• 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!

Should the govt verify the identity of a person attempting to vote?

Should the govt verify the identity of a person attempting to vote?

  • Yes

    Votes: 33 97.1%
  • No

    Votes: 1 2.9%

  • Total voters
    34
  • Poll closed .

jonny5

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 4, 2012
Messages
27,581
Reaction score
4,664
Location
Republic of Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
The last time this was asked, 60% of respondants said YES, ID should be required to vote. http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/114863-photo-id-vote.html

I broke it down to a fundemental idea. Should the govt verify who is voting? If not, why not. If so, how so? What level of verification is neccesary?

-a signature?
-a voter registration card?
-a photo id?

So, given most people want secured elections, shouldnt congress just pass a law requiring the checking of photo ids? End this state by state nonsense.
 
Yes - and we already do. I'm unaware of any state that doesn't take some measure to register voters, require a voter card or ID, so on - so forth.
 
The last time this was asked, 60% of respondants said YES, ID should be required to vote. http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/114863-photo-id-vote.html

I broke it down to a fundemental idea. Should the govt verify who is voting? If not, why not. If so, how so? What level of verification is neccesary?

-a signature?
-a voter registration card?
-a photo id?

So, given most people want secured elections, shouldnt congress just pass a law requiring the checking of photo ids? End this state by state nonsense.

Yes the should verify. How so? Via photo id - electronic registration. Votes by the dead, pets, non-citizens, or duplicates should be identified and removed. If a photo ID is not available during voting, a vote can still be taken (provisional) such that the vote can be verified and either successfully added or discounted. The FEC or State election body's should produce a public report of votes which were found to be duplicates or invalid with the reason why those items showed up. Nothing will be perfect or 100%, however it would be an improvement and it would give credibility to the voting process and reduce (IMO) the accusations of voter fraud and tampering.
 
The last time this was asked, 60% of respondants said YES, ID should be required to vote. http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/114863-photo-id-vote.html

I broke it down to a fundemental idea. Should the govt verify who is voting? If not, why not. If so, how so? What level of verification is neccesary?

-a signature?
-a voter registration card?
-a photo id?

So, given most people want secured elections, shouldnt congress just pass a law requiring the checking of photo ids? End this state by state nonsense.

Voter fraud is NOT a real problem.

Voter fraud is NOT a significant problem.

Voter fraud is NOT a problem that requires any action.

Do I need to repeat myself?
 
50 years ago, I would have said it wasn't necessary, but with the changes in society which have happened since then, I now think it's needed. It's sad to say that alot of people can't be trusted to be honest.
I would prefer a voter photo ID, and adequate polling workers to verify it.
 
Last edited:
Voter fraud is NOT a real problem.

Voter fraud is NOT a significant problem.

Voter fraud is NOT a problem that requires any action.Do I need to repeat myself?

No you do not need to repeat.
I do disagree with your last statement. No action? So at what point would you consider voter fraud "real" enough to cause action?

"Mistakes and lapses in enforcing voting and registration rules routinely occur in elections, allowing thousands of ineligible voters to go to the polls" was a finding reported by the NYTimes during the Bush era DOJ investigation.http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/washington/12fraud.html?pagewanted=all

May not be fraud, but it is a problem when people who are not eligible to vote somehow do.
 
Last edited:
The last time this was asked, 60% of respondants said YES, ID should be required to vote. http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/114863-photo-id-vote.html

I broke it down to a fundemental idea. Should the govt verify who is voting? If not, why not. If so, how so? What level of verification is neccesary?

-a signature?
-a voter registration card?
-a photo id?

So, given most people want secured elections, shouldnt congress just pass a law requiring the checking of photo ids? End this state by state nonsense.

It should be mandatory in every state to show a state or federal government issued photo ID or drivers license along with the voter registration card in order to vote. There is no reason why anyone can't get a ID. They are not expensive.
 
Last edited:
Voter fraud is NOT a real problem.

Voter fraud is NOT a significant problem.

Voter fraud is NOT a problem that requires any action.

Do I need to repeat myself?

Oh yeah: voting corruption has never happened - not in the us - we're all too honest for that. :shrug: no no no
 
Voter fraud is NOT a real problem.

Voter fraud is NOT a significant problem.

Voter fraud is NOT a problem that requires any action.

Do I need to repeat myself?

No, but you could answer the topic.
 
Yes - and we already do. I'm unaware of any state that doesn't take some measure to register voters, require a voter card or ID, so on - so forth.

How do they verify the voter card presented is the person presenting it? Should they? In many states, to register to vote, all you need to do is say you are a resident, you can do it online and get a card in the mail.
 
No you do not need to repeat.
I do disagree with your last statement. No action? So at what point would you consider voter fraud "real" enough to cause action?

"Mistakes and lapses in enforcing voting and registration rules routinely occur in elections, allowing thousands of ineligible voters to go to the polls" was a finding reported by the NYTimes during the Bush era DOJ investigation.http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/washington/12fraud.html?pagewanted=all

May not be fraud, but it is a problem when people who are not eligible to vote somehow do.

Of course, we also need to address things like the 18,000 legal voters who were not allowed to vote in Florida in 2000. Election "fraud" takes many forms.
 
No you do not need to repeat.
I do disagree with your last statement. No action? So at what point would you consider voter fraud "real" enough to cause action?

My guess is that he would consider it real enough to cause action if it were happening on the R side. :)
 
Forgot the the poll. Its up there now. Let me see your ID, then vote.
 
Voter fraud is NOT a real problem.

Voter fraud is NOT a significant problem.

Voter fraud is NOT a problem that requires any action.

Do I need to repeat myself?

Fraudulent votes can and could have changed the outcome in many elections. Many state and county elections have been determined by as little as a couple dozen to a few hundred votes. While I suspect criminal actions by those involved probably have influenced elections more so then a small number of individuals committing voter fraud in the end it is all a problem that needs managed.
 
No, but you could answer the topic.

Pretty sure I did.

There is no real problem ERGO.... no need to make new laws.

Funny how the conservative support big government bureaucracy when it's convenient.
 
Fraudulent votes can and could have changed the outcome in many elections.

Please post evidence. Maybe local elections, but it would be easy to catch the cheaters as they would have more ballots than people in the town.

State or National, just think about the massive amount of coordination it would take to really sway an election.

Everyone knows this is about scamming the electoral college and keeping people who are likely to vote den away from the polls.
 
Pretty sure I did.

There is no real problem ERGO.... no need to make new laws.

Funny how the conservative support big government bureaucracy when it's convenient.

I didnt ask about new laws. Funny how liberals change the topic when it isnt convinient.
 
I didnt ask about new laws. Funny how liberals change the topic when it isnt convinient.

You suggested a new law that would be almost identical to the real new laws (currently being thrown out by Federal Courts)...

As a libertarian, why would you enact a national law with all the cost and bureaucracy to solve an nonexistent problem?

Makes no sense.
 
You suggested a new law that would be almost identical to the real new laws (currently being thrown out by Federal Courts)...

As a libertarian, why would you enact a national law with all the cost and bureaucracy to solve an nonexistent problem?

Makes no sense.

It does exist, you said so yourself.

Voter fraud is NOT a significant problem

This implies it is a problem, but you dont think its significant. The question I asked though, was that since a majority think elections should be secure, a federal law to streamline the process makes sense. In fact, as a libertarian, this makes more sense than 50 differnt laws for a federal process and a bureacracy to manage those laws and lawsuits. One federal standard would cost less and have less bureacracy. You could probably get rid of many laws and redundant depts and save money.

But the question I asked was should the govt verify identity at all. You have yet to answer.
 
It does exist, you said so yourself.



This implies it is a problem, but you dont think its significant. The question I asked though, was that since a majority think elections should be secure, a federal law to streamline the process makes sense. In fact, as a libertarian, this makes more sense than 50 differnt laws for a federal process and a bureacracy to manage those laws and lawsuits. One federal standard would cost less and have less bureacracy. You could probably get rid of many laws and redundant depts and save money.

But the question I asked was should the govt verify identity at all. You have yet to answer.

Government does verify.

You sign your name verifying you are who you say.

In order to commit voter fraud you have to show up at a polling place with the name of someone who won't show up after you or before you. And hope that no one there knows the person whose name you're using. And BTW, you couldn't do it twice at the same polling place. Or maybe after they change shifts, but think of all the effort you're going to have to put forth just to cast a few extra votes.

In order to commit voter fraud on a level that might matter, sway an election, you'd have to have the massive coordination of busloads of people PLUS you'd have to access to voting rolls and the names of people you're sure will not vote.

It's impossible.

But leave it to Fox News to lie about the reality and make white folks all worried that blacks are going to trick the polls and get Obama a second term...

Why don't the suspicious voters just wear arm bands with a yellow star?? That's basically what you're suggesting.
 
Last edited:
Government does verify.

You sign your name verifying you are who you say.


A signature on a piece of paper doesn't verify ****.
 
A signature on a piece of paper doesn't verify ****.

Why not?

Once you've voted, no one else can use your name.

If someone does use your name before you get to the polls, you can fill out a form and vote anyway. The information you give will help them determine what happened and possibly disqualify the fake ballot. (if it matters at all)

This is what gets me, if you people would just take a moment and THINK about the logistics of one person casting say just 10 fraudulent votes... You'd see how stupid this is. I can say in California that once a death certificate is issued, the state registrar is notified and the name is removed. So you'd have to know the names of 10 people who won't show up to vote. And then think about this, can any polling expert anywhere say for absolute certainty which way each swing state is going to swing? Can you say for absolute certainty which way swing districts are going to swing. To commit voter fraud in a such a way as to guarantee you won't get caught and get enough fraudulent votes counted to really swing a swing district or state the opposite direction, because that would be the goal right, to change the outcome-- you could never get enough people to pull it off. If you're just getting your rocks off messing with people, then you're a jerk.

All those stories you heard last November about voter fraud, ALL of them were DEBUNKED. They were basically fake stories being used to build support for laws that would disenfranchise people likely to vote dem.

Please people, let's stop trying to pretend we don't know what this is and who is trying to do it...

Electronic voting machines is an entirely different thing, both sides have gotten their hands dirty with those. But when you have a polling place with 1500 names on the roll and 2000 ballots in the box, the box is flagged and those votes are not counted until the ballots can be examined.

I've worked at a polling places. It is impossible to commit voter fraud on a scale that would matter.
 
Every time I've gone to vote, both in DC and New York, they had a list of people who were registered to vote at that location. And they checked you off when you arrived. So... yeah, they already do take safeguards, and they work just fine.
 
Back
Top Bottom