• 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!

Is Requiring Voters to Register an Unreasonable Intrusion on the Right to Vote?

Is Requiring Voters to Register an Unreasonable Intrusion on the Right to Vote?

  • Total voters
    33
cpwill said:
Yeah. Turns out hundreds of felons came out to vote for ole Al. Since he won by only a few hundred votes, it makes it an interesting question as to whether or not we currently have a sitting Senator who did not actually win his seat.
Click to expand...

I see your link, but the board is acting squirrely. I'll read and reply.

EDIT: These are felons voting, which is still fraud, but not people voting under another person's name. How does ID solve that?
 
Last edited:
OhIsee.then said:
I see you're a Libertarian, favoring minimally regulated government, that is advocating more rules on voting.
Click to expand...

I am also an elitist meritocrat. I shudder at the thought of a "tyranny of the majority", especially when the majority are ignorant, uneducated, and mentally deficient. For some people, giving them a vote is like giving a toddler a sharp pair of scissors. These people need to be coddled and supported by forces beyond their capability to understand, and by people who actually can understand them.

I am not a true libertarian and cannot be, because I will never support the right to rule or to influence by those clearly unable to comprehend such a power.
 
Gina said:
I see your link, but the board is acting squirrely. I'll read and reply.

EDIT: These are felons voting, which is still fraud, but not people voting under another person's name. How does ID solve that?
Click to expand...
It doesn't address the ID issue directly, but it does go a long way to debunking the "there is no voter fraud" myth.
 
radcen said:
It doesn't address the ID issue directly, but it does go a long way to debunking the "there is no voter fraud" myth.
Click to expand...

It is still infinitesimal compared to 3 million votes cast in that election and ID would not have prevented it. This is the "logic" on which the ID laws have been implemented. In Pennsylvania, the state admitted that they had no cases of in-person fraud with which to support their position.

It's a solution in search of a problem.
 
cpwill said:
When 1,099 felons vote in race won by 312 ballots ;)
Click to expand...

Your article provided no details as to what actually happened, here what's the people who investigated has to say:

Minnesota Majority

“The problem rests largely on our current Election Day registration system,” said Davis. “Most of the fraudulent votes cast in 2008 could have been prevented by using the normal registration and verification processes. But since the Election Day registration process does not include eligibility verifications, it simply leaves the door open to these kinds of abuses.”

Minnesota law requires voters to register at least 20 days before an election so that the information they provide and their eligibility to vote can be verified by election workers before they vote on Election Day. However, Election Day registration creates an exception. People who register at the polling place are given a ballot without first being subject to the same scrutiny.
Click to expand...

So again, it's about registration fraud. These people were not eligible to vote, and if they brought with them a photo ID, they still shouldn't be illegible to vote.
 
Gina said:
It is still infinitesimal compared to 3 million votes cast in that election and ID would not have prevented it. This is the "logic" on which the ID laws have been implemented. In Pennsylvania, the state admitted that they had no cases of in-person fraud with which to support their position.

It's a solution in search of a problem.
Click to expand...
No disrespect intended, but as I said in a previous post, it's naive to think that no cases... for an issue where there is virtually ZERO priority within the legal system to pursue... equals no instances.
 
Problem is that registering it self.

In my home country, everyone is automatically registered. They are sent voting cards a few weeks before the election. It makes voting very easy. But to get this to work, it requires a national ID system, which Americans dont like :)

Basically, having a national ID system that works, will automatically register people, and all this gerrymandering and trying to deny people the right to vote will go away fast.
 
The solution is obvious. The federal government must forcibly implant identification microchips at the base of the skull of all eligible voters. It's the only way!
 
Guy Incognito said:
The solution is obvious. The federal government must forcibly implant identification microchips at the base of the skull of all eligible voters. It's the only way!
Click to expand...

You dont need to go to that extreme but yes a national ID would fix a lot of problems.. including illegal immigration :) No ID, no job.. anyone working without a job, the employer gets fined first, and second time goes to jail. Watch the illegal problem poof pretty fast.
 
PeteEU said:
You dont need to go to that extreme but yes a national ID would fix a lot of problems.. including illegal immigration :) No ID, no job.. anyone working without a job, the employer gets fined first, and second time goes to jail. Watch the illegal problem poof pretty fast.
Click to expand...

As a libertarian, I am against any immigration restrictions, so "illegal immigration" is not something I see as a problem. I welcome all foreigners with open arms, everybody should be allowed to come to this country and become a citizen with no major restrictions. Freedom of movement is a human right.

Any argument that uses illegal as a noun is instantly suspect to me. There is a lot of racism behind those who oppose immigration reform.
 
Guy Incognito said:
As a libertarian, I am against any immigration restrictions, so "illegal immigration" is not something I see as a problem. I welcome all foreigners with open arms, everybody should be allowed to come to this country and become a citizen with no major restrictions. Freedom of movement is a human right.

Any argument that uses illegal as a noun is instantly suspect to me. There is a lot of racism behind those who oppose immigration reform.
Click to expand...

Impressive, but does not change the fact that a national ID would solve a lot of problems with the minimal intrusion into the privacy of the citizen.
 
I think I misread the question. I thought you meant requiring people to register to vote whether they were actually going to vote or not. Because I am against forcing people to do that.
 
Guy Incognito said:
As a libertarian, I am against any immigration restrictions, so "illegal immigration" is not something I see as a problem. I welcome all foreigners with open arms, everybody should be allowed to come to this country and become a citizen with no major restrictions. Freedom of movement is a human right.

Any argument that uses illegal as a noun is instantly suspect to me. There is a lot of racism behind those who oppose immigration reform.
Click to expand...
Just curious (and not meaning to get too sidetracked)...

Contrary to popular perception, we have never allowed literally everybody in who wanted to come. (Yes, I realize you did say "everybody", but then qualified it with "no major restrictions") Even in the heyday of Ellis Island we turned away known criminals and diseased individuals. Do you have a restrictions at all?
 
cpwill said:
Yeah. Turns out hundreds of felons came out to vote for ole Al. Since he won by only a few hundred votes, it makes it an interesting question as to whether or not we currently have a sitting Senator who did not actually win his seat.
Click to expand...

Interesting lies, now how about the facts? Franken won the election by over 300 votes. The allegations well after the fact were that as many as 400 felons may have come to polls that day. This was suggested by a conservative action group in Minnesota and then was investigated. Here are the results of that investigation: "In October 2010, the Hennepin County Sheriff's Office concluded an extensive investigation into 110 allegations of fraud, which resulted in six charges being filed — two individuals were charged with the separate felonies of registering to vote while ineligible and voting while ineligible and four others were charged with voting while ineligible."

As to the claim that over 400 felons voted: "About 270 were clearly inaccurate."

Every single ballot was looked at and both sides had to agree that they were properly completed and submitted. The only argument the Franken/Coleman election serves to prove is that our system is transparent and effective. It's very frustrating that people are willing to believe blatant lies in favor of a simple fact check. Not only is it a lie that hundreds of felons voted, the felons who did vote were actually charged for doing so.
 
Last edited:
Radcen: the privacy portion never went into my head. I won't go far as to refer to black aircraft but it's not really a concern.
 
Fiddytree said:
Radcen: the privacy portion never went into my head. I won't go far as to refer to black aircraft but it's not really a concern.
Click to expand...
And you're probably right. I am aware that there are times that I get a little too cynical. But, in my defense, I still occasionally see news stories that exceed even my cynicism.

On any political topic, I mean, not just voting.
 
radcen said:
And you're probably right. I am aware that there are times that I get a little too cynical. But, in my defense, I still occasionally see news stories that exceed even my cynicism.

On any political topic, I mean, not just voting.
Click to expand...

Well, as far as I know there had not been any real concerns. If you vote in the caucus, it will be easier for people to know you affiliation due to proximity, but for the most part much is fine. I'm the son of a lobbyist- a lobbyist who prefers to keep their political inclinations silent so as to be able to more effectively make pitches and network with all groups to benefit the group that is represented through the lobbying.
 
Last edited:
Objective-J said:
I voted no

but I base that on the premise that the IDs will be readily available and free.
Of course state drivers licenses and state IDs should be acceptable along with other IDs, photo gun licenses, pass ports etc.

But If a person doesnt have one of those the task should be super easy and free to obtain a vote ID card.

If its not then I would say yes it is pushing the limits
Click to expand...

just wanted to add to what I already said because I think its a very very valid point.

Since an election is so close all laws concerning this should not be absolute till the next election. Cant remember who said it but I think it is shady or harmful or restrictive to implement these changes so close to election time "IF" its mandatory and theres no loop holes this first time around and there isnt QUICK and FREE access to obtain an ID.
 
Mustachio said:
Interesting lies, now how about the facts? Franken won the election by over 300 votes. The allegations well after the fact were that as many as 400 felons may have come to polls that day. This was suggested by a conservative action group in Minnesota and then was investigated. Here are the results of that investigation: "In October 2010, the Hennepin County Sheriff's Office concluded an extensive investigation into 110 allegations of fraud, which resulted in six charges being filed — two individuals were charged with the separate felonies of registering to vote while ineligible and voting while ineligible and four others were charged with voting while ineligible."

As to the claim that over 400 felons voted: "About 270 were clearly inaccurate."

Every single ballot was looked at and both sides had to agree that they were properly completed and submitted. The only argument the Franken/Coleman election serves to prove is that our system is transparent and effective. It's very frustrating that people are willing to believe blatant lies in favor of a simple fact check. Not only is it a lie that hundreds of felons voted, the felons who did vote were actually charged for doing so.
Click to expand...

:) From 2010:
... Phil Carruthers of the local District Attorney's office[/url] says he takes the charges "very seriously" and found that Minnesota Majority "had done a good job in their review." His office has asked for 15 investigators to be hired to pursue the information. "So far we have charged 28 people with felonies, have 17 more under review and have 182 cases still open," he said. "And there is a good chance we may match or even exceed [Minnesota Majority's] numbers."..
Click to expand...

as of five days ago:
...177 people have been convicted -- not just accused, but convicted -- of voting fraudulently in the Senate race. Another 66 are awaiting trial. "The numbers aren't greater," the authors say, "because the standard for convicting someone of voter fraud in Minnesota is that they must have been both ineligible, and 'knowingly' voted unlawfully." The accused can get off by claiming not to have known they did anything wrong....
Click to expand...

1,099 felons were identified as having voted, and 177 (so far convicted).


But hey, don't be upset. Voter Fraud is Bi-Partisan :).
 
radcen said:
Just curious (and not meaning to get too sidetracked)...

Contrary to popular perception, we have never allowed literally everybody in who wanted to come. (Yes, I realize you did say "everybody", but then qualified it with "no major restrictions") Even in the heyday of Ellis Island we turned away known criminals and diseased individuals. Do you have a restrictions at all?
Click to expand...


I wouldn't have any serious restrictions. I think minor restrictions like a toll booth might be ok, but huge fees or huge waiting times are too oppressive to freedom of movement to be morally justified.
 
PeteEU said:
Impressive, but does not change the fact that a national ID would solve a lot of problems with the minimal intrusion into the privacy of the citizen.
Click to expand...

I can't think of any problems that a national id would solve. I can think of a lot of problems it would create, though.
 
cpwill said:
1,099 felons were identified as having voted, and 177 (so far convicted).

But hey, don't be upset. Voter Fraud is Bi-Partisan
Click to expand...

No, 1,099 names were identified by a conservative organization who cross checked felons and voting rosters. And as far as i can tell, it is NOT true that there were 177 identified cases of felons who voted in that election. Looked it up, can't find it, the only source I found that uses the figure is Von Spakovsky, who has a history of going around making false claims about voter fraud. If you can find a source, though, how do you reconcile that number with what you were saying - "hundreds of felons voted" for Franken and it could have tipped the election in his favor? Franken won by 350 votes. 177 convictions + 66 remaining cases = 243 votes. So even if the figures you stated are correct (which I don't think they are) and every single one of those votes were cast for Franken (which obviously wouldn't be the case) Franken STILL comes out on top by over 100 votes. And then you're still left with the probability that in some or many cases, a felon who is on the roster or votes is unaware that it is illegal.

Anyway, I'll just point you to the bottom line, VIA the MN secretary of state: “The numbers are a complete lie,” Freeman’s spokesman said before the Hennepin County Attorney came on the phone. “They keep going on television and repeating this lie, even though we debunked this with the work we had to do.”
 
X Factor said:
Obviously this question has been sparked by the whole voter ID debate. If there's no concern at all that voter fraud could even happen and it's completely unreasonable to expect someone to obtain a photo ID, couldn't the very same arguments be made against requiring people having to register to vote in the first place? Can I assume that if you oppose voter ID, you also oppose voter registration requirements?

Need a sec to get the poll up. Options will be simple; yes, no and I don't know.
Click to expand...

I don't see what the big deal is. If you can't even manage to get a DL, or a state issue ID, you got more things to worry about than the voting booth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom