1
   

How Republicans Hijacked Justice Dept. to Swing Elections

 
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Apr, 2008 12:21 pm
blatham wrote:
I'm with you re the argument. Could I get you, however, to express an opinion on the other question. There's five bucks in it for you.


I don't have any delusions that Republican operatives aren't behind a portion of it. How much and to what extent I couldn't say (I haven't bothered to dig into it). I don't think it is 100% RNC driven though. I've seen enough fraudulent voting going on with my own eyes to know that vote fraud exists and I have to assume that others have too.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Apr, 2008 12:31 pm
DrewDad wrote:
real life wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
Let's talk first of requiring everyone to carry a photo ID.

Then let's talk about using them for voting.


No, let's talk about using one for voting. That's the topic.

Nobody has suggested requiring it at any other time.


Bzzzzzzz! Thank you for playing.


There is no requirement for a citizen to have a valid photo ID.

One of the privileges of citizenship is being allowed to vote (with certain restrictions, such as no felony convictions).

Therefore, requiring a photo ID before voting infringes on citizens' rights.


Proving you are a citizen, then, should be a requirement. Should be easy enough to do.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Apr, 2008 12:41 pm
Welcome to America! Please show us your papers before boarding the train....
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Apr, 2008 12:44 pm
DrewDad wrote:
real life wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
Let's talk first of requiring everyone to carry a photo ID.

Then let's talk about using them for voting.


No, let's talk about using one for voting. That's the topic.

Nobody has suggested requiring it at any other time.


Bzzzzzzz! Thank you for playing.


There is no requirement for a citizen to have a valid photo ID.

One of the privileges of citizenship is being allowed to vote (with certain restrictions, such as no felony convictions).

Therefore, requiring a photo ID before voting infringes on citizens' rights.


That's a bit of a double edged sword.

The right to vote is limited to citizens over the age of 18 who haven't been barred for some other legal reason (i.e. felony convictions, etc..).

But the state is allowed to infringe upon people's rights if they can demonstrate a legitimate compelling state interest. That interest has to be balanced against the level of infringement and the hurdles it creates but, provided that can be done, there isn't anything that bars a state from doing it.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Apr, 2008 12:57 pm
That was the whole point of the article... there is no compelling reason to require photo ID for voting.

Except people are scared, which seems reason enough for anything nowadays.
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Apr, 2008 01:15 pm
And as I pointed out, the logic used in the article to make that claim is worthless.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Apr, 2008 01:31 pm
DrewDad wrote:
Welcome to America! Please show us your papers before boarding the train....


Bzzzzzzz! Thank you for playing.

No one is suggesting any such use for the ID.

Your broadbrush isn't working.

You've already admitted there are restrictions on the privilege of voting.

You've got no basis to object to proof of eligibility being shown at the polls.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Apr, 2008 01:35 pm
real life wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
Welcome to America! Please show us your papers before boarding the train....


Bzzzzzzz! Thank you for playing.

No one is suggesting any such use for the ID.

Your broadbrush isn't working.

You've already admitted there are restrictions on the privilege of voting.

You've got no basis to object to proof of eligibility being shown at the polls.

"Proof of eligibility" is my voter's registration card.

Now show that there's a compelling interest to require photo ID.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Apr, 2008 01:38 pm
DrewDad wrote:
real life wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
Welcome to America! Please show us your papers before boarding the train....


Bzzzzzzz! Thank you for playing.

No one is suggesting any such use for the ID.

Your broadbrush isn't working.

You've already admitted there are restrictions on the privilege of voting.

You've got no basis to object to proof of eligibility being shown at the polls.

"Proof of eligibility" is my voter's registration card.

No show that there's a compelling interest to require photo ID.


Prove that it is YOUR card, and that you don't have more than one.

You see, Dems aren't really interested in stopping voter fraud, are they?

They've made it a fine art.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Apr, 2008 01:39 pm
fishin wrote:
I've seen enough fraudulent voting going on with my own eyes to know that vote fraud exists and I have to assume that others have too.

Really? I assume you did something about it. What was the outcome?
0 Replies
 
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Apr, 2008 01:44 pm
I could borrow other people's voter registration card and go down and vote in their place. My son has a voter's reg card that he go simply by filling out a form and mailing it in. Sorry, but that is not proof of citizenship.

I could almost agree with you if to get a voter reg card you had to go down personally and fill out paperwork and prove you were who you said you were in order to get the card. But barring that, the card is worthless for "proving" you have a right to vote.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Apr, 2008 02:06 pm
My point is not that the voter's registration card is a form of ID.

My point is that you have not proven that ID is necessary to prevent wide-spread fraud.

There are already procedures in place for when voting fraud is suspected. Are these ineffective?




Every society, and every individual, has to find the balance between security and freedom. Personally, I'm a freedoms guy. Certainly there is a risk of voting fraud, but I'd rather risk that than block eilgible voters from the polls. (I might add that party affiliation doesn't matter to me; I would much prefer 100% participation.)
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Apr, 2008 02:59 pm
gone fishin, gone fishin, gone fishin


http://www.brokeboats.com/fiver.jpg
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Apr, 2008 03:16 pm
DrewDad wrote:
fishin wrote:
I've seen enough fraudulent voting going on with my own eyes to know that vote fraud exists and I have to assume that others have too.

Really? I assume you did something about it. What was the outcome?


There are 3 guys that were booted from the U.S. Air Force because I turned their asses in. They were stealing absentee ballots from people's mailboxes, filling them in and mailing them.
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Apr, 2008 03:17 pm
DrewDad wrote:
Certainly there is a risk of voting fraud, but I'd rather risk that than block eilgible voters from the polls. (I might add that party affiliation doesn't matter to me; I would much prefer 100% participation.)


I'd much prefer to find a way to eliminate both problems. Nobody else seems interested in that option...
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Apr, 2008 03:18 pm
blatham wrote:
gone fishin, gone fishin, gone fishin


http://www.brokeboats.com/fiver.jpg


w00t! I'm rich! Razz
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Apr, 2008 03:20 pm
fishin wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
Certainly there is a risk of voting fraud, but I'd rather risk that than block eilgible voters from the polls. (I might add that party affiliation doesn't matter to me; I would much prefer 100% participation.)


I'd much prefer to find a way to eliminate both problems. Nobody else seems interested in that option...

Perhaps you could suggest a way?
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Apr, 2008 04:16 pm
DrewDad wrote:
fishin wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
Certainly there is a risk of voting fraud, but I'd rather risk that than block eilgible voters from the polls. (I might add that party affiliation doesn't matter to me; I would much prefer 100% participation.)


I'd much prefer to find a way to eliminate both problems. Nobody else seems interested in that option...

Perhaps you could suggest a way?


The problem with most of the ID proposals is that they either require a fee or they make it where the person has to travel a considerable distance to get to the issuing authority.

There should be a free of charge ID available for starters.

The problem of people getting someplace to get the ID is a little harder to address. Personally, I'd make them available through all of the existing "normal" State level agencies (RMV/DMV, Social Services, etc...) and then at the Federal level I'd involve the Post Office and make it so that Postal Carriers could take sworn affidavits and bring the person back their ID in a few days. There isn't any reason a Postal worker can't check someone's proof just as well as the clerk down at the motor vehicle or city/town clerk's office. They could sign the form, seal it up and send it in it's way with the person.

And if they abuse it you make it a reason for automatic termination of their job.

The Postal Carriers hit pretty much every house/neighborhood. Most of them know all the homeless people that live in their neighborhoods too. No one would have to go very far out of their way to track down a mail carrier if that was their only option.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/29/2024 at 06:31:06