Here it is not happening. Here‘s some more mythical election-law violations.
116 thoughts on “The Voter Fraud That Never Happens”
You’re attacking a straw man. No one argues that election laws are never violated. The thing that virtually never happens (31 alleged cases out of a billion ballots) is a very specific election law violation, in-person voter impersonation fraud. The odd thing is that the GOP puts so much emphasis on voter id laws to stop that one particular form of fraud, when by all evidence it is the rarest sort.
Here it is not happening.
Yet another case that wouldn’t be affected by voter id laws. On the other side of the party aisle, here’s a Wisconsin Republican candidate who’s been voting in two states. Registering and voting in multiple places is stupid, illegal, and utterly unaffected by the voting restrictions being pushed by the GOP (e.g. photo id requirements, shorter early voting hours).
. Here‘s some more mythical election-law violations.
And again, they have nothing to do with in-person impersonation fraud, the only sort of fraud addressed by voter id laws.
How exactly does a voter id law keep a volunteer from throwing away voter registration forms? How does limiting early voting keep volunteers from registering voters without being properly “deputized”?
If we didn’t have Al Franken, we wouldn’t have Obamacare. Shame the felons got to vote.
If it isn’t a big deal, then why don’t you indulge us?
Even in that very close race, Franken won by more than the felons-who-didn’t-file-the-necessary-paperwork vote. Which, per usual, had nothing to do with voter id.
If it isn’t a big deal, then why don’t you indulge us?
Passing laws that affect hundreds of millions of people, aimed at a non-existent problem, just to indulge you?
So on Planet Jim, hundreds of millions of American voters don’t have a photo ID?
Fascinating.
Voter ID laws affect everyone who votes, whether they have photo ID or not. I worked the polls for a special election last year in which we had to enforce NH’s new voter ID law. We had to have additional staff to deal with voters who showed up without their ID, and even then it slowed down voting for everyone. Voters who forgot their ID had to fill out affidavits, which then had to be processed by the Secretary of State’s office, and they all had to be contacted after the election to verify that they were actually at the address they claimed. It was a non-trivial effort, to address a less-than-trivial problem.
If you always carry current photo ID it’s very easy to assume that because it’s no extra effort for you, it’s no extra effort for anyone. That isn’t the case, even ignoring the fact that millions of U.S. citizens who are eligible to vote do not have qualifying photo ID.
All of that was only because it was a new law. If people had known they needed ID, it would have gone much differently.
This was the second or third election where voters were asked for ID. There will always be people who forget, or who bring the wrong purse, or whose ID just expired. The number of valid voters inconvenienced or completely deterred will always dwarf the number of criminals stopped.
That might be, but it doesn’t constitute “hundreds of millions.” More likely a few hundred.
You stand accused and convicted of atrocious hyperbole in defense of voter fraud.
That might be, but it doesn’t constitute “hundreds of millions.”
Yes, it does. Voter ID affects every single voter, and there are hundreds of millions of citizens eligible to vote.
You stand accused and convicted of atrocious hyperbole in defense of voter fraud.
I think you just found yourself guilty of misrepresenting what I wrote. Saying that voter ID laws affect hundreds of millions is 1) true and 2) not a defense of voter fraud.
Voter ID laws only affect people who don’t carry picture IDs. To think that there are hundreds of millions of such people is either stupid or insane.
“Yes, it does. Voter ID affects every single voter, and there are hundreds of millions of citizens eligible to vote.”
Picture Id affects hundreds of millions of airline travelers….hundreds of millions of check writers, hundreds of millions in a variety of ways…….
Doesn’t seem to inordinately incommode the hundreds of millions.
You’re making meaningless arguments.
“aimed at a non-existent problem”
Just to clarify Jim, you think that voter fraud is a problem that exists but that voter ID laws wont solve the problem, right?
In-person voter impersonation fraud is not a problem. It’s the homeopathy of voter fraud, so dilute that its effects are too small to be measured.
Voter ID laws, by contrast, have effects that are orders of magnitude larger than the fraud they seek to address.
“Voter ID laws, by contrast, have effects that are orders of magnitude larger than the fraud they seek to address.”
1. You assume you know the magnitude of voter fraud. You do not.
2. The “effects” you mention (but do not list) don’t seem to be a problem for the hundreds of millions who want to fly commercial airlines, buy booze, or cash a check – just to name 3 of dozens of times you have to supply ID.
Your arguments do not merit the name.
You didn’t answer the question.
I am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt that you are arguing out of good faith.
Voter fraud exists, mostly absentee voter fraud or registration fraud, as opposed to in-person voter impersonation fraud. I’m unconvinced that it’s a problem, in the sense that elections (in recent decades, anyway) would have had different outcomes without voter fraud. Voter ID laws won’t do anything to “solve the problem”, because they only attempt to address in-person voter impersonation fraud, the least common sort. If anything, they just encourage criminals bent on fraud to stick to absentee ballot fraud and/or registration fraud.
“I’m unconvinced that it’s a problem, ….”
Yeah we noticed. Fact is the more it’s investigated, the more it’s found and not in just one or two locales.
Jim’s response?
“Nothign to see here folks; move along.”
Of course that’s NOT what Jim’s ilk were saying during the 2000 election.
Even in that very close race, Franken won by more than the felons-who-didn’t-file-the-necessary-paperwork vote. Which, per usual, had nothing to do with voter id.
Wrong.
Passing laws that affect hundreds of millions of people, aimed at a non-existent problem, just to indulge you?
No, here’s the deal, Jim.
Voter ID laws are local laws. But it just bothers you democrats that some parts of the country don’t behave the way you want them to. So you ram these laws down our throat to appease your own indulgences, which are, by the way, done to tilt the vote towards the democrat party.
Wrong.
Care to elaborate?
So you ram these laws down our throat
What laws? I thought I was the one complaining about stupid voter ID laws being passed (aka “rammed down our throat”) for no good reason.
You’ve been given proof many times. Why bother?
You’re against states passing voter ID laws. Why does a New Hampshire resident get his skivvies in a bundle over what another state does?
Because he doesn’t believe in the concept of states. He wants the federal government to rule the entire country unhindered.
You’re against states passing voter ID laws. Why does a New Hampshire resident get his skivvies in a bundle over what another state does?
An odd complaint to make on a blog that often concerns itself with the actions of states in which the author does not reside.
Voter id laws are stupid at best. I’m against stupidity no matter where it resides.
Because he doesn’t believe in the concept of states.
So when you criticize laws in other cities it means you don’t believe in the concept of cities?
No. But you don’t seem to believe in federalism.
Come on now Jim. Are we supposed to forget your positions on this and other issues?
I believe in federalism: some issues are best addressed locally, some are best addressed on a state level, and some are best addressed nation-wide. It all depends on the particular issue. Voter ID laws are a bad idea regardless of the level of government.
Jim has spoken. We must all do as he says. He decides what is stupid and what is not. I believe we have the makings of a dictator.
If NYC passes a lame soda ban, that is their problem. If Seattle passes a lame 15 dollar an hour minimum wage, that is our problem. That is the essence of Federalism. I’m sorry that our system does not allow you to make 300 million other Americans follow your opinions.
Without voter ID how do you detect an attempt at in person voter impersonation fraud? If the fraud targets an ID of a person who doesn’t vote you don’t generally detect it.
Without voter ID how do you detect an attempt at in person voter impersonation fraud?
Someone at the polls recognizes you, or recognizes that you aren’t the person you’re impersonating. The person you’re impersonating unexpectedly tries to vote. Someone looks at the voting records afterwards, and sees themselves or someone they know incorrectly listed as having voted. If you read the descriptions of the 31 known incidents of possible impersonation fraud you get the flavor of how they came to light. Not every attempt will be detected, but some fraction will be. Even if there’s a 90% “success” rate at evading detection — and that would be high — you’re talking about 300 cases nationwide, out of billion votes cast.
you don’t generally detect it
Voter impersonation fraud is a crime with virtually no benefit to the criminal. If they get away with it, they cast an extra ballot, which will almost certainly make no difference in the election results. If they’re caught, they face a felony conviction, fines, and possible jail time. Even a 1% chance of getting caught is too high for that risk/reward to be at all attractive. So the only people who end up doing it are the deluded and/or very foolish. For example, Mark Lacasse, the NH teenager who really wanted to vote for George W. Bush in the NH GOP primary, but wasn’t quite 18, so he voted as his dad (who was out of town at the time). That’s the scary sort of crime we’re talking about.
I should note that Lacasse voted in the 2004 NH GOP primary, i.e. the one in which President George W. Bush ran unopposed.
“Voter impersonation fraud is a crime with virtually no benefit to the criminal. ”
lol.
You’re attacking a straw man.
Um no, not until responding. Here is the strawman argument: in-person voter impersonation fraud.
That’s not the only type of voter fraud having a government picture id prevents. Further, the reason this particular fraud is statistically low is the inability to prove a case. When you don’t have to identify yourself beyond stealing someone’s mail and claiming it is yours; then it is nearly impossible to prove you are anything other than the person on the mailer. So the statistics are skewed.
That’s not the only type of voter fraud having a government picture id prevents.
The laws in question say you have to produce a certain sort of photo ID at the polls in order to vote. That requirement can not prevent any sort of voter fraud other than in-person voter impersonation.
Further, the reason this particular fraud is statistically low is the inability to prove a case.
No, that isn’t it. The 31 cases on that researcher’s list aren’t all proven, many or most of them are circumstantial and/or alleged, and could be the result of clerical error. And even with that low threshold for inclusion the cases are vanishingly rare. If there really were thousands of people impersonating others at the polls, the list of possible cases would be much, much longer.
I want to fix the type of voter fraud that prevents Democrats on the third time votes have been counted coming in with boxes of ballots “found” in a Democrat poll worker’s car.
That isn’t voter fraud. You’re talking about election fraud.
Yeah Wodun, it’s not AQ it is Khorasan.
Words have meaning. A semi-automatic rifle is not the same thing as an automatic rifle. Election fraud is not the same thing as voter fraud.
A semi-automatic rifle is not the same thing as an automatic rifle.
Yes, so Democrats made up the concept “assault rifles” to try and ban both. Wodun would be happy with laws that make it easier to stop voter fraud which leads to election fraud. And I can see how picture voter ID can stop election fraud.
The 31 cases on that researcher’s list aren’t all proven, many or most of them are circumstantial and/or alleged, and could be the result of clerical error
The 31 cases were found by looking for news articles, which begin with a reporters bias. If there is just a plain allegation, most of those events wouldn’t be reported. And as I already pointed out, getting beyond an allegation when no mechanism to prove otherwise exists without voter ID laws, means the statistics would be low, and I think artificially.
There is as much truth to there being not 31 cases as the opposite bias claim of 1/5 collegiate women being sexually assaulted. The harassment claim assumes under reporting by victims. And when the President uses that stastistic, he is pushing to create laws and policies that affect millions of college students of both sexes, and yet Jim, I don’t see you complaining about that straw man.
The people who demanded that every dangling chad be counted in Florida/2000, deserve to be mocked, ridiculed, and marginalized if they dare suggest that we tolerate a single explicitly fraudulent vote now.
But there, with the mockery and the ridicule, is where it should end. Neither problem, miscounted or fraudulent votes, is of sufficient magnitude as to be worth any real effort to eliminate. Perfection is unattainable, and the costs of its fanatical pursuit are unreasonable.
I remember the videos of the counters sitting around a table with a giant pile of chads in the middle. Amazingly, Gore’s vote total kept increasing.
It was bad luck for all involved that the 2000 race in Florida was so close that issues like hanging chads, which are typically lost in the noise, came to matter. It would have been as fair (in that race and in Franken’s 2008 Senate race) to flip a coin.
The last election I volunteered at was a low-turnout one-race special election for an obscure office. Even then we had I believe three ballots that could not be assigned to any candidate, because the voter had made no clear mark. Three people took the trouble to come to the polls for this one race, and somehow failed to fill in a bubble. Because it was a normal race, decided by thousands of votes, it didn’t matter. But there’s always going to be some level of noise.
Perfection is unattainable, and the costs of its fanatical pursuit are unreasonable.
Agreed.
“Three people took the trouble to come to the polls for this one race, and somehow failed to fill in a bubble. ”
I am surprised that the Democrat poll workers didn’t argue this meant that they could fill in the bubble for the voters as if not filling in the bubble wasn’t a deliberate choice.
My position was that every single last dangling or “hanging” chad in every single Florida county along with every last military ballot should have been counted.
I was engaged in a series of e-mail exchanges with a left-liberal opinion journalist who had written in support of “count every vote” meaning “count every vote in Broward County and forget about the rest of the state including the military ballots tossed on technicalities.” I brought up the military ballots and was told there were valid technicalities why they should not be counted. I brought up how my absentee vote in Cook County, Illinois in an election decided by 10 votes was tossed for partisan reasons as my campaign work for the loser in that race was publically known. I never heard from the guy again.
When I last brought up around here how I was opposed to the Republican-supported Voter ID laws because I view it as part of the same political game that Cook County Democrats used to suppress my vote in a too-close-to-call election, let’s say I got a lot of “push back.” As a Conservative, I was “off the reservation.”
So I cannot cash a check at the bank I am using for 30 years, board a motor coach bus to Chicago, or purchase a package of beer at the grocery store at age 57 without a photo ID. But for the last 20 years I voted at the polling place in my neighborhood where my identity is known to all of my neighbors. At least there was one community, one safe haven, one place where people knew each other and took you at the honor of your word as to who you were.
That is, until the last goofball redistricting that redrew all the ward boundaries, again for partisan advantage.
The whole thing is goofball. The Governor explains that there is no reason to oppose Voter ID because he has made it so easy to get an ID if you don’t have one. And you don’t even need a “hard” identity document like a birth certificate — you can swear an affadavit as to your identity. That is not how the law was originally written, but you see it got changed in response to the legal pushback against it, and now it is effectively meaningless. Democrat activists are going to be busing the residents of the homeless shelters and long-term care facilities and day labor pools to DMV to get their ID’s, and they are going to be doubly motivated to bus everybody to the polling places.
But the law is not meaningless because I, for one, take offense in it. I have to stand in line, fish out the driver’s license and have it scrutinized because there is no honor left in being a Wisconsin-residing citizen, we are all now subjects who have to submit to scrutiny lest we be thieves, terrorists, for 19-year-olds wanting to drink beer . . .
We have a requirement to shoe ID when registering to vote in Washington State. No on is claiming that it is preventing people from voting or is discriminatory toward minorities and poor people. Why? Because we are a blue state and have been blue for a long time. Just like when we took steps to rein in public unions and change the method of compensation from pension to 401k no one freaked out like they did in WI.
Democrats, as a group, are not making principled stands on these issues as you have shown with the lack of concern regarding counting the votes in all districts and insuring that the military even gets to vote.
suicide bombing Voter impersonation fraud is a crime with virtually no benefit to the suicide bomber criminal.
Martyrdom, a favored place in paradise, prestige and money for one’s family, the satisfaction of having given everything to a cause that you value more than your own life — suicide bombers perceive lots of benefits. By contrast, knowing that your favored candidate won by 132,453 votes instead of 132,452 votes, or lost by 132,452 instead of 132,453, really isn’t much of a payoff.
Strangely, despite your own dedication to the Democrat party, you think that other people would not also be motivated by that same zealotry. IMO, people who thought Republicans were going to enslave black people and ban tampons would see a large payoff in preventing the people they dehumanize and slander in this way from winning an election. They see their cheating as a moral duty.
Strangely, despite your own dedication to the Democrat party, you think that other people would not also be motivated by that same zealotry.
You think I’m a zealot, but I’m nowhere near zealous enough to commit a felony for one extra vote. It would be stupid — I could put that same motivation into calling or canvassing voters, and get the same result without taking any legal risk.
see a large payoff in preventing the people they dehumanize and slander in this way from winning an election.
Casting an illegal ballot doesn’t stop anyone from winning an election.
They see their cheating as a moral duty.
As I’ve noted before, you have an active imagination. Do you really think there are millions of Democrats committing felony voter fraud in order to block Republicans from getting elected?
I think there are a few hundred Democrats committing felony fraud resulting in thousands of fraudulent votes. Your “millions” argument is a strawman never made by Wodun, and it is irrelevant. Elections can be swayed with 1% of those numbers, see Florida circa 2000.
When Jim complains about strawmen being attacked, I can’t help but think he complains in sympathy.
I could wile away the hours
Conferrin’ with the flowers
Consultin’ with the rain
First, one has to agree on the definition of Election Fraud or Voter Fraud to be able to even begin to discuss its potential impact and potential solutions.
In-person impersonation is addressed by Voter ID, more or less. There are still plenty of cracks to slip through, but it narrows the opening quite a bit.
Absentee voting by mail introduces an entirely new set of issues, because it gets rid of the “sanctity” of the polling place, and allows people to discuss, cavort, and otherwise cast votes in a non-private manner or setting, if they wish to do so. In some cases, if a person wishes to give up their right to the secrecy of their vote, I don’t have much of a problem with it, but it also runs up against the laws on the books that are intended to stem vote-selling, such as photographing one’s voted ballot.
There are also those who request ballots for their children, spouses, parents, and others, and then vote and send the ballots back, unbeknownst to the affected. In a recent case in Iowa, one voter forged requests for ballots for himself and three others, casting four ballots by his own hand via absentee balloting. When interviewed by a Sheriff’s Deputy, the man readily admitted to the act.
The other type of “fraud”, depending on your level of comfort with that word, comes from residency fraud, as demonstrated in the linked article, but also demonstrated by campaigns who import hundreds of volunteers from “safe” states into “swing” states, get them an address and mailbox, and try to get them to sway the swing state to their candidate of choice.
These sorts of things happen on both sides of the political aisle, as well. In some areas, it definitely seems to happen with one party more than the other. I think that’s a big part of the reason why so many people are registered “independent” or “no party” nowadays; they don’t want to be associated with the bad behaviour of either extreme.
My understanding is that the absentee ballot is a “provisional ballot” and it only gets counted in a “contested” election. In other words, each of these ballots is subject to bi-partisan scrutiny and potential challenges before they are even opened.
That depends on the jurisdiction, but in most cases, absentee ballots are counted regardless of how close the election is. To do otherwise would be to remove the franchise from all absentee voters. Nevermind that with over two dozen races on some ballots, there’s almost always going to be one race that is “close”.
In the State of Iowa, voting absentee, whether in person at the Auditor’s office, in person at a satellite, or via mail, you vote counts just as much as voting at the polling place, because the ballots are not opened or counted until Election Day. However, once you turn in your ballot, you also can’t have it back or change your vote.
If an absentee voter moves from the jurisdiction before Election Day, their registration is cancelled and their ballot is voided. If an absentee voter dies before Election Day, their registration is cancelled and their ballot is voided (and that’s not a phone call anyone wants to take).
Provisional ballots in Iowa occur at the polling place, or in person after the registration deadline (which is 9 days before a General Election). The only time that Provisional and Absentee ballots mix is when someone who requested an absentee ballot wants to vote at the polls on Election Day. At that time, they need to vote a provisional ballot, which will only be counted if their absentee ballot isn’t received and counted by the Absentee and Special Voter Precinct Board. If their absentee ballot was received, the absentee ballot is counted, so voters can’t use a provisional ballot on Election Day to change their mind about the vote they cast up to 40 days earlier.
It’s a myth, popularized by I don’t know who, that absentee ballots are only counted “if it’s a close race”. In Iowa, nearly 50% of all ballots cast in major elections are by absentee. There’s no way on earth those votes wouldn’t get counted, even if there was a provision to “only count if they’re close”.
Up here in Canada, I have to show two pieces of ID (one with picture) to vote. It’s been that way longer than I’ve been of voting age.
Frankly, I don’t see the bother. It boggles me (and many of my fellow Canadians) that you consider it a problem at all.
As part of the British Commonwealth, my understanding is the Canada still has a Queen? Being subject to a Monarch, even if only symbolically, would not go over too well in the U.S..
I’m sure there are a number of things Americans would find odd about Canadian politics. For one, the Prime Minister is not only the executive, he’s also a legislator. Senators are appointed (by the Prime Minister) and remain in the Senate for the rest of their lives (or age 75, whichever comes first).
Yeah, there’s a lot of things in Canadian politics that Americans just wouldn’t stand for. Which makes it all the more astonishing that the mechanics of our election process actively prevents fraud, whereas the American system actively encourages fraud. You won’t stand for a king, but you’re ok with fraudulent elections? Boggles the mind.
“(31 alleged cases out of a billion ballots)”
A billion ballots. In a country of 300 million, not all of whom are voting age.
the 31 incidents below come in the context of general, primary, special, and municipal elections from 2000 through 2014. In general and primary elections alone, more than 1 billion ballots were cast in that period.
There have been far more than 31 cases of voter fraud in the last 14 years.
Follow the link. If you know of additional cases of in-person voter impersonation fraud then by all means notify the researcher, and he’ll add them to the list.
Well, this is certainly good news for us. Bad news for Jim.
This case is enormously significant because left wing legal groups are advancing a theory of the Voting Rights Act which has never been before considered meritorious. Essentially, they are arguing that if any voting change has a mere statistical disparate impact on minorities, then the change violates federal law.
Isn’t that the exact argument you all make about the IRS handling of 501c4 applications?
Bad news for Jim.
The consolation for Democrats is that high-profile attempts to suppress minority voting can have the effect of spurring minority turnout, not to mention reminding minority voters what the GOP thinks of them.
“Isn’t that the exact argument you all make about the IRS handling of 501c4 applications?”
There is a lot more evidence than just statistics in regard to the IRS and often the statistical case is brought up to explicitly expose Democrats hypocrisy not because statistics show the whole story.
“not to mention reminding minority voters what the GOP thinks of them.”
It doesn’t matter what Republicans do, Democrats always accuse them of racism. That is the game Democrats play. It isn’t about civil rights or living in harmony, it is about driving wedges in-between ethnic and other groups in order to gain political advantage. The goal is dehumanization and otherization in order to excuse policies that persecute non-Democrats.
It doesn’t matter what Republicans do, Democrats always accuse them of racism.
Republicans making it harder for minorities to vote gives Democrats fresh ammunition for that charge.
driving wedges in-between ethnic and other groups in order to gain political advantage
Like passing a voter ID law to drive a wedge between people who routinely drive/fly/etc. and people who don’t, because the latter group is more likely to vote for your opponent?
Strangely, none of them drive a car? Or buy alcohol?
But Democrats writing Jim Crow laws, DNC member George Wallace using firehoses and dogs on black people, the Democrats opposing the 13th Amendment, all that wasn’t racism? LBJ saying of welfare “I’ll have those niggers voting Democrat for the next 200 years”, not racist? GFYS.
none of them drive a car?
In 2009, 13% of the driving-age population did not have a driver’s license. Leaving out the 16 and 17 year olds, that’s tens of millions of non-driving citizens who are eligible to vote.
Or buy alcohol?
I buy alcohol without showing photo ID all the time.
But Democrats writing Jim Crow laws, DNC member George Wallace using firehoses and dogs on black people, the Democrats opposing the 13th Amendment, all that wasn’t racism?
That was definitely racism. The Democratic party has changed, as has the Republican party. My guess is that if you track down the men who were holding those firehoses you’ll find that most of them — like 70-80 year old Southern white men in general — didn’t vote for the Democratic candidate in the last Presidential election.
If you can’t get a FREE ID by going down to the DMV or wherever you get one, then you are stupid (using your terminology).
My guess is that if you track down the men who were holding those firehoses you’ll find that most of them — like 70-80 year old Southern white men in general — didn’t vote for the Democratic candidate in the last Presidential election.
Yep, you think republicans are racist.
“The Democratic party has changed, as has the Republican party.”
The two parties did not swap their beliefs in regard to race. Republicans don’t claim to have changed on this issue and there isn’t any concrete evidence that Republicans across the country suddenly decided to become racists after the 60’s. The allegations spring entirely from Democrats and are largely unsupported. The same Democrats who make these claims, usually try and pin the past sins of the Democrat party on Republicans.
The only “evidence” Democrats have is the ethnographic stereotypes they have for people who live in the South. Democrats then claim, that all other Republicans from other states are identical to Southerners. One of the worst stereotypes, is that Southerners are the same today as they were during the civil war. It seems that while Democrats can change, they don’t allow anyone else to.
“Republicans making it harder for minorities to vote gives Democrats fresh ammunition for that charge.”
Voter ID doesn’t make it harder to vote. In Washington State, you have to show ID when you register. It isn’t impeding anyone from voting here. Your other complaint about early voting is also ridiculous. In all the cases, there are weeks or months allowed for early voting. If people were advocating for a three hour window on election day and only in non-Republican districts, I would be upset with you.
“Like passing a voter ID law to drive a wedge between people who routinely drive/fly/etc. and people who don’t,”
Republicans are not passing ID laws as a wedge but the issue certainly is being used as a wedge. Opposition to voter fraud is framed as racism. That isn’t an argument in good faith. It is an argument based in cynical bigotry that tries to stoke racism in minority communities against white people Democrats don’t like.
Very few people don’t have an ID. ID’s are needed to go to Obama’s political events. ID’s are needed for going to a doctor. In many of these states, ID’s are even given out for free just to address the concerns that poor people cant afford $30 to buy an ID every four or five years. Republicans include these measures to address the concerns of Democrats precisely because they don’t want the small burden of obtaining an ID from stopping someone from voting.
“I buy alcohol without showing photo ID all the time.”
Because you look old enough to join AARP or go to the same store all the time. I also look old but I get carded all the time. In Washington, everyone gets carded unless you look old enough to have gone to grade school with George Washington but even then ID is required all the time by the government and businesses. I even had to show my ID to get a library card.
I needed my ID to pick up an item at the Apple store.
I needed an ID to sell some books at 1/2 Price Books.
What racists.
Yep, you think republicans are racist.
I think that white Southern men who fought for Jim Crow in the 60s probably vote Republican today, like most white Southern men of their generation. Do you really think the fact that they were Democrats then means that they’re voting for Obama now?
Voter ID doesn’t make it harder to vote. In Washington State, you have to show ID when you register.
Voter ID isn’t about showing ID to register, it’s about barring registered voters from actually voting unless they have current photo ID.
Very few people don’t have an ID.
Millions of voting-age American citizens don’t have current photo ID, but you dismiss them as “very few”. To you they might as well not exist. Now that’s what I call driving a wedge.
Millions of voting-age American citizens don’t have current photo ID, but you dismiss them as “very few”. To you they might as well not exist. Now that’s what I call driving a wedge.
Nothing is stopping them from getting a free ID. This is such an irrelevant argument.
Indeed, nothing is stopping those people from getting ID for the purposes of fair elections. But the Dem party doesn’t want fair elections. They’re the party of dishonesty and fraud and they know they have to cheat to win.
And nothing is stopping them from going to free public schools. So why not have literacy tests as a requirement for voting?
You are being absolutely silly. Trying to equate an ID with literacy laws is a false analogy and you know it. Don’t be stupid.
Voter ID and literacy laws are both restrictions on voting that affect some people more than others. If you are literate, and have voter ID, it is very easy to see no problem with those requirements. What’s so hard about reading, or showing an ID? People have to read or show ID ten times a day! How can you read a bar menu if you can’t read? How can you order a beer if you don’t have ID? What’s stopping those people from getting with the program?
The fact is, there are millions of American citizens who are living their lives without up-to-date photo ID. They have exactly as much right to vote as you or I. If you are going to introduce a new voting requirement that makes voting more difficult for them, you need to have a very good reason. 31 known cases of possible voter impersonation fraud, over 14 years, is not a good reason.
I realized I need to explain this. Literacy has never been an issue with voter fraud. You, of course, brought it up to imply that we are bringing back Jim Crow. That is disingenuous at best.
I think one needs to separate “no photo ID” people from “no current photo ID” people. There are plenty more people with out-of date ID than there are without any ID whatsoever. And having an out-of-date ID is actually a bigger problem than no ID at all in some instances.
At a former job in a media re-sale store (similar to the 1/2 Price Books reference in another comment), we required photo ID to purchase from people. The state and city didn’t require it, because we weren’t considered a pawn store, but we still required it as a matter of policy. I was surprised how many people would say, “well, the address is wrong, but everything else is current on there”, or who would have an ID that was long since expired, and had no idea. I always took the time to point out if someone’s ID was going to expire in the next month or so, just so they weren’t caught off-guard in a traffic stop in the future, or prevented from buying alcohol, tobacco, or an R-rated movie some time down the road.
I was also surprised at how many people who wrote “See ID” on their credit card didn’t actually have a current ID. When I would point this out to them, and deny their purchase, it usually didn’t go well, but if you are telling me on your credit card that I need to see your ID, it’s on you to have it current.
I would hazard a guess that the burden on those with expired or inaccurate ID would actually be larger than the burden on those without any ID at all, when voter ID laws get passed in some jurisdictions. See also: just about any college town or town with >30% rental housing stock.
Third grade “thinkers” like Jim love to say that the disruption of requiring picture ID for voting is too great for the number of illegal votes made.
He’s clueless, of course, because he cannot express the true extent of illegal voting and we discover more and more every time we look. And indeed one suspects people like Jim of wanting to suppress any looking…..nothing to see here folks…move along. But a government that uses the IRS to punish political enemies; a government that sports a president who tells his adherents to punish their enemies; a government who hacks the computers of journalists they don’t like; a government who lies to our faces countless times about life and death issues of a citizen such as health care…every time and everywhere we look we find less and less reason to trust this government, and the politicians who infest it, the hyper-partisan witless dweebs who support them, and therefore the veracity of our voting system.
Wise people say that the benefits of a voting system that can be trusted is far far greater than the paltry inconvenience of requiring that which everyone has to supply while buying booze.
The inconvenience is so paltry that any argument against it is almost certainly disingenuous. That’s what people with common sense think.
every time and everywhere we look we find less and less reason to trust this government, and the politicians who infest it, the hyper-partisan witless dweebs who support them, and therefore the veracity of our voting system.
Wise people say that the benefits of a voting system that can be trusted is far far greater than the paltry inconvenience…
Wait a second. You think the election system is infested with untrustworthy government officials. But you would have “a voting system that can be trusted” if only there was a law requiring those same untrustworthy officials to check voters’ IDs? How does that make any sense?
Voter ID laws would make sense if and only if there were hundreds of thousands of people changing election results by voting under other peoples’ names. Nothing like that is happening (if it were there would be at least tens of thousands of alleged impersonation incidents every election, where in reality instead there are 31 over the last 14 years). You aren’t pushing voter ID laws to solve the only problem they possibly can solve, because that problem doesn’t exist. You’re pushing it out of a vague sense that the voting system can’t be trusted, and so you’ll make yourself feel better (and, as a bonus, keep away some lazy voters who will probably vote for Democrats) by forcing everyone to show ID. Do you see any problem, as a conservative or libertarian, using the power of the state to force millions of people to change their behavior, simply so you will feel better?
the paltry inconvenience of requiring that which everyone has to supply while buying booze.
Reminder: people buy booze without ID every day
The inconvenience is so paltry that any argument against it is almost certainly disingenuous.
You could say the same about literacy tests. The inconvenience is paltry to some, and not to others — which is the whole point.
I think that to purchase alcohol, not only should there be a literacy test (there can be a randomly select SAT-like word analogy problem at the Point-of-Sale terminal), a purchaser should also submit to a trans-nasal ultrasound (yes, the scanner is frighteningly large, but it goes up the nostril with enough lube) and be shown the image where they can see how much their brain has shrunk . . .
But you would have “a voting system that can be trusted” if only there was a law requiring those same untrustworthy officials to check voters’ IDs? How does that make any sense?
Again, you conflate two separate issues. ID checking is done on a local level. Of course corruption can ensue, but it is far easier to check and be held accountable. Gregg pointed out the national corruption, which is harder to check.
Nothing like that is happening (if it were there would be at least tens of thousands of alleged impersonation incidents every election, where in reality instead there are 31 over the last 14 years).
Then lets have several steps towards eliminating voter fraud! Are you okay with that? Why do you have a problem what other states do with regards to voter ID anyway? As usual, you decide what is right and everyone must do as you say. You are an arrogant, arrogant person.
the national corruption, which is harder to check
Why is national corruption harder to check? It’s all in one place, rather than being spread out in thousands of separate cities, counties and towns.
Why do you have a problem what other states do with regards to voter ID anyway?
I have a problem with what my state does with regard to voter ID, too.
As usual, you decide what is right and everyone must do as you say.
I have an opinion, as do you. Neither one of us is forcing anyone (except by force of reason) to do anything.
You’re serious? You don’t think corruption is easier to handle when it happens locally over some place 3000 miles away for some people? You know you’re being fooling for stating that.
I have a problem with what my state does with regard to voter ID, too.
As usual, you ignore the question.
I have an opinion, as do you. Neither one of us is forcing anyone (except by force of reason) to do anything.
You’re forcing me to purchase health insurance so you can get it cheaper. That’s coercion.
“Reminder: people buy booze without ID every day”
1) Yeah you claim you do that in your state. But I happen to know that in your state, every booze seller is required BY LAW to card everyone buying booze. That your storerestaurant does not card you means they are breaking the law. Ma. politicos had agents sent out to buy booze at shops when that law was passed and for some time after and cited those stores which did not card *every* purchaser *regardless of age*. Liquor licenses were suspended for violation.
So please do not use violation of the law by the store as a claim that the ID isn’t needed, and that it’s terribly burdensome to have. That’s one of the definitions of “disingenuous”.
2) Any time a boozeteria or restaurant wants to card a prospective booze consumer they can. EVERY state has a legal drinking age and picture ID’s are the means to prove you can legally buy the hootch. So therefore if one wants to always buy hooch, one must be prepared to present a picture ID.
Yet I never heard any Lefty rump swap screaming that this is somehow too onerous.
3) Booze buying is simply one example (and the most easily recognized one) of where picture ID’s are needed for a common everyday occurrence. Picture ID’s are required for a myriad of common, everyday occurrences about which you never whine. This is disingenuous as well.
You aren’t convincing anyone. You are merely practice at destroying stupid arguments.
But I happen to know that in your state, every booze seller is required BY LAW to card everyone buying booze.
Nope. According to the law* in question, sellers only have to require proof of age to sell to a “person whose age is in question”. Most people buying booze are unquestionably over 21.
Do you think there should be a law that required every store and bar and restaurant to card every customer, every time they bought alcohol? Or would that be a stupid and pointless government overreach?
* NH legal trivia: recently a NH state liquor store refused to sell to a 20-ish customer with a District of Columbia drivers license because the legislators who wrote the law forgot to include D.C. licenses as an acceptable form of ID (they only listed licenses issued by “another state, or province of Canada”). The NH liquor commission issued a memo reversing that decision, stating that they didn’t think the legislators meant to pick on D.C. residents. It’s like the Halbig Obamacare case, except that no one is suing to force the liquor commission to enforce the drafting error.
” But I happen to know that in your state, every booze seller is required BY LAW to card everyone buying booze.
Nope. According to the law* in question,”
Ah my apologies. I thought you lived in Massachusetts.
Here is the pertinent section of Ma. law:
“As always, licensees should ensure that they are in
compliance with the laws of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, M.G.L. c. 138, §64 and that the sales
of alcoholic beverages take place only as authorized
by state law. ”
No wonder you are ignorant of the horrible effects of Romneycare.
Even in MA your claim — that “every booze seller is required BY LAW to card everyone buying booze” — is false. Every booze seller is required by law to not sell alcohol to minors. That doesn’t mean they have to card everyone. It’s in their interest to card anyone who looks like they might be under 21, because that way either a) the buyer won’t have ID, and they won’t make the sale or b) the buyer will show convincing fake ID, which gets the seller off the hook. But it’s totally up to the seller whether they want to bother to card someone who isn’t possibly under 21.
And you dodged my question: do you think the law should force vendors to card every single person who buys alcohol, including 90 year olds? What would such a law accomplish?
“And you dodged my question: do you think the law should force vendors to card every single person who buys alcohol, including 90 year olds? What would such a law accomplish?”
Most states’ tobacco laws require that very thing, even for 90 year-olds. Compliance is generally accomplished through POS systems that are programmed without any sort of override for the DOB entry, and some POS systems require an actual scan of the license.
And, those laws accomplish exactly what any other “blue” law accomplishes: reducing the consumption of goods that are considered “vices”, and tracking statistics for the state Health department (i.e., “protecting people from themselves” and from things that some government official deemed to be hazardous to their health).
“Wait a second. You think the election system is infested with untrustworthy government officials. But you would have “a voting system that can be trusted” if only there was a law requiring those same untrustworthy officials to check voters’ IDs? How does that make any sense?”
Ahh folks now here is a CLASSIC Jim tactic:
Nowhere did I ever say that the voting system would be trustworthy *IF ONLY* there was a law requiring those “same untrustworthy officials” to check voter ID’s.
I never said that was all that was needed.
So after distorting my comment and putting words in my mouth, Jim asks:
“How does that make any sense?”
Naturally, Jim if you utterly distort what someone says, puts words into their mouths they never said, and totally mangles their point to the point where it *doesn’t* make sense….then,….well….it doesn’t make sense.
But that’s not an argument. It’s a sad, 3rd grader debate tactic. Unworthy of an adult.
I’m pretty sure you do not see how you continue to destroy your credibility … not that you had much to begin with.
I never said that was all that was needed.
Yes, you did. You wrote that the “benefits of a voting system that can be trusted is far far greater than the paltry inconvenience of requiring” voter ID. You made the case for voter ID as a simple trade-off, putting up with “paltry inconvenience” in return for “a voting system that can be trusted”. When you put it that way, who could be against voter ID?
But now you’re saying that your argument was bogus, that it isn’t a simple trade-off, and that in fact voter ID laws do not yield “a voting system that can be trusted”?
I totally agree.
Want a voting system that can be trusted? Follow Canada’s lead. Mark your paper ballot with an X. Scrutineers from all parties are present when the votes are counted locally, and a chain of custody is established on ballot boxes. And, prove you are who you say you are, or you don’t get a ballot. Simple, effective, fast, and nearly fraud-proof.
And the only argument against such a system is if one doesn’t actually want fair elections. Ahem.
I never said that was all that was needed.
“Yes, you did. You wrote that the “benefits of a voting system that can be trusted is far far greater than the paltry inconvenience of requiring” voter ID. You made the case for voter ID as a simple trade-off, putting up with “paltry inconvenience” in return for “a voting system that can be trusted”. When you put it that way, who could be against voter ID?”
Clearly you have a serious problem with both English and logic. My statement says nothing of the kind regarding “necessary and sufficient”. It only says:
1) benefits of a voting system that can be trusted is good
2) the inconvenience of having picture ID to vote is paltry next to the benefits of a trusted voting system
By implication, it says that voting Id will help build a trusted voting system. But then I’ve been saying that here for years.
1) benefits of a voting system that can be trusted is good
2) the inconvenience of having picture ID to vote is paltry next to the benefits of a trusted voting system
By implication, it says that voting Id will help build a trusted voting system
No, that isn’t the implication. You’re saying that the benefits of A (a trusted voting system) outweigh the downsides of B (having to show photo ID). That comparison is only interesting if you can trade B for A. But, as you admit, we can’t trade B for A. Voter ID laws give us inconvenience (and disenfranchisement), with no assurance that we’re having any effect on the trustworthiness of elections at all. It’s Homer Simpson buying a rock to keep tigers away — because, after all, the benefit of not being attacked by a tiger far outweighs the paltry cost of the rock.
“Voter ID laws would make sense if and only if there were hundreds of thousands of people changing election results by voting under other peoples’ names. ”
That’ s not the only reason they make sense. Nice strawman.
“Nothing like that is happening ”
Prove it.
“You aren’t pushing voter ID laws to solve the only problem they possibly can solve, because that problem doesn’t exist. You’re pushing it out of a vague sense that the voting system can’t be trusted,”
Since you distort what people say to create silly strawmen, you’re the very LAST person who can state why someone would want a voter ID law.
Strawmen like these:
“…..and so you’ll make yourself feel better (and, as a bonus, keep away some lazy voters who will probably vote for Democrats) by forcing everyone to show ID. Do you see any problem, as a conservative or libertarian, using the power of the state to force millions of people to change their behavior, simply so you will feel better?”
you’re the very LAST person who can state why someone would want a voter ID law.
Go ahead, tell me why you want a voter ID law.
Justice must not only be done, justice must be seen to be done. Fraudulent voting is unjust. QED.
Justice must not only be done, justice must be seen to be done.
So it doesn’t matter whether voter ID laws actually reduce voter fraud, their value is that they appear to do so. Security theater for the polling place, to match our security theater in the airports.
I think you are right — that voter ID is popular because people think it will make them trust elections more (even though, in surveys, voters in states with voter ID have no more faith in the integrity of elections than voters in states without it). But that’s an awfully poor justification.
“Go ahead, tell me why you want a voter ID law.”
Ahh you admit you don’t know.
I’ve stated it many times in this forum. I can’t help it if you have no memory.
And if I repeated it again, you’d simply twist my words into something I did not say.
And kindergarten logicians such as you are simply not worth the time to spoend to untangle the inevitable mess you’d make.
Prove it.
1. For every n attempts at voter impersonation fraud, some fraction (1/10, 1/100) will arouse suspicion (e.g. because the person being impersonated tries to vote, the imposter is recognized, etc.) and investigation
2. If voter impersonation fraud was changing the results of major elections, it would have to be happening tens or hundreds of thousands of times per election year. [There are hundreds of major races per election year, most races are decided by thousands of votes, not all fraud would favor one party, therefore it would require huge numbers of imposter votes to have a net effect that changed results.]
3. Therefore, if voter impersonation fraud was changing the results of major elections there would be at least thousands of reports of possible cases over the last decade.
4. The number of reported possible cases over the last decade is less than 50.
5. Therefore we know that voter impersonation fraud is not happening on a level that would affect the results of major elections. QED.
I believe in federalism: some issues are best addressed locally, some are best addressed on a state level, and some are best addressed nation-wide. It all depends on the particular issue
Jim enjoys cherry-picking Federalism. Those that increase the power of the democrat party are okay. The rest? Well, they need to go.
Indeed “cherry picking” laws, concepts of the Founding and the principles of the Constitution are classic subversive lefty tactics. It’s what leads them to the silly idea of a “Living Constitution”
Another name for that is “situational ethics”.
And yet another name for that is anarchy.
“And yet another name for that is anarchy.”
Gah, I cringe every time I see that word misused. From the Latin: an- (without) arcus (ruler). The fools in facemasks rioting at every world trade summit are not anarchists and don’t want anarchy; they want chaos. One could barely fit a piece of paper between actual anarchists and minarchist Libertarians.
The fact is, there are millions of American citizens who are living their lives without up-to-date photo ID. They have exactly as much right to vote as you or I. If you are going to introduce a new voting requirement that makes voting more difficult for them, you need to have a very good reason. 31 known cases of possible voter impersonation fraud, over 14 years, is not a good reason.
They do have the right to vote. And they must not be disenfranchised, which is why they get IDs for free.
Why are you so obsessed with telling every other state what to do. I’m not strutting around saying New Hampshire has to get an income tax.
And they must not be disenfranchised, which is why they get IDs for free.
What if they don’t have the documents required to get a free ID — are you going to get those for free too? What if the closest DMV is 30 miles away (as it is for me), and the voter (obviously) doesn’t drive? Are you going to cover the taxi fare? Even free IDs aren’t free — one way or another, voter ID is effectively a poll tax.
“What if they don’t have the documents required to get a free ID”
Then they aren’t who they say they are and are attempting to vote fraudulently. Don’t you get tired of having the blatantly obvious spelled out for you?
He’s not tired of that because Jim never listens (reads carefully) and never ponders over the comment.
Rather, Jim loves to mangle what you say into something wholly unrecognizable from your actual statement and then argue that to death. Which, in turn, achieves his objectives of dissembling and rat-hole production.
Jim can be, and is, dismissed.
What cannot be dismissed is the fact that the liberals as a group oppose making voting in the US more trustworthy. In Iraq, voters got purple fingers to prevent them from voting again…..
Iraq gave purple fingers
Liberals merely give the middle finger.
And in the USA, if you required people to ink their finger after voting, the disabled lobby would be all over you like flies on cowpies.
I mean, think of the non-fingered! What will they do?
You don’t hate people without fingers … do you?
Just because a person doesn’t currently have a birth certificate doesn’t mean they aren’t who they say they are. Sometimes things get lost in floods, fires, or moving between residences, and requirements for what constitutes a legal birth certificate change over time.
When I was in grade school, a rainbow-ink-stamped copy of a birth certificate was considered a legal birth certificate. Nowadays, birth certificates have to be printed on official government paper, sealed, and watermarked so that it can’t be copied (ignoring how they do it in Hawai’i)
After sitting across the hall from a Vital Statistics counter for a year, I can safely say that obtaining the documents needed to prove one’s own existence can sometimes be enormously difficult to accomplish. A 90 year-old person who was home-birthed out in the country very well may not have easy access to a birth certificate. And even if the State could find it, there is generally at least a $35 fee from the State and an 8-12 week turnaround time if they’re not in their home county of birth. Even driving to Chicago from Iowa and getting my birth certificate directly from Cook County in 2007 was a non-trivial task when I needed it in order to get a passport, and I can’t imagine the process is any easier now.
That said, the number of people affected by the “my parents were farmers out in the middle of nowhere, so there’s no birth certificate anywhere” are dwindling as we move towards the time where our oldest living citizens were born in post-WWI times, so that part of the problem will naturally work itself out. But the other parts of the equation (fees and length of time to obtain) are what also create the “burden” that people refer to when they talk about obtaining an ID.
Jim along with everyone else around here is completely without a sense of humor: My modest proposal of requiring a trans-nasal ultrasound of your shrinking brain to be shown to you before buying alcohol did not elicit any comment.
Howdyaknow that a Driver’s License isn’t faked? People use fake ID to purchase liquor or enter establishments where liquor is served, so what prevents a person showing up to a Wisconsin polling place with such an ID?
What stops that is the difficulty of faking a state-issued ID. Alberta driver’s licenses not only have your picture and info on them, they also have holograms and bar codes. These are very difficult to fake unless you’re working in the transportation department of the provincial government and have access to blank ID cards. My passport has a holograph of a maple leaf on every page and a number of other security features; again, one would need access to the federal governments stock of blank passports. In other words, it would have to be an inside job.
Making murder a crime didn’t end murder. Should we not have laws against murder? Criminal laws work by making the cost of committing the crime high enough to discourage. You can raise the cost on the front end or back end.
Currently, the cost on the front end is very low to be almost free and as Jim has pointed out so often, almost non-existent costs on the back end. I rather just raise the costs on the back end, but without the picture id, it is near impossible to prove voter fraud in court thus no back end cost for the crime.
You’re attacking a straw man. No one argues that election laws are never violated. The thing that virtually never happens (31 alleged cases out of a billion ballots) is a very specific election law violation, in-person voter impersonation fraud. The odd thing is that the GOP puts so much emphasis on voter id laws to stop that one particular form of fraud, when by all evidence it is the rarest sort.
Here it is not happening.
Yet another case that wouldn’t be affected by voter id laws. On the other side of the party aisle, here’s a Wisconsin Republican candidate who’s been voting in two states. Registering and voting in multiple places is stupid, illegal, and utterly unaffected by the voting restrictions being pushed by the GOP (e.g. photo id requirements, shorter early voting hours).
. Here‘s some more mythical election-law violations.
And again, they have nothing to do with in-person impersonation fraud, the only sort of fraud addressed by voter id laws.
How exactly does a voter id law keep a volunteer from throwing away voter registration forms? How does limiting early voting keep volunteers from registering voters without being properly “deputized”?
If we didn’t have Al Franken, we wouldn’t have Obamacare. Shame the felons got to vote.
If it isn’t a big deal, then why don’t you indulge us?
Even in that very close race, Franken won by more than the felons-who-didn’t-file-the-necessary-paperwork vote. Which, per usual, had nothing to do with voter id.
If it isn’t a big deal, then why don’t you indulge us?
Passing laws that affect hundreds of millions of people, aimed at a non-existent problem, just to indulge you?
So on Planet Jim, hundreds of millions of American voters don’t have a photo ID?
Fascinating.
Voter ID laws affect everyone who votes, whether they have photo ID or not. I worked the polls for a special election last year in which we had to enforce NH’s new voter ID law. We had to have additional staff to deal with voters who showed up without their ID, and even then it slowed down voting for everyone. Voters who forgot their ID had to fill out affidavits, which then had to be processed by the Secretary of State’s office, and they all had to be contacted after the election to verify that they were actually at the address they claimed. It was a non-trivial effort, to address a less-than-trivial problem.
If you always carry current photo ID it’s very easy to assume that because it’s no extra effort for you, it’s no extra effort for anyone. That isn’t the case, even ignoring the fact that millions of U.S. citizens who are eligible to vote do not have qualifying photo ID.
All of that was only because it was a new law. If people had known they needed ID, it would have gone much differently.
This was the second or third election where voters were asked for ID. There will always be people who forget, or who bring the wrong purse, or whose ID just expired. The number of valid voters inconvenienced or completely deterred will always dwarf the number of criminals stopped.
That might be, but it doesn’t constitute “hundreds of millions.” More likely a few hundred.
You stand accused and convicted of atrocious hyperbole in defense of voter fraud.
That might be, but it doesn’t constitute “hundreds of millions.”
Yes, it does. Voter ID affects every single voter, and there are hundreds of millions of citizens eligible to vote.
You stand accused and convicted of atrocious hyperbole in defense of voter fraud.
I think you just found yourself guilty of misrepresenting what I wrote. Saying that voter ID laws affect hundreds of millions is 1) true and 2) not a defense of voter fraud.
Voter ID laws only affect people who don’t carry picture IDs. To think that there are hundreds of millions of such people is either stupid or insane.
“Yes, it does. Voter ID affects every single voter, and there are hundreds of millions of citizens eligible to vote.”
Picture Id affects hundreds of millions of airline travelers….hundreds of millions of check writers, hundreds of millions in a variety of ways…….
Doesn’t seem to inordinately incommode the hundreds of millions.
You’re making meaningless arguments.
“aimed at a non-existent problem”
Just to clarify Jim, you think that voter fraud is a problem that exists but that voter ID laws wont solve the problem, right?
In-person voter impersonation fraud is not a problem. It’s the homeopathy of voter fraud, so dilute that its effects are too small to be measured.
Voter ID laws, by contrast, have effects that are orders of magnitude larger than the fraud they seek to address.
“Voter ID laws, by contrast, have effects that are orders of magnitude larger than the fraud they seek to address.”
1. You assume you know the magnitude of voter fraud. You do not.
2. The “effects” you mention (but do not list) don’t seem to be a problem for the hundreds of millions who want to fly commercial airlines, buy booze, or cash a check – just to name 3 of dozens of times you have to supply ID.
Your arguments do not merit the name.
You didn’t answer the question.
I am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt that you are arguing out of good faith.
Voter fraud exists, mostly absentee voter fraud or registration fraud, as opposed to in-person voter impersonation fraud. I’m unconvinced that it’s a problem, in the sense that elections (in recent decades, anyway) would have had different outcomes without voter fraud. Voter ID laws won’t do anything to “solve the problem”, because they only attempt to address in-person voter impersonation fraud, the least common sort. If anything, they just encourage criminals bent on fraud to stick to absentee ballot fraud and/or registration fraud.
“I’m unconvinced that it’s a problem, ….”
Yeah we noticed. Fact is the more it’s investigated, the more it’s found and not in just one or two locales.
Jim’s response?
“Nothign to see here folks; move along.”
Of course that’s NOT what Jim’s ilk were saying during the 2000 election.
Even in that very close race, Franken won by more than the felons-who-didn’t-file-the-necessary-paperwork vote. Which, per usual, had nothing to do with voter id.
Wrong.
Passing laws that affect hundreds of millions of people, aimed at a non-existent problem, just to indulge you?
No, here’s the deal, Jim.
Voter ID laws are local laws. But it just bothers you democrats that some parts of the country don’t behave the way you want them to. So you ram these laws down our throat to appease your own indulgences, which are, by the way, done to tilt the vote towards the democrat party.
Wrong.
Care to elaborate?
So you ram these laws down our throat
What laws? I thought I was the one complaining about stupid voter ID laws being passed (aka “rammed down our throat”) for no good reason.
You’ve been given proof many times. Why bother?
You’re against states passing voter ID laws. Why does a New Hampshire resident get his skivvies in a bundle over what another state does?
Because he doesn’t believe in the concept of states. He wants the federal government to rule the entire country unhindered.
You’re against states passing voter ID laws. Why does a New Hampshire resident get his skivvies in a bundle over what another state does?
An odd complaint to make on a blog that often concerns itself with the actions of states in which the author does not reside.
Voter id laws are stupid at best. I’m against stupidity no matter where it resides.
Because he doesn’t believe in the concept of states.
So when you criticize laws in other cities it means you don’t believe in the concept of cities?
No. But you don’t seem to believe in federalism.
Come on now Jim. Are we supposed to forget your positions on this and other issues?
I believe in federalism: some issues are best addressed locally, some are best addressed on a state level, and some are best addressed nation-wide. It all depends on the particular issue. Voter ID laws are a bad idea regardless of the level of government.
Jim has spoken. We must all do as he says. He decides what is stupid and what is not. I believe we have the makings of a dictator.
If NYC passes a lame soda ban, that is their problem. If Seattle passes a lame 15 dollar an hour minimum wage, that is our problem. That is the essence of Federalism. I’m sorry that our system does not allow you to make 300 million other Americans follow your opinions.
Without voter ID how do you detect an attempt at in person voter impersonation fraud? If the fraud targets an ID of a person who doesn’t vote you don’t generally detect it.
Without voter ID how do you detect an attempt at in person voter impersonation fraud?
Someone at the polls recognizes you, or recognizes that you aren’t the person you’re impersonating. The person you’re impersonating unexpectedly tries to vote. Someone looks at the voting records afterwards, and sees themselves or someone they know incorrectly listed as having voted. If you read the descriptions of the 31 known incidents of possible impersonation fraud you get the flavor of how they came to light. Not every attempt will be detected, but some fraction will be. Even if there’s a 90% “success” rate at evading detection — and that would be high — you’re talking about 300 cases nationwide, out of billion votes cast.
you don’t generally detect it
Voter impersonation fraud is a crime with virtually no benefit to the criminal. If they get away with it, they cast an extra ballot, which will almost certainly make no difference in the election results. If they’re caught, they face a felony conviction, fines, and possible jail time. Even a 1% chance of getting caught is too high for that risk/reward to be at all attractive. So the only people who end up doing it are the deluded and/or very foolish. For example, Mark Lacasse, the NH teenager who really wanted to vote for George W. Bush in the NH GOP primary, but wasn’t quite 18, so he voted as his dad (who was out of town at the time). That’s the scary sort of crime we’re talking about.
I should note that Lacasse voted in the 2004 NH GOP primary, i.e. the one in which President George W. Bush ran unopposed.
“Voter impersonation fraud is a crime with virtually no benefit to the criminal. ”
lol.
You’re attacking a straw man.
Um no, not until responding. Here is the strawman argument: in-person voter impersonation fraud.
That’s not the only type of voter fraud having a government picture id prevents. Further, the reason this particular fraud is statistically low is the inability to prove a case. When you don’t have to identify yourself beyond stealing someone’s mail and claiming it is yours; then it is nearly impossible to prove you are anything other than the person on the mailer. So the statistics are skewed.
That’s not the only type of voter fraud having a government picture id prevents.
The laws in question say you have to produce a certain sort of photo ID at the polls in order to vote. That requirement can not prevent any sort of voter fraud other than in-person voter impersonation.
Further, the reason this particular fraud is statistically low is the inability to prove a case.
No, that isn’t it. The 31 cases on that researcher’s list aren’t all proven, many or most of them are circumstantial and/or alleged, and could be the result of clerical error. And even with that low threshold for inclusion the cases are vanishingly rare. If there really were thousands of people impersonating others at the polls, the list of possible cases would be much, much longer.
I want to fix the type of voter fraud that prevents Democrats on the third time votes have been counted coming in with boxes of ballots “found” in a Democrat poll worker’s car.
That isn’t voter fraud. You’re talking about election fraud.
Yeah Wodun, it’s not AQ it is Khorasan.
Words have meaning. A semi-automatic rifle is not the same thing as an automatic rifle. Election fraud is not the same thing as voter fraud.
A semi-automatic rifle is not the same thing as an automatic rifle.
Yes, so Democrats made up the concept “assault rifles” to try and ban both. Wodun would be happy with laws that make it easier to stop voter fraud which leads to election fraud. And I can see how picture voter ID can stop election fraud.
The 31 cases on that researcher’s list aren’t all proven, many or most of them are circumstantial and/or alleged, and could be the result of clerical error
The 31 cases were found by looking for news articles, which begin with a reporters bias. If there is just a plain allegation, most of those events wouldn’t be reported. And as I already pointed out, getting beyond an allegation when no mechanism to prove otherwise exists without voter ID laws, means the statistics would be low, and I think artificially.
There is as much truth to there being not 31 cases as the opposite bias claim of 1/5 collegiate women being sexually assaulted. The harassment claim assumes under reporting by victims. And when the President uses that stastistic, he is pushing to create laws and policies that affect millions of college students of both sexes, and yet Jim, I don’t see you complaining about that straw man.
The people who demanded that every dangling chad be counted in Florida/2000, deserve to be mocked, ridiculed, and marginalized if they dare suggest that we tolerate a single explicitly fraudulent vote now.
But there, with the mockery and the ridicule, is where it should end. Neither problem, miscounted or fraudulent votes, is of sufficient magnitude as to be worth any real effort to eliminate. Perfection is unattainable, and the costs of its fanatical pursuit are unreasonable.
I remember the videos of the counters sitting around a table with a giant pile of chads in the middle. Amazingly, Gore’s vote total kept increasing.
It was bad luck for all involved that the 2000 race in Florida was so close that issues like hanging chads, which are typically lost in the noise, came to matter. It would have been as fair (in that race and in Franken’s 2008 Senate race) to flip a coin.
The last election I volunteered at was a low-turnout one-race special election for an obscure office. Even then we had I believe three ballots that could not be assigned to any candidate, because the voter had made no clear mark. Three people took the trouble to come to the polls for this one race, and somehow failed to fill in a bubble. Because it was a normal race, decided by thousands of votes, it didn’t matter. But there’s always going to be some level of noise.
Perfection is unattainable, and the costs of its fanatical pursuit are unreasonable.
Agreed.
“Three people took the trouble to come to the polls for this one race, and somehow failed to fill in a bubble. ”
I am surprised that the Democrat poll workers didn’t argue this meant that they could fill in the bubble for the voters as if not filling in the bubble wasn’t a deliberate choice.
My position was that every single last dangling or “hanging” chad in every single Florida county along with every last military ballot should have been counted.
I was engaged in a series of e-mail exchanges with a left-liberal opinion journalist who had written in support of “count every vote” meaning “count every vote in Broward County and forget about the rest of the state including the military ballots tossed on technicalities.” I brought up the military ballots and was told there were valid technicalities why they should not be counted. I brought up how my absentee vote in Cook County, Illinois in an election decided by 10 votes was tossed for partisan reasons as my campaign work for the loser in that race was publically known. I never heard from the guy again.
When I last brought up around here how I was opposed to the Republican-supported Voter ID laws because I view it as part of the same political game that Cook County Democrats used to suppress my vote in a too-close-to-call election, let’s say I got a lot of “push back.” As a Conservative, I was “off the reservation.”
So I cannot cash a check at the bank I am using for 30 years, board a motor coach bus to Chicago, or purchase a package of beer at the grocery store at age 57 without a photo ID. But for the last 20 years I voted at the polling place in my neighborhood where my identity is known to all of my neighbors. At least there was one community, one safe haven, one place where people knew each other and took you at the honor of your word as to who you were.
That is, until the last goofball redistricting that redrew all the ward boundaries, again for partisan advantage.
The whole thing is goofball. The Governor explains that there is no reason to oppose Voter ID because he has made it so easy to get an ID if you don’t have one. And you don’t even need a “hard” identity document like a birth certificate — you can swear an affadavit as to your identity. That is not how the law was originally written, but you see it got changed in response to the legal pushback against it, and now it is effectively meaningless. Democrat activists are going to be busing the residents of the homeless shelters and long-term care facilities and day labor pools to DMV to get their ID’s, and they are going to be doubly motivated to bus everybody to the polling places.
But the law is not meaningless because I, for one, take offense in it. I have to stand in line, fish out the driver’s license and have it scrutinized because there is no honor left in being a Wisconsin-residing citizen, we are all now subjects who have to submit to scrutiny lest we be thieves, terrorists, for 19-year-olds wanting to drink beer . . .
We have a requirement to shoe ID when registering to vote in Washington State. No on is claiming that it is preventing people from voting or is discriminatory toward minorities and poor people. Why? Because we are a blue state and have been blue for a long time. Just like when we took steps to rein in public unions and change the method of compensation from pension to 401k no one freaked out like they did in WI.
Democrats, as a group, are not making principled stands on these issues as you have shown with the lack of concern regarding counting the votes in all districts and insuring that the military even gets to vote.
jim: the marie harf of transterrestrial
State’s Marie Harf: ISIS couldn’t even have predicted how powerful ISIS would become
suicide bombing
Voter impersonation fraudis a crime with virtually no benefit to the suicide bombercriminal.Martyrdom, a favored place in paradise, prestige and money for one’s family, the satisfaction of having given everything to a cause that you value more than your own life — suicide bombers perceive lots of benefits. By contrast, knowing that your favored candidate won by 132,453 votes instead of 132,452 votes, or lost by 132,452 instead of 132,453, really isn’t much of a payoff.
Strangely, despite your own dedication to the Democrat party, you think that other people would not also be motivated by that same zealotry. IMO, people who thought Republicans were going to enslave black people and ban tampons would see a large payoff in preventing the people they dehumanize and slander in this way from winning an election. They see their cheating as a moral duty.
Strangely, despite your own dedication to the Democrat party, you think that other people would not also be motivated by that same zealotry.
You think I’m a zealot, but I’m nowhere near zealous enough to commit a felony for one extra vote. It would be stupid — I could put that same motivation into calling or canvassing voters, and get the same result without taking any legal risk.
see a large payoff in preventing the people they dehumanize and slander in this way from winning an election.
Casting an illegal ballot doesn’t stop anyone from winning an election.
They see their cheating as a moral duty.
As I’ve noted before, you have an active imagination. Do you really think there are millions of Democrats committing felony voter fraud in order to block Republicans from getting elected?
I think there are a few hundred Democrats committing felony fraud resulting in thousands of fraudulent votes. Your “millions” argument is a strawman never made by Wodun, and it is irrelevant. Elections can be swayed with 1% of those numbers, see Florida circa 2000.
When Jim complains about strawmen being attacked, I can’t help but think he complains in sympathy.
I could wile away the hours
Conferrin’ with the flowers
Consultin’ with the rain
First, one has to agree on the definition of Election Fraud or Voter Fraud to be able to even begin to discuss its potential impact and potential solutions.
In-person impersonation is addressed by Voter ID, more or less. There are still plenty of cracks to slip through, but it narrows the opening quite a bit.
Absentee voting by mail introduces an entirely new set of issues, because it gets rid of the “sanctity” of the polling place, and allows people to discuss, cavort, and otherwise cast votes in a non-private manner or setting, if they wish to do so. In some cases, if a person wishes to give up their right to the secrecy of their vote, I don’t have much of a problem with it, but it also runs up against the laws on the books that are intended to stem vote-selling, such as photographing one’s voted ballot.
There are also those who request ballots for their children, spouses, parents, and others, and then vote and send the ballots back, unbeknownst to the affected. In a recent case in Iowa, one voter forged requests for ballots for himself and three others, casting four ballots by his own hand via absentee balloting. When interviewed by a Sheriff’s Deputy, the man readily admitted to the act.
The other type of “fraud”, depending on your level of comfort with that word, comes from residency fraud, as demonstrated in the linked article, but also demonstrated by campaigns who import hundreds of volunteers from “safe” states into “swing” states, get them an address and mailbox, and try to get them to sway the swing state to their candidate of choice.
These sorts of things happen on both sides of the political aisle, as well. In some areas, it definitely seems to happen with one party more than the other. I think that’s a big part of the reason why so many people are registered “independent” or “no party” nowadays; they don’t want to be associated with the bad behaviour of either extreme.
My understanding is that the absentee ballot is a “provisional ballot” and it only gets counted in a “contested” election. In other words, each of these ballots is subject to bi-partisan scrutiny and potential challenges before they are even opened.
That depends on the jurisdiction, but in most cases, absentee ballots are counted regardless of how close the election is. To do otherwise would be to remove the franchise from all absentee voters. Nevermind that with over two dozen races on some ballots, there’s almost always going to be one race that is “close”.
In the State of Iowa, voting absentee, whether in person at the Auditor’s office, in person at a satellite, or via mail, you vote counts just as much as voting at the polling place, because the ballots are not opened or counted until Election Day. However, once you turn in your ballot, you also can’t have it back or change your vote.
If an absentee voter moves from the jurisdiction before Election Day, their registration is cancelled and their ballot is voided. If an absentee voter dies before Election Day, their registration is cancelled and their ballot is voided (and that’s not a phone call anyone wants to take).
Provisional ballots in Iowa occur at the polling place, or in person after the registration deadline (which is 9 days before a General Election). The only time that Provisional and Absentee ballots mix is when someone who requested an absentee ballot wants to vote at the polls on Election Day. At that time, they need to vote a provisional ballot, which will only be counted if their absentee ballot isn’t received and counted by the Absentee and Special Voter Precinct Board. If their absentee ballot was received, the absentee ballot is counted, so voters can’t use a provisional ballot on Election Day to change their mind about the vote they cast up to 40 days earlier.
It’s a myth, popularized by I don’t know who, that absentee ballots are only counted “if it’s a close race”. In Iowa, nearly 50% of all ballots cast in major elections are by absentee. There’s no way on earth those votes wouldn’t get counted, even if there was a provision to “only count if they’re close”.
Up here in Canada, I have to show two pieces of ID (one with picture) to vote. It’s been that way longer than I’ve been of voting age.
Frankly, I don’t see the bother. It boggles me (and many of my fellow Canadians) that you consider it a problem at all.
As part of the British Commonwealth, my understanding is the Canada still has a Queen? Being subject to a Monarch, even if only symbolically, would not go over too well in the U.S..
I’m sure there are a number of things Americans would find odd about Canadian politics. For one, the Prime Minister is not only the executive, he’s also a legislator. Senators are appointed (by the Prime Minister) and remain in the Senate for the rest of their lives (or age 75, whichever comes first).
Yeah, there’s a lot of things in Canadian politics that Americans just wouldn’t stand for. Which makes it all the more astonishing that the mechanics of our election process actively prevents fraud, whereas the American system actively encourages fraud. You won’t stand for a king, but you’re ok with fraudulent elections? Boggles the mind.
“(31 alleged cases out of a billion ballots)”
A billion ballots. In a country of 300 million, not all of whom are voting age.
Nope, no fraud here.
LOL. Follow the link:
There have been far more than 31 cases of voter fraud in the last 14 years.
Follow the link. If you know of additional cases of in-person voter impersonation fraud then by all means notify the researcher, and he’ll add them to the list.
Well, this is certainly good news for us. Bad news for Jim.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/09/29/Supreme-Court-Allows-Ohio-Voter-Fraud-Prevention-Law-to-Take-Effect
This case is enormously significant because left wing legal groups are advancing a theory of the Voting Rights Act which has never been before considered meritorious. Essentially, they are arguing that if any voting change has a mere statistical disparate impact on minorities, then the change violates federal law.
Isn’t that the exact argument you all make about the IRS handling of 501c4 applications?
Bad news for Jim.
The consolation for Democrats is that high-profile attempts to suppress minority voting can have the effect of spurring minority turnout, not to mention reminding minority voters what the GOP thinks of them.
“Isn’t that the exact argument you all make about the IRS handling of 501c4 applications?”
There is a lot more evidence than just statistics in regard to the IRS and often the statistical case is brought up to explicitly expose Democrats hypocrisy not because statistics show the whole story.
“not to mention reminding minority voters what the GOP thinks of them.”
It doesn’t matter what Republicans do, Democrats always accuse them of racism. That is the game Democrats play. It isn’t about civil rights or living in harmony, it is about driving wedges in-between ethnic and other groups in order to gain political advantage. The goal is dehumanization and otherization in order to excuse policies that persecute non-Democrats.
It doesn’t matter what Republicans do, Democrats always accuse them of racism.
Republicans making it harder for minorities to vote gives Democrats fresh ammunition for that charge.
driving wedges in-between ethnic and other groups in order to gain political advantage
Like passing a voter ID law to drive a wedge between people who routinely drive/fly/etc. and people who don’t, because the latter group is more likely to vote for your opponent?
Strangely, none of them drive a car? Or buy alcohol?
But Democrats writing Jim Crow laws, DNC member George Wallace using firehoses and dogs on black people, the Democrats opposing the 13th Amendment, all that wasn’t racism? LBJ saying of welfare “I’ll have those niggers voting Democrat for the next 200 years”, not racist? GFYS.
none of them drive a car?
In 2009, 13% of the driving-age population did not have a driver’s license. Leaving out the 16 and 17 year olds, that’s tens of millions of non-driving citizens who are eligible to vote.
Or buy alcohol?
I buy alcohol without showing photo ID all the time.
But Democrats writing Jim Crow laws, DNC member George Wallace using firehoses and dogs on black people, the Democrats opposing the 13th Amendment, all that wasn’t racism?
That was definitely racism. The Democratic party has changed, as has the Republican party. My guess is that if you track down the men who were holding those firehoses you’ll find that most of them — like 70-80 year old Southern white men in general — didn’t vote for the Democratic candidate in the last Presidential election.
If you can’t get a FREE ID by going down to the DMV or wherever you get one, then you are stupid (using your terminology).
My guess is that if you track down the men who were holding those firehoses you’ll find that most of them — like 70-80 year old Southern white men in general — didn’t vote for the Democratic candidate in the last Presidential election.
Yep, you think republicans are racist.
“The Democratic party has changed, as has the Republican party.”
The two parties did not swap their beliefs in regard to race. Republicans don’t claim to have changed on this issue and there isn’t any concrete evidence that Republicans across the country suddenly decided to become racists after the 60’s. The allegations spring entirely from Democrats and are largely unsupported. The same Democrats who make these claims, usually try and pin the past sins of the Democrat party on Republicans.
The only “evidence” Democrats have is the ethnographic stereotypes they have for people who live in the South. Democrats then claim, that all other Republicans from other states are identical to Southerners. One of the worst stereotypes, is that Southerners are the same today as they were during the civil war. It seems that while Democrats can change, they don’t allow anyone else to.
“Republicans making it harder for minorities to vote gives Democrats fresh ammunition for that charge.”
Voter ID doesn’t make it harder to vote. In Washington State, you have to show ID when you register. It isn’t impeding anyone from voting here. Your other complaint about early voting is also ridiculous. In all the cases, there are weeks or months allowed for early voting. If people were advocating for a three hour window on election day and only in non-Republican districts, I would be upset with you.
“Like passing a voter ID law to drive a wedge between people who routinely drive/fly/etc. and people who don’t,”
Republicans are not passing ID laws as a wedge but the issue certainly is being used as a wedge. Opposition to voter fraud is framed as racism. That isn’t an argument in good faith. It is an argument based in cynical bigotry that tries to stoke racism in minority communities against white people Democrats don’t like.
Very few people don’t have an ID. ID’s are needed to go to Obama’s political events. ID’s are needed for going to a doctor. In many of these states, ID’s are even given out for free just to address the concerns that poor people cant afford $30 to buy an ID every four or five years. Republicans include these measures to address the concerns of Democrats precisely because they don’t want the small burden of obtaining an ID from stopping someone from voting.
“I buy alcohol without showing photo ID all the time.”
Because you look old enough to join AARP or go to the same store all the time. I also look old but I get carded all the time. In Washington, everyone gets carded unless you look old enough to have gone to grade school with George Washington but even then ID is required all the time by the government and businesses. I even had to show my ID to get a library card.
I needed my ID to pick up an item at the Apple store.
I needed an ID to sell some books at 1/2 Price Books.
What racists.
Yep, you think republicans are racist.
I think that white Southern men who fought for Jim Crow in the 60s probably vote Republican today, like most white Southern men of their generation. Do you really think the fact that they were Democrats then means that they’re voting for Obama now?
Voter ID doesn’t make it harder to vote. In Washington State, you have to show ID when you register.
Voter ID isn’t about showing ID to register, it’s about barring registered voters from actually voting unless they have current photo ID.
Very few people don’t have an ID.
Millions of voting-age American citizens don’t have current photo ID, but you dismiss them as “very few”. To you they might as well not exist. Now that’s what I call driving a wedge.
Millions of voting-age American citizens don’t have current photo ID, but you dismiss them as “very few”. To you they might as well not exist. Now that’s what I call driving a wedge.
Nothing is stopping them from getting a free ID. This is such an irrelevant argument.
Indeed, nothing is stopping those people from getting ID for the purposes of fair elections. But the Dem party doesn’t want fair elections. They’re the party of dishonesty and fraud and they know they have to cheat to win.
And nothing is stopping them from going to free public schools. So why not have literacy tests as a requirement for voting?
You are being absolutely silly. Trying to equate an ID with literacy laws is a false analogy and you know it. Don’t be stupid.
Voter ID and literacy laws are both restrictions on voting that affect some people more than others. If you are literate, and have voter ID, it is very easy to see no problem with those requirements. What’s so hard about reading, or showing an ID? People have to read or show ID ten times a day! How can you read a bar menu if you can’t read? How can you order a beer if you don’t have ID? What’s stopping those people from getting with the program?
The fact is, there are millions of American citizens who are living their lives without up-to-date photo ID. They have exactly as much right to vote as you or I. If you are going to introduce a new voting requirement that makes voting more difficult for them, you need to have a very good reason. 31 known cases of possible voter impersonation fraud, over 14 years, is not a good reason.
I realized I need to explain this. Literacy has never been an issue with voter fraud. You, of course, brought it up to imply that we are bringing back Jim Crow. That is disingenuous at best.
I think one needs to separate “no photo ID” people from “no current photo ID” people. There are plenty more people with out-of date ID than there are without any ID whatsoever. And having an out-of-date ID is actually a bigger problem than no ID at all in some instances.
At a former job in a media re-sale store (similar to the 1/2 Price Books reference in another comment), we required photo ID to purchase from people. The state and city didn’t require it, because we weren’t considered a pawn store, but we still required it as a matter of policy. I was surprised how many people would say, “well, the address is wrong, but everything else is current on there”, or who would have an ID that was long since expired, and had no idea. I always took the time to point out if someone’s ID was going to expire in the next month or so, just so they weren’t caught off-guard in a traffic stop in the future, or prevented from buying alcohol, tobacco, or an R-rated movie some time down the road.
I was also surprised at how many people who wrote “See ID” on their credit card didn’t actually have a current ID. When I would point this out to them, and deny their purchase, it usually didn’t go well, but if you are telling me on your credit card that I need to see your ID, it’s on you to have it current.
I would hazard a guess that the burden on those with expired or inaccurate ID would actually be larger than the burden on those without any ID at all, when voter ID laws get passed in some jurisdictions. See also: just about any college town or town with >30% rental housing stock.
Third grade “thinkers” like Jim love to say that the disruption of requiring picture ID for voting is too great for the number of illegal votes made.
He’s clueless, of course, because he cannot express the true extent of illegal voting and we discover more and more every time we look. And indeed one suspects people like Jim of wanting to suppress any looking…..nothing to see here folks…move along. But a government that uses the IRS to punish political enemies; a government that sports a president who tells his adherents to punish their enemies; a government who hacks the computers of journalists they don’t like; a government who lies to our faces countless times about life and death issues of a citizen such as health care…every time and everywhere we look we find less and less reason to trust this government, and the politicians who infest it, the hyper-partisan witless dweebs who support them, and therefore the veracity of our voting system.
Wise people say that the benefits of a voting system that can be trusted is far far greater than the paltry inconvenience of requiring that which everyone has to supply while buying booze.
The inconvenience is so paltry that any argument against it is almost certainly disingenuous. That’s what people with common sense think.
every time and everywhere we look we find less and less reason to trust this government, and the politicians who infest it, the hyper-partisan witless dweebs who support them, and therefore the veracity of our voting system.
Wise people say that the benefits of a voting system that can be trusted is far far greater than the paltry inconvenience…
Wait a second. You think the election system is infested with untrustworthy government officials. But you would have “a voting system that can be trusted” if only there was a law requiring those same untrustworthy officials to check voters’ IDs? How does that make any sense?
Voter ID laws would make sense if and only if there were hundreds of thousands of people changing election results by voting under other peoples’ names. Nothing like that is happening (if it were there would be at least tens of thousands of alleged impersonation incidents every election, where in reality instead there are 31 over the last 14 years). You aren’t pushing voter ID laws to solve the only problem they possibly can solve, because that problem doesn’t exist. You’re pushing it out of a vague sense that the voting system can’t be trusted, and so you’ll make yourself feel better (and, as a bonus, keep away some lazy voters who will probably vote for Democrats) by forcing everyone to show ID. Do you see any problem, as a conservative or libertarian, using the power of the state to force millions of people to change their behavior, simply so you will feel better?
the paltry inconvenience of requiring that which everyone has to supply while buying booze.
Reminder: people buy booze without ID every day
The inconvenience is so paltry that any argument against it is almost certainly disingenuous.
You could say the same about literacy tests. The inconvenience is paltry to some, and not to others — which is the whole point.
I think that to purchase alcohol, not only should there be a literacy test (there can be a randomly select SAT-like word analogy problem at the Point-of-Sale terminal), a purchaser should also submit to a trans-nasal ultrasound (yes, the scanner is frighteningly large, but it goes up the nostril with enough lube) and be shown the image where they can see how much their brain has shrunk . . .
But you would have “a voting system that can be trusted” if only there was a law requiring those same untrustworthy officials to check voters’ IDs? How does that make any sense?
Again, you conflate two separate issues. ID checking is done on a local level. Of course corruption can ensue, but it is far easier to check and be held accountable. Gregg pointed out the national corruption, which is harder to check.
Nothing like that is happening (if it were there would be at least tens of thousands of alleged impersonation incidents every election, where in reality instead there are 31 over the last 14 years).
Then lets have several steps towards eliminating voter fraud! Are you okay with that? Why do you have a problem what other states do with regards to voter ID anyway? As usual, you decide what is right and everyone must do as you say. You are an arrogant, arrogant person.
the national corruption, which is harder to check
Why is national corruption harder to check? It’s all in one place, rather than being spread out in thousands of separate cities, counties and towns.
Why do you have a problem what other states do with regards to voter ID anyway?
I have a problem with what my state does with regard to voter ID, too.
As usual, you decide what is right and everyone must do as you say.
I have an opinion, as do you. Neither one of us is forcing anyone (except by force of reason) to do anything.
You’re serious? You don’t think corruption is easier to handle when it happens locally over some place 3000 miles away for some people? You know you’re being fooling for stating that.
I have a problem with what my state does with regard to voter ID, too.
As usual, you ignore the question.
I have an opinion, as do you. Neither one of us is forcing anyone (except by force of reason) to do anything.
You’re forcing me to purchase health insurance so you can get it cheaper. That’s coercion.
“Reminder: people buy booze without ID every day”
1) Yeah you claim you do that in your state. But I happen to know that in your state, every booze seller is required BY LAW to card everyone buying booze. That your storerestaurant does not card you means they are breaking the law. Ma. politicos had agents sent out to buy booze at shops when that law was passed and for some time after and cited those stores which did not card *every* purchaser *regardless of age*. Liquor licenses were suspended for violation.
So please do not use violation of the law by the store as a claim that the ID isn’t needed, and that it’s terribly burdensome to have. That’s one of the definitions of “disingenuous”.
2) Any time a boozeteria or restaurant wants to card a prospective booze consumer they can. EVERY state has a legal drinking age and picture ID’s are the means to prove you can legally buy the hootch. So therefore if one wants to always buy hooch, one must be prepared to present a picture ID.
Yet I never heard any Lefty rump swap screaming that this is somehow too onerous.
3) Booze buying is simply one example (and the most easily recognized one) of where picture ID’s are needed for a common everyday occurrence. Picture ID’s are required for a myriad of common, everyday occurrences about which you never whine. This is disingenuous as well.
You aren’t convincing anyone. You are merely practice at destroying stupid arguments.
But I happen to know that in your state, every booze seller is required BY LAW to card everyone buying booze.
Nope. According to the law* in question, sellers only have to require proof of age to sell to a “person whose age is in question”. Most people buying booze are unquestionably over 21.
Do you think there should be a law that required every store and bar and restaurant to card every customer, every time they bought alcohol? Or would that be a stupid and pointless government overreach?
* NH legal trivia: recently a NH state liquor store refused to sell to a 20-ish customer with a District of Columbia drivers license because the legislators who wrote the law forgot to include D.C. licenses as an acceptable form of ID (they only listed licenses issued by “another state, or province of Canada”). The NH liquor commission issued a memo reversing that decision, stating that they didn’t think the legislators meant to pick on D.C. residents. It’s like the Halbig Obamacare case, except that no one is suing to force the liquor commission to enforce the drafting error.
” But I happen to know that in your state, every booze seller is required BY LAW to card everyone buying booze.
Nope. According to the law* in question,”
Ah my apologies. I thought you lived in Massachusetts.
Here is the pertinent section of Ma. law:
“As always, licensees should ensure that they are in
compliance with the laws of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, M.G.L. c. 138, §64 and that the sales
of alcoholic beverages take place only as authorized
by state law. ”
No wonder you are ignorant of the horrible effects of Romneycare.
Even in MA your claim — that “every booze seller is required BY LAW to card everyone buying booze” — is false. Every booze seller is required by law to not sell alcohol to minors. That doesn’t mean they have to card everyone. It’s in their interest to card anyone who looks like they might be under 21, because that way either a) the buyer won’t have ID, and they won’t make the sale or b) the buyer will show convincing fake ID, which gets the seller off the hook. But it’s totally up to the seller whether they want to bother to card someone who isn’t possibly under 21.
And you dodged my question: do you think the law should force vendors to card every single person who buys alcohol, including 90 year olds? What would such a law accomplish?
“And you dodged my question: do you think the law should force vendors to card every single person who buys alcohol, including 90 year olds? What would such a law accomplish?”
Most states’ tobacco laws require that very thing, even for 90 year-olds. Compliance is generally accomplished through POS systems that are programmed without any sort of override for the DOB entry, and some POS systems require an actual scan of the license.
And, those laws accomplish exactly what any other “blue” law accomplishes: reducing the consumption of goods that are considered “vices”, and tracking statistics for the state Health department (i.e., “protecting people from themselves” and from things that some government official deemed to be hazardous to their health).
“Wait a second. You think the election system is infested with untrustworthy government officials. But you would have “a voting system that can be trusted” if only there was a law requiring those same untrustworthy officials to check voters’ IDs? How does that make any sense?”
Ahh folks now here is a CLASSIC Jim tactic:
Nowhere did I ever say that the voting system would be trustworthy *IF ONLY* there was a law requiring those “same untrustworthy officials” to check voter ID’s.
I never said that was all that was needed.
So after distorting my comment and putting words in my mouth, Jim asks:
“How does that make any sense?”
Naturally, Jim if you utterly distort what someone says, puts words into their mouths they never said, and totally mangles their point to the point where it *doesn’t* make sense….then,….well….it doesn’t make sense.
But that’s not an argument. It’s a sad, 3rd grader debate tactic. Unworthy of an adult.
I’m pretty sure you do not see how you continue to destroy your credibility … not that you had much to begin with.
I never said that was all that was needed.
Yes, you did. You wrote that the “benefits of a voting system that can be trusted is far far greater than the paltry inconvenience of requiring” voter ID. You made the case for voter ID as a simple trade-off, putting up with “paltry inconvenience” in return for “a voting system that can be trusted”. When you put it that way, who could be against voter ID?
But now you’re saying that your argument was bogus, that it isn’t a simple trade-off, and that in fact voter ID laws do not yield “a voting system that can be trusted”?
I totally agree.
Want a voting system that can be trusted? Follow Canada’s lead. Mark your paper ballot with an X. Scrutineers from all parties are present when the votes are counted locally, and a chain of custody is established on ballot boxes. And, prove you are who you say you are, or you don’t get a ballot. Simple, effective, fast, and nearly fraud-proof.
And the only argument against such a system is if one doesn’t actually want fair elections. Ahem.
I never said that was all that was needed.
“Yes, you did. You wrote that the “benefits of a voting system that can be trusted is far far greater than the paltry inconvenience of requiring” voter ID. You made the case for voter ID as a simple trade-off, putting up with “paltry inconvenience” in return for “a voting system that can be trusted”. When you put it that way, who could be against voter ID?”
Clearly you have a serious problem with both English and logic. My statement says nothing of the kind regarding “necessary and sufficient”. It only says:
1) benefits of a voting system that can be trusted is good
2) the inconvenience of having picture ID to vote is paltry next to the benefits of a trusted voting system
By implication, it says that voting Id will help build a trusted voting system. But then I’ve been saying that here for years.
1) benefits of a voting system that can be trusted is good
2) the inconvenience of having picture ID to vote is paltry next to the benefits of a trusted voting system
By implication, it says that voting Id will help build a trusted voting system
No, that isn’t the implication. You’re saying that the benefits of A (a trusted voting system) outweigh the downsides of B (having to show photo ID). That comparison is only interesting if you can trade B for A. But, as you admit, we can’t trade B for A. Voter ID laws give us inconvenience (and disenfranchisement), with no assurance that we’re having any effect on the trustworthiness of elections at all. It’s Homer Simpson buying a rock to keep tigers away — because, after all, the benefit of not being attacked by a tiger far outweighs the paltry cost of the rock.
“Voter ID laws would make sense if and only if there were hundreds of thousands of people changing election results by voting under other peoples’ names. ”
That’ s not the only reason they make sense. Nice strawman.
“Nothing like that is happening ”
Prove it.
“You aren’t pushing voter ID laws to solve the only problem they possibly can solve, because that problem doesn’t exist. You’re pushing it out of a vague sense that the voting system can’t be trusted,”
Since you distort what people say to create silly strawmen, you’re the very LAST person who can state why someone would want a voter ID law.
Strawmen like these:
“…..and so you’ll make yourself feel better (and, as a bonus, keep away some lazy voters who will probably vote for Democrats) by forcing everyone to show ID. Do you see any problem, as a conservative or libertarian, using the power of the state to force millions of people to change their behavior, simply so you will feel better?”
you’re the very LAST person who can state why someone would want a voter ID law.
Go ahead, tell me why you want a voter ID law.
Justice must not only be done, justice must be seen to be done. Fraudulent voting is unjust. QED.
Justice must not only be done, justice must be seen to be done.
So it doesn’t matter whether voter ID laws actually reduce voter fraud, their value is that they appear to do so. Security theater for the polling place, to match our security theater in the airports.
I think you are right — that voter ID is popular because people think it will make them trust elections more (even though, in surveys, voters in states with voter ID have no more faith in the integrity of elections than voters in states without it). But that’s an awfully poor justification.
“Go ahead, tell me why you want a voter ID law.”
Ahh you admit you don’t know.
I’ve stated it many times in this forum. I can’t help it if you have no memory.
And if I repeated it again, you’d simply twist my words into something I did not say.
And kindergarten logicians such as you are simply not worth the time to spoend to untangle the inevitable mess you’d make.
Prove it.
1. For every n attempts at voter impersonation fraud, some fraction (1/10, 1/100) will arouse suspicion (e.g. because the person being impersonated tries to vote, the imposter is recognized, etc.) and investigation
2. If voter impersonation fraud was changing the results of major elections, it would have to be happening tens or hundreds of thousands of times per election year. [There are hundreds of major races per election year, most races are decided by thousands of votes, not all fraud would favor one party, therefore it would require huge numbers of imposter votes to have a net effect that changed results.]
3. Therefore, if voter impersonation fraud was changing the results of major elections there would be at least thousands of reports of possible cases over the last decade.
4. The number of reported possible cases over the last decade is less than 50.
5. Therefore we know that voter impersonation fraud is not happening on a level that would affect the results of major elections. QED.
I believe in federalism: some issues are best addressed locally, some are best addressed on a state level, and some are best addressed nation-wide. It all depends on the particular issue
Jim enjoys cherry-picking Federalism. Those that increase the power of the democrat party are okay. The rest? Well, they need to go.
Indeed “cherry picking” laws, concepts of the Founding and the principles of the Constitution are classic subversive lefty tactics. It’s what leads them to the silly idea of a “Living Constitution”
Another name for that is “situational ethics”.
And yet another name for that is anarchy.
“And yet another name for that is anarchy.”
Gah, I cringe every time I see that word misused. From the Latin: an- (without) arcus (ruler). The fools in facemasks rioting at every world trade summit are not anarchists and don’t want anarchy; they want chaos. One could barely fit a piece of paper between actual anarchists and minarchist Libertarians.
The fact is, there are millions of American citizens who are living their lives without up-to-date photo ID. They have exactly as much right to vote as you or I. If you are going to introduce a new voting requirement that makes voting more difficult for them, you need to have a very good reason. 31 known cases of possible voter impersonation fraud, over 14 years, is not a good reason.
They do have the right to vote. And they must not be disenfranchised, which is why they get IDs for free.
Why are you so obsessed with telling every other state what to do. I’m not strutting around saying New Hampshire has to get an income tax.
And they must not be disenfranchised, which is why they get IDs for free.
What if they don’t have the documents required to get a free ID — are you going to get those for free too? What if the closest DMV is 30 miles away (as it is for me), and the voter (obviously) doesn’t drive? Are you going to cover the taxi fare? Even free IDs aren’t free — one way or another, voter ID is effectively a poll tax.
“What if they don’t have the documents required to get a free ID”
Then they aren’t who they say they are and are attempting to vote fraudulently. Don’t you get tired of having the blatantly obvious spelled out for you?
He’s not tired of that because Jim never listens (reads carefully) and never ponders over the comment.
Rather, Jim loves to mangle what you say into something wholly unrecognizable from your actual statement and then argue that to death. Which, in turn, achieves his objectives of dissembling and rat-hole production.
Jim can be, and is, dismissed.
What cannot be dismissed is the fact that the liberals as a group oppose making voting in the US more trustworthy. In Iraq, voters got purple fingers to prevent them from voting again…..
Iraq gave purple fingers
Liberals merely give the middle finger.
And in the USA, if you required people to ink their finger after voting, the disabled lobby would be all over you like flies on cowpies.
I mean, think of the non-fingered! What will they do?
You don’t hate people without fingers … do you?
Just because a person doesn’t currently have a birth certificate doesn’t mean they aren’t who they say they are. Sometimes things get lost in floods, fires, or moving between residences, and requirements for what constitutes a legal birth certificate change over time.
When I was in grade school, a rainbow-ink-stamped copy of a birth certificate was considered a legal birth certificate. Nowadays, birth certificates have to be printed on official government paper, sealed, and watermarked so that it can’t be copied (ignoring how they do it in Hawai’i)
After sitting across the hall from a Vital Statistics counter for a year, I can safely say that obtaining the documents needed to prove one’s own existence can sometimes be enormously difficult to accomplish. A 90 year-old person who was home-birthed out in the country very well may not have easy access to a birth certificate. And even if the State could find it, there is generally at least a $35 fee from the State and an 8-12 week turnaround time if they’re not in their home county of birth. Even driving to Chicago from Iowa and getting my birth certificate directly from Cook County in 2007 was a non-trivial task when I needed it in order to get a passport, and I can’t imagine the process is any easier now.
That said, the number of people affected by the “my parents were farmers out in the middle of nowhere, so there’s no birth certificate anywhere” are dwindling as we move towards the time where our oldest living citizens were born in post-WWI times, so that part of the problem will naturally work itself out. But the other parts of the equation (fees and length of time to obtain) are what also create the “burden” that people refer to when they talk about obtaining an ID.
Jim along with everyone else around here is completely without a sense of humor: My modest proposal of requiring a trans-nasal ultrasound of your shrinking brain to be shown to you before buying alcohol did not elicit any comment.
Howdyaknow that a Driver’s License isn’t faked? People use fake ID to purchase liquor or enter establishments where liquor is served, so what prevents a person showing up to a Wisconsin polling place with such an ID?
What stops that is the difficulty of faking a state-issued ID. Alberta driver’s licenses not only have your picture and info on them, they also have holograms and bar codes. These are very difficult to fake unless you’re working in the transportation department of the provincial government and have access to blank ID cards. My passport has a holograph of a maple leaf on every page and a number of other security features; again, one would need access to the federal governments stock of blank passports. In other words, it would have to be an inside job.
Making murder a crime didn’t end murder. Should we not have laws against murder? Criminal laws work by making the cost of committing the crime high enough to discourage. You can raise the cost on the front end or back end.
Currently, the cost on the front end is very low to be almost free and as Jim has pointed out so often, almost non-existent costs on the back end. I rather just raise the costs on the back end, but without the picture id, it is near impossible to prove voter fraud in court thus no back end cost for the crime.