House bill to require voter ID - Page 4

7960 · 09-21-2006, 12:24 PM

Originally Posted by beez

I don't think the answer to the problem of voting fraud is abolishing political parties. I'm saying that I think worrying about voter fraud when the politicians themselves are frauds is a red herring. It's a distraction.

I'm pointing out the scale of the problem and the scale of your proposed solutions are off by a few significant digits.

And there is no red herring......... there are candidates, I educate myself about which I want to pick, I pick one. If he doesn't do what he promised I promise I will not vote for him again. The issue is making sure one person votes one time. And know what? If we fix that it'll be easier to fix crooked politicians by making sure everyone only votes once.

beez · 09-21-2006, 12:30 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

I'm pointing out the scale of the problem and the scale of your proposed solutions are off by a few significant digits.

Yeah. I don't think that the potential for multiple votes is that big of a deal, comparatively.

Originally Posted by 7960

And there is no red herring......... there are candidates, I educate myself about which I want to pick, I pick one. If he doesn't do what he promised I promise I will not vote for him again. The issue is making sure one person votes one time. And know what? If we fix that it'll be easier to fix crooked politicians by making sure everyone only votes once.

I don't see how that's necessarily connected. You don't need to engage in voting fraud to be in the pocket of a special interest while pandering to your base of people who will actually vote.

beez · 09-21-2006, 12:33 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

And it should be traceable, becuase if it's not then people can vote more than once. I don't care WHO you voted for, I only care that YOU picked up your ballot and nobody did it for you. I don't even care if you dropped it in the box or threw it away...only that NOBODY ELSE picked it up.

I just don't like the idea of being tracked like that

. On fraud, I'm not sure how requiring live people to show ID is going to stop other forms of fraud like hacked electronic voting machines (w/ no paper trail) or votes by dead people, etc. It seems to me like it's simply a pacifying measure put out there to capitalize on the anti-immigrant sentiment in the country right now.

edit: I have to actually get some work done now so I'll be back in a little bit

7960 · 09-21-2006, 12:34 PM

Originally Posted by beez

Yeah. I don't think that the potential for multiple votes is that big of a deal, comparatively.

Multiple votes, illegal voters including illegal aliens, felons, dead people, people who live in other cities/states, etc........an ID would cut off most of it.

As it stands now, according to my link anyone in MA can vote by just saying his name. And according to you anyone in WI can vote by bringing a friend to say "he's a good guy, I swear."

7960 · 09-21-2006, 12:39 PM

Originally Posted by beez

I just don't like the idea of being tracked like that .

Like what?? It's no different showing an ID than it is saying your name?!??!!?

On fraud, I'm not sure how requiring live people to show ID is going to stop other forms of fraud

You're right, requiring an ID won't stop every form of fraud so we should definitely not require ID. In the meantime can you think of any one thing that would stop all fraud so we can implement that? Or do you think maybe it'll take a few things to cut it down as much as possible?

like hacked electronic voting machines (w/ no paper trail)

wtf does this have to do with showing ID before voting? Yes, voting machines should not be hackable (sp?). We agree.

or votes by dead people, etc.

I'm pretty sure requiring ID will cut back on dead people voting. Right now all I have to do is walk in and say I'm my dead neighbor. Require and ID and I'll have to have an ID with my face but his name and address on it.

It seems to me like it's simply a pacifying measure put out there to capitalize on the anti-immigrant sentiment in the country right now.

I'm trying to stay patient but it's not going to last. This has nothing to do with an anti-illegal alien sentiment and everything to do with making sure one person casts ONE vote.

Stylerod · 09-21-2006, 12:44 PM

Originally Posted by beez

I think there are bigger problems with the political system than potential duplicate/false votes. I'd rather effort be put into getting rid of the false dichotomy/corporate lobbyist garbage we have going on now than worrying about whether the candidate bought by the defense industry's lobbyist is getting extra votes over the candidate bought by the tort lawyers' lobbist.

Ok, so you could give a shit about this. Thanks for wasting all our time.

beez · 09-21-2006, 03:04 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

Multiple votes, illegal voters including illegal aliens, felons, dead people, people who live in other cities/states, etc........an ID would cut off most of it.

An ID would cut off anyone without the means or motivation to get a fake. You'd definitely see a drop in illegal immigrants voting but I don't think you'd get much else.

All it specifies is 'valid photo identification'. You can fake a utility bill to go with your out-of-state ID to show you live in the district. If you're in WI you bring a photo ID along with your friend who swears that you live in the district. If I want to vote twice I can get two friends to come with me to two different districts and use two different IDs. If I'm really in it to commit voting fraud I'll make sure the magnetic strip on the back of the ID matches the info on the front.

Dead people don't show up at the polls to get their IDs checked anyway. Unless there's some sort of death certificate->voter database information sharing I don't see how asking people for ID is going to stop that. If you've got people actually showing up to the polls to vote as a dead person then all you need to do is give them a fake ID with the dead person's name. If you're simply inserting ballots into circulation and flagging dead people in some database or crossing them off of some paper after the fact then you're not worried about IDs to begin with.

beez · 09-21-2006, 03:25 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

Like what?? It's no different showing an ID than it is saying your name?!??!!?

Depends on whether/how that information is stored and handled. If it's destroyed after the fact then no harm done.

Originally Posted by 7960

You're right, requiring an ID won't stop every form of fraud so we should definitely not require ID. In the meantime can you think of any one thing that would stop all fraud so we can implement that? Or do you think maybe it'll take a few things to cut it down as much as possible?

I think that the sort of fraud this sort of legislation would prevent is minor relative to other forms. Sure you're cutting down on illegal aliens without the motivation or means to get a passable photo ID but otherwise you're not really doing a whole lot, IMO. Proof of citizenship is the same way. You'll keep out resident/illegal aliens but that's about it.

Originally Posted by 7960

wtf does this have to do with showing ID before voting?

It's one of the potential major sources of voter fraud versus illegal immigrants and felons. I'd rather Congress be focusing on making sure electronic voting works properly before worrying about people showing photo ID to vote. Sure, something like the voter id bill is quick, easy to explain, and looks good in front of the cameras but I don't think that people without valid ID are as big of a threat to the election process itself. I think that focusing on photo ID is a misplaced priority if one is concerned about election fraud.

Originally Posted by 7960

This has nothing to do with an anti-illegal alien sentiment and everything to do with making sure one person casts ONE vote.

It's the timing of the bill rather than the content of the bill itself that makes me believe it's all about exploiting the anti-illegal sentiment in the country right now. We have the sentiment, illegal immigration is an election issue, and it's a slam dunk for pretty much any legislator in DC right now.

Stylerod · 09-21-2006, 03:37 PM

Originally Posted by beez

It's the timing of the bill rather than the content of the bill itself that makes me believe it's all about exploiting the anti-illegal sentiment in the country right now. We have the sentiment, illegal immigration is an election issue, and it's a slam dunk for pretty much any legislator in DC right now.

Ahh!!! It's the "Timing" of the bill. So you are ok with it as long as it's AFTER the next election. I get it.

beez · 09-21-2006, 03:44 PM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Ahh!!! It's the "Timing" of the bill. So you are ok with it as long as it's AFTER the next election. I get it.

I'd be ok with the timing of the bill if it didn't come on the heels of mass anti-illegal immigrant hysteria a month and a half before an election in which many of the people supporting the bill are in danger of losing their jobs.

Stylerod · 09-21-2006, 03:45 PM

Originally Posted by beez

I'd be ok with the timing of the bill if it didn't come on the heels of mass anti-illegal immigrant hysteria a month and a half before an election in which many of the people supporting the bill are in danger of losing their jobs.

Huh?

motivez · 09-21-2006, 03:55 PM

Originally Posted by beez

I'd be ok with the timing of the bill if it didn't come on the heels of mass anti-illegal immigrant hysteria a month and a half before an election in which many of the people supporting the bill are in danger of losing their jobs.

That's a good point, the timing is a little suspect considering what is known about who would be disenfranchized the most from such a bill.. ie: people who wont vote for those currently in power

Personally I'm fine with ID being required if:

A) They're free to people who can provide proof of citizenship, etc
B) The Government (state or federal) makes an effort to get one to every citizen -- whether through using information like SSN/Tax records already on record, or through the Census, etc..

If the Government is going to require something to participate in elections, they should make an effort to get them to the people.

It also raises the question of whether or not a federal / national ID would be a worthwhile investment.. something tells me the libertarian's wouldn't care for it, but wouldn't it be better to be able to have a nationwide standard with lots of neat fraud protection?

ballz2wallz · 09-21-2006, 03:56 PM

Originally Posted by beez

I'd be ok with the timing of the bill if it didn't come on the heels of mass anti-illegal immigrant hysteria a month and a half before an election in which many of the people supporting the bill are in danger of losing their jobs.

Before an election is the best time to do it.

motivez · 09-21-2006, 03:58 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Before an election is the best time to do it.

In the 48 days to election is not the best time to scramble to make changes that will have a drastic impact on the outcome of the election.

After this one is over it can be taken up when there will be another 2 years to prepare.

ballz2wallz · 09-21-2006, 04:00 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

In the 48 days to election is not the best time to scramble to make changes that will have a drastic impact on the outcome of the election.

Drastic impact in that illegals won't vote and democrats won't win?

motivez · 09-21-2006, 04:05 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Drastic impact in that illegals won't vote and democrats won't win?

Provide proof that illegals have a drastic impact on elections?

I'm concerned that many legitimate people will be disinfranchized.. and like beez said, the timing is suspect.

ballz2wallz · 09-21-2006, 04:07 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

I'm concerned that many legitimate people will be disinfranchized..

And I want to know who? If you're going to make a claim like that, you have to have someone in mind...

Or is it purely speculative and you really have no idea what you'er talking about?

motivez · 09-21-2006, 04:12 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

And I want to know who? If you're going to make a claim like that, you have to have someone in mind...

Or is it purely speculative and you really have no idea what you'er talking about?

There have been studies done that I'm sure have been pointed out in this thread and the other one recently that show that by in large minorities would be negatively impacted by a change such as this, and I'm willing to say that simple logic would show that less time to prepare for such a change for minorities = more disinfranchizement.

Those minorities tend to have vote for Democratic candidates, so trying to make this change 48 days before an election where Republicans are endangered is not only suspect, but a bad idea.

If the Democrats were trying to do something similar I'd feel the exact same way.

Scrum · 09-21-2006, 04:34 PM

i don't care about this. They should have been requiring ID all along. No ID, no vote.

That said, this is an attempt to legislate classism in a way. They aren't pushing for this to fix the system. They aren't even really pushing this so people who shouldn't be voting don't. They are pushing this in hopes that legitimate people who either don't have ID or don't want to show ID out will stay away.
Argue that if you like, but that's the underlying reason for it even if that's not why you and I want this.