okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Oct, 2006 10:26 pm
joefromchicago wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
As to your question... I do believe that voter ID laws should be looked into. There's nothing wrong with forcing someone to have some fashion of identifying themselves in order to vote. I would hope that there would be many ways of doing so in order to accomadate those with unique individual situations, but it isn't a bad idea per se.

Yes it is. Currently, voters do have to identify themselves at polling places, and there are safeguards in place in every jurisdiction to make sure that the person presenting him/herself to vote is actually that person. There's simply no need to have yet another layer of security on top of the one that is already in place, especially in light of the fact that there have been no reports of widespread polling place fraud (fraudulent voter registrations are something else entirely -- we're talking about the people who are already registered producing another form of ID in order to cast a ballot).

In theory, then, these laws are bad ideas. In practice, they're even worse. A proposed Georgia law, for instance, required voters to produce either a driver's license or a state ID card in order to vote. The state ID card, valid for five years, was only available at the DMV facilities, and only upon presenting a birth certificate and paying $20. So, registered voters without birth certificates, or without $20 (unless they swore they were indigent), or who couldn't get to a DMV office (there isn't even one in Atlanta), or who were just plain lazy couldn't get a card, and so were effectively disenfranchised. The courts, quite correctly, upheld an injunction against the law. A similar law in Missouri was struck down by the courts in September.


Whats wrong with the idea that people have a responsibility of citizenship? I personally have no problem with wanting to provide a good ID to vote. Most everybody I know feels the same way. By doing so, we rightfully believe our votes are more valuable and will count. If we have the feeling that our votes may be more than canceled out by fraudulant voters, then we are the losers. I simply do not understand why anyone would not be in favor of a good ID system to vote. If people are too lazy or somehow feel it is beneath their dignity to obtain a valid ID, then sorry, I think they can do better than that. I think people should have some responsibility to prove they are a citizen in order to vote.

I suspicion that recent laws being struck down are done so by liberal judges that fear their side may lose votes. Just a suspicion.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Oct, 2006 11:25 pm
I wonder, why "voter fraud" is a topic only in some countries, why the election systems seem to work there, but not at another place.

(I know, easy to ask from my position, since we here are registered "automatically".)
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Oct, 2006 11:45 pm
Walter, I think there has always been pretty good voter trust in the system here. However, there is a feeling among some that the system is deteriorating, that increased fraud is creeping in. People are beginning to feel more suspicious. I don't where I vote because I observe a pretty clean and honest looking process. But that is not the case in other areas.

Besides the traditional stories of dead people voting, double voting, and all the rest, one big area of concern is the potential for large numbers of illegal aliens to vote. The government estimates over 10 million illegals in this country, but some people would estimate over 20 million. This is approaching 10%, which can make a huge impact on votes. Obviously, the president was elected with a few thousand votes in a state or two making the difference. In 2000, the margin was hundreds of votes in Florida. Politicians, I might as well say it, Democrats more specifically, have been known to actively recruit illegals to help them and to vote. In southern California, this is a large problem, virtually out of control.

I will post just one site, but a search turns up more than you can digest.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15082
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Oct, 2006 12:48 am
okie wrote:
Walter, I think there has always been pretty good voter trust in the system here.


This is somehow opposite what you write later on.
So, in my view, something doesn't work in an election system where perhaps millions can/could/might vote illegally (or are thaught they could do so).
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Oct, 2006 06:40 am
okie wrote:
joefromchicago wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
As to your question... I do believe that voter ID laws should be looked into. There's nothing wrong with forcing someone to have some fashion of identifying themselves in order to vote. I would hope that there would be many ways of doing so in order to accomadate those with unique individual situations, but it isn't a bad idea per se.

Yes it is. Currently, voters do have to identify themselves at polling places, and there are safeguards in place in every jurisdiction to make sure that the person presenting him/herself to vote is actually that person. There's simply no need to have yet another layer of security on top of the one that is already in place, especially in light of the fact that there have been no reports of widespread polling place fraud (fraudulent voter registrations are something else entirely -- we're talking about the people who are already registered producing another form of ID in order to cast a ballot).

In theory, then, these laws are bad ideas. In practice, they're even worse. A proposed Georgia law, for instance, required voters to produce either a driver's license or a state ID card in order to vote. The state ID card, valid for five years, was only available at the DMV facilities, and only upon presenting a birth certificate and paying $20. So, registered voters without birth certificates, or without $20 (unless they swore they were indigent), or who couldn't get to a DMV office (there isn't even one in Atlanta), or who were just plain lazy couldn't get a card, and so were effectively disenfranchised. The courts, quite correctly, upheld an injunction against the law. A similar law in Missouri was struck down by the courts in September.


Whats wrong with the idea that people have a responsibility of citizenship? I personally have no problem with wanting to provide a good ID to vote. Most everybody I know feels the same way. By doing so, we rightfully believe our votes are more valuable and will count. If we have the feeling that our votes may be more than canceled out by fraudulant voters, then we are the losers. I simply do not understand why anyone would not be in favor of a good ID system to vote. If people are too lazy or somehow feel it is beneath their dignity to obtain a valid ID, then sorry, I think they can do better than that. I think people should have some responsibility to prove they are a citizen in order to vote.

I suspicion that recent laws being struck down are done so by liberal judges that fear their side may lose votes. Just a suspicion.


okie

Now, why ever would you hold that suspicion unless you recognize that the consequences of these laws will disproportionately effect one party?

And, as joe has indicated, there simply isn't any compelling evidence to suggest that such voter fraud through fake ID etc (as these laws claim to target) is any sort of a problem at all (absentee voting is where problems have been found) then you might put 1 and 1 together.

Doing so gets you to 2 (I'm here to help). That 2 is designed voter suppression of the unconstitutional sort.

One can imagine judges having a problem here.
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Oct, 2006 08:10 am
joefromchicago wrote:
Currently, voters do have to identify themselves at polling places, and there are safeguards in place in every jurisdiction to make sure that the person presenting him/herself to vote is actually that person.


While I hold no solid view on how severe vote fraud may or may not be, this claim greatly overstates the status of voting security.

To vote in MA one presents themselves at a polling place and states their name and street address. The poll worker then draws a line through the persons name on the voter rolls and hands them a ballot. That is the total "check" of their identity. The ONLY way the poll workers have of knowing there is a problem is if a 2nd person comes into the same polling place and presents themselves using the same name and address.

If I know that my neighbor isn't going to cast a ballot I can walk in, give their name and address and cast a ballot in their name. There are no safeguards to prevent this from happening nor any way of pulling the 1st (fradulent) ballot if my neighbor shows up later at the same location and tries to cast a ballot. The 1st ballot has already been counted and there is no way of tracing who/what the ballot was cast in favor of.

The exact same process is in place in every polling place in the State of MA. In an election with low legitimate voter turnout fraud could be rampant and little, if any of it, would be caught. Because of the "openness" of the system there is no way of knowing how many fradulent ballots have been cast because there are no safeguards to detect fraud to begin with.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Oct, 2006 08:34 am
fishin wrote:
To vote in MA one presents themselves at a polling place and states their name and street address. The poll worker then draws a line through the persons name on the voter rolls and hands them a ballot. That is the total "check" of their identity. The ONLY way the poll workers have of knowing there is a problem is if a 2nd person comes into the same polling place and presents themselves using the same name and address.

If I know that my neighbor isn't going to cast a ballot I can walk in, give their name and address and cast a ballot in their name. There are no safeguards to prevent this from happening nor any way of pulling the 1st (fradulent) ballot if my neighbor shows up later at the same location and tries to cast a ballot. The 1st ballot has already been counted and there is no way of tracing who/what the ballot was cast in favor of.

The exact same process is in place in every polling place in the State of MA. In an election with low legitimate voter turnout fraud could be rampant and little, if any of it, would be caught. Because of the "openness" of the system there is no way of knowing how many fradulent ballots have been cast because there are no safeguards to detect fraud to begin with.


I'm now about 25 years a poll worker (which is called here officially a member of the election committee).

It works quite similar as fishin' described above.

Quite - that is with some - I think - significant differences:

- you get the notification for the election from your municipality (= you've the correct age, live in the correct district etc)
- you show this paper,
- are either known personally/by sight
or
- show you ID-card,
- get your name marked on a list.

That list is updated to the moment the poll station opens = if someone died, moved to another (poll) district/town/state, made a postal vote - it's on the list.
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Oct, 2006 09:29 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
- are either known personally/by sight
or
- show you ID-card,


I think these are the part that many of us would like to see here and others are arguing/fighting against.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Oct, 2006 09:35 am
fishin wrote:

I think these are the part that many of us would like to see here and others are arguing/fighting against.


Well, I'm not so sure.

This system only works, because you are registered automatically.

That can only be done because
- you have a ID-card (NB: on my ID-card is less information than on dys' NW-driver-license!),
- your personal data (address, birthdate, nationality) are updated and archived with your municipality's residents registration office (transferred to the local election office).

I doubt that many of you really want that.
0 Replies
 
Asherman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Oct, 2006 09:45 am
Some degree of fraud and unethical practices is probably present in every open election. Even Washington supplied something like 65 gallons of hard liquor to get the votes of 165 voters on election day during his second term. Everyone was doing it inspite of the laws. Between Washington and Jackson ballot boxes disappeared on a regular basis, and the administration Postal Service conviently lost returns from contested districts. Jackson was notorious for his manipulation of the system, and Harrison's followers upped the ante. The number of examples of election irregularities is far too long to even start listing here. However, even though everyone knew of the irregularities it was just chalked up to "that's politics for you", and the losers became more determined to out fox the administration at the next election.

That's a wart on the end of America's electoral system's nose. Still, as elections have come and gone the system has suffered less and less tampering. The Progressives during the late 19th century made election reform one of their big goals. During the 20th century the laws were further tigtened and elections became much cleaner. Voting machines were intended both to speed up results, which earlier took weeks if not months to compile, and reduce fraudulent practices. Once the time it took to spread news throughout the nation became almost instantaneous, the pressure built to report results faster and faster.

The public demand for instant gratification increased the importance of polls (Dewy by a Landslide), and the importance of media commentators (Florida has definitely gone Democratic ... no, no make that Republican ... wait new returns are just coming in for the Democrats, etc.).
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Oct, 2006 09:50 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
fishin wrote:

I think these are the part that many of us would like to see here and others are arguing/fighting against.


Well, I'm not so sure.

This system only works, because you are registered automatically.

That can only be done because
- you have a ID-card (NB: on my ID-card is less information than on dys' NW-driver-license!),
- your personal data (address, birthdate, nationality) are updated and archived with your municipality's residents registration office (transferred to the local election office).

I doubt that many of you really want that.


I can't recall ever hearing anyone mention/suggest automatic registration here in the U.S. but I don't see how that bears on whether or not an ID should be shown at the time the ballot is cast or not. The purpose of the ID check is the same - to verify the person casting the ballot is the actual registered voter.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Oct, 2006 10:31 am
We know the reporting that Gore had already won Florida in 2000 probably suppressed voting in the Florida Panhandle where it is Republican, so if they had exercised more honesty or smarts in their projections, Bush may have won without the mess that ensued.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Oct, 2006 11:15 am
fishin wrote:
I can't recall ever hearing anyone mention/suggest automatic registration here in the U.S.


Well, that's just the easiest way, I admit, but done by "the government", which you don't like.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Oct, 2006 12:05 pm
okie wrote:
Whats wrong with the idea that people have a responsibility of citizenship? I personally have no problem with wanting to provide a good ID to vote. Most everybody I know feels the same way. By doing so, we rightfully believe our votes are more valuable and will count. If we have the feeling that our votes may be more than canceled out by fraudulant voters, then we are the losers. I simply do not understand why anyone would not be in favor of a good ID system to vote. If people are too lazy or somehow feel it is beneath their dignity to obtain a valid ID, then sorry, I think they can do better than that. I think people should have some responsibility to prove they are a citizen in order to vote.

Well, let me be clear: I favor restricting the franchise. I think far too many people vote now, and if there is some method to discourage the uninformed, the misguided, the confused, and the just-plain-dumb from voting, I'm all for it.

ID laws, however, don't accomplish that objective. Like many other Republican initiatives, such laws attack an imaginary problem as a means of serving an ulterior partisan purpose -- the swarms of fraudulent voters at America's polling places are about as common as WMDs in Iraq.

In any event, as I mentioned before, voters at polling places already have to show some evidence that they are who they claim to be. In Georgia, for instance, voters had the option of providing one of seventeen different forms of identification, including paystubs and utility bills. There's simply no convincing evidence that it is necessary to provide some other form of identification in order to prevent fraud at the polling place (and, as I mentioned before, such laws only aim to prevent fraud at polling places -- fraudulent voter registration, which you mentioned in your original post, is another matter entirely).

okie wrote:
I suspicion that recent laws being struck down are done so by liberal judges that fear their side may lose votes. Just a suspicion.

The three-judge panel that upheld the injunction against the Georgia law was composed of one Clinton appointee and two Bush (I) appointees. The ruling was unanimous.

Those damned liberal Republican judges!
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Oct, 2006 12:13 pm
fishin wrote:
To vote in MA one presents themselves at a polling place and states their name and street address. The poll worker then draws a line through the persons name on the voter rolls and hands them a ballot. That is the total "check" of their identity. The ONLY way the poll workers have of knowing there is a problem is if a 2nd person comes into the same polling place and presents themselves using the same name and address.

And that's probably enough to prevent the vast majority of vote fraud at polling places in Massachusetts. After all, not many fraudulent voters are willing to take the risk that they'll be the second John Q. Smith of 123 Oak St. to show up at the polls (anyone who really wants to commit vote fraud will likely do it by absentee ballot). If, however, this simple precaution is not sufficient, then there are other, less restrictive ways to verify voter identity without requiring them to produce state-issued ID cards.
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Oct, 2006 02:03 pm
walter :
i don't know if you realize that a fair number of american citizens - and canadians also ! - do not think they should be required to carry any sort of 'identity' card . they feel they should be trusted on their 'face value' .

there is a saying here , that if someone questions your story with a "is that really true ?" , the answer may very well be : "why , have i ever lied to you before ?" .
and many people take that quite seriously .

i believe i've told before that , whenever we cross the border to the U.S. we carry our passports and are usually given a quick passage .
there are also many americans and canadians that do not carry very good identification - most feel a driver's license should be sufficient , and DO NOT tell them they should get a passport Evil or Very Mad - . these citizens are often given a close examination and they sure don't like it ("do they think i'm a felon ? " or "do they realize i'm paying their salaries ? " are often grumbled responses) .

the german custom of having to carry an identity card would not be welcomed by many u.s. and canadian citizens .

the u.s. government is making noises about requiring people(including u.s. and canadian citizens) wanting to cross the border to carry an official government identity card perhaps as early as 2008 !
the canadian government , provincial governments and quite a few ( i actually think most) u.s. state governments think it would "strangle trade and travel between the two countries' and that such laws should be postponed or better "shelved" .
hbg
0 Replies
 
rodeman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Oct, 2006 12:41 pm
I'm not sure about other places, but in LA one can obtain phony ID on any street corner for 20 bucks........? Pick a neighbors name. With our usual dismal voter turn-out, chances are the neighbor won't be voting anyway.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Oct, 2006 12:57 pm
For those older than 21 (before it costs nothing) the price for an ID-card here is about 8 € ($10), legally. :wink:
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Oct, 2006 02:05 pm
and how much is the german 'kennkarte' illegally ?
(i still have mine , also my driver's license - i think it was class iV - for motorcycles :wink: )
btw people will often tell you 'it's not the money , i just don't like it when the government doesn't want to trust me . just look me in the eye , surely you can tell an honest man from a dishonest one ! Rolling Eyes .
hbg
0 Replies
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Oct, 2006 07:03 pm
okie wrote:
Politicians, I might as well say it, Democrats more specifically, have been known to actively recruit illegals to help them and to vote...


The usual baloney brought to you from Okie. For starters, that "voter registration card" in his link is merely a picture of people voting in front of a mural-it doesn't look remotely like any official document.

His source for this is WorldNetDaily, a right wing rag whose editor, Farrah, used to troll on Abuzz. He posted his editorial under a different name, linked to his website, then never partook of the conversation again.

Only a thoroughly committed nutcase would use or link to such a flaky source-oh wait, we're talking about Okie here.

Simple common sense tells us that if you are an illegal alien, there is one thing paramount in your mind-keeping your profile low. You want to interact with offical people as little as you possibly can, lest your illegal status be discovered. Risk deportation by trying to vote illegally, thereby exposing yourself to discovery by the authorities? That's crazy-these people's number one goal is just trying to stay here and keep from being deported!
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
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Real Voter Fraud
  3. » Page 2
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/11/2021 at 04:17:32