Real Voter Fraud

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.

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!

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.

......

Well, as an alien, in this case I really must be glad that I only visited thoese town/towns, where no-one attacked me but I was protected.

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.

Exactly my point: since you can't live on two places at the same time, it's impossible to so ... here. (Same is, dead people can't vote ... and can't be voted for either.)

There were stories of many people from New York voting in both New York and Florida in 2000, as they had winter residences in Florida. I don't know whatever happened with this, as since it was Democratic votes, the press had no curiosity and therefore it was pretty much totally forgotten.

The problem isn't two John Does showing up at the same poll. The "check" that fishin' described is the same here in WI. You show up, state your name and address, and then cast your vote. The problem is, the same person may be registered in multiple precincts. So the same person could go to multiple precints and cast multiuple votes without ever worring about 2 of the same people showing up.

They don't have to live in two different places. They just need to say they live in two different places. There are no checks to see if people are voting in more than one location.

There were stories of many people from New York voting in both New York and Florida in 2000, as they had winter residences in Florida. I don't know whatever happened with this, as since it was Democratic votes, the press had no curiosity and therefore it was pretty much totally forgotten.

But there just isn't much voter fraud out there. If you weigh the number of eligible voters who will be discouraged from voting or downright disenfranchised (elderly, nondrivers, innercity, poor) against the number of voter fraud cases that have been discovered, the ratio is ridiculous: as someone at the joint Brookings/AEI conference said last week, "You're more likely to be hit by lightning on the way to the polling place than to commit voter fraud."

jpinMilwaukee wrote:

The problem isn't two John Does showing up at the same poll. The "check" that fishin' described is the same here in WI. You show up, state your name and address, and then cast your vote. The problem is, the same person may be registered in multiple precincts. So the same person could go to multiple precints and cast multiuple votes without ever worring about 2 of the same people showing up.

And a voter ID law would have no effect on that whatsoever -- none! That's because what you're describing is a problem with voter registration laws, not with voter ID laws (this is now, I think, the third time I've had to point out this distinction). What would be needed in that case is some sort of state database that tracks voter identities across precincts. Having a voter who is registered in multiple precincts present a photo ID, on the other hand, would be of no deterrent effect at all.