many were under investigation and did not have enough evidence to prosecute.
Even better! We don't even need to arrest people to prove them guilty, we only need to investigate them! Wow! We can now save even more money on police!

[...] Now many of them (convicted felons and illegals) say "well we didn't know," and did not get charged?
Um, in many states felons are allowed to vote, so they don't commit a crime by doing so. But hey, I get your point! We can arrest (no, not needed) convict people of committing crimes that they didn't actually commit. Wow! The economy will be stimulated by all these new prisons we need to build! Pretty soon we'll surpass the Soviet Union in GNVPP! (Gross Non Voting Prison Population) :shock:


_________________________________________
Karl, looking around for a glass of water
 
Last edited:
Typical of you to get it completely wrong.

Here is your post - http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/114863-photo-id-vote-58.html#post1060058132

Here is your statement from the article - A five year study conducted by President Bush’s Justice Department found that out of more than 300 million votes, there were only 86 cases of individual voter fraud nationwide, and most of them involved immigrants who misunderstood their eligibility.

The part in red is wrong.

86 individuals were convicted, 120 were arrested, and we don't know how many were under investigation and did not have enough evidence to prosecute. Now many of them (convicted felons and illegals) say "well we didn't know," and did not get charged? So they were not prosecuted. Do you honestly believe that? Honestly? Besides ignorance of the law is no excuse. If I run a stop sign and said I did not know it was illegal, how far would I get?

In either case it is wrong information as I already said... twice. ;)


Despite what you might think, red font does not disprove a five year study by the Justice Department. And saying it twice carries no more credibility than red font, just so you know.
 
Since another Presidential election is coming up, how about this topic again?

Should people have to show their photo ID in order to vote in US presidential elections? Why or why not?

You have to show ID to buy liquor, so as voting is so much more important then drinking, yes you should have to show ID to vote.
 
Last edited:
So those who are arrested are guilty? Wow! We can save tons of money on judges and juries!

Straw man, appeal to ridicule.

Even better! We don't even need to arrest people to prove them guilty, we only need to investigate them! Wow! We can now save even more money on police!

Appeal to Ridicule.

Um, in many states felons are allowed to vote, so they don't commit a crime by doing so.

This is true but no less a straw Man.

But hey, I get your point! We can arrest (no, not needed) convict people of committing crimes that they didn't actually commit. Wow!

Appeal to ridicule.

The economy will be stimulated by all these new prisons we need to build! Pretty soon we'll surpass the Soviet Union in GNVPP! (Gross Non Voting Prison Population) :shock:

Appeal to ridicule.

Nothing but fallacy. Can't even respond to such nonsense. :lol:

Karl, looking around for a glass of water

To late.
 
Despite what you might think, red font does not disprove a five year study by the Justice Department. And saying it twice carries no more credibility than red font, just so you know.

:doh

The study is just fine, you mite want to read what I said. :lol:
 
You have to show ID to buy liquor, so as voting is so much more important then drinking, yes you should have to show ID to vote.

No one ever asks me for ID when I buy liquor.

They don't even ask for ID when I buy a senior ticket at the theater any more.

Must be carelessness.
 
Back
Top Bottom