And THIS Is Why We Need National Voter ID Laws
Why don’t people GET it?
Hard-working Americans’ votes are disenfranchised by organized groups, like ACORN, when any hint of this crap goes on.
Moe Lane at RedState makes a very important point:
Now, let’s be clear: those nice old people running the polling stations? They’re not actively involved in a secret conspiracy to defraud the voting public. They’re instead volunteers who are not only not obligated to require photo ID from voters; they’re actively forbidden from asking for any. And they’re using printouts, not computers, which means by definition that the records are going to be out of date. And that means that if you want to double-vote in New Hampshire, all you need to know is the name and address of somebody still on the voting rolls who you know isn’t going to vote.
It isn’t the election volunteers, it is the law and those who proactively exploit them.
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
45 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
And Bill Nelson (Douche, FL) wastes time and money having a group from Washington investigating the new Florida voter laws. He was sending out e-mails, including one supposedly written by Algore, whining about vote suppression and what not. I got three of these e-mails over a week or two, but I haven’t heard anything in the past month.
I suspect he got some of his buddies to come down on the taxpayer dime to play a few holes.
Comment by TGC — January 11, 2012 @ 9:17 pm - January 11, 2012
And the libs keep quoting some study, which they won’t provide any info on, that “proves” that voter fraud rarely happens. Which seems odd to me since, according to them, voter fraud was supposedly rampant in 2000 and 2004.
Comment by TGC — January 11, 2012 @ 9:19 pm - January 11, 2012
Dead people voting? I guess the Chicago Way really is taking the country by storm.
Comment by Lori Heine — January 11, 2012 @ 9:22 pm - January 11, 2012
The pro-vote fraud claims voter fraud is rare and point to the relatively small numbers of prosecutions. Well… duh! How do you prosecute when voting is a secret ballot and when people just anonymously vote using the names of dead people and none of the election boards bother to check?
Comment by V the K — January 11, 2012 @ 9:49 pm - January 11, 2012
I’m not opposed to ID check when voting, but here is what I want to know – How much more expensive is it going to be to set up a system where ID checks are mandatory, and that tracks the recently deceased and expunges them from the pols? An expense assessment of the fiscal cost of such a law would be nice to know. Then is the frequency of the occurrence of this type of voting fraud – how often does it happen and how successful is is – must determine if the passing and enforcement of this law would be worth the effort.
Comment by sonicfrog — January 11, 2012 @ 10:21 pm - January 11, 2012
Really? What are the costs? How much do you think it costs for the little old lady to look at your ID and verify that yes, you are Mickey Mouse, please sign here next to your name, thank you- now you may vote. You need ID to buy sudafed, cash a check, use a credit card. Is it really so unreasonable to need it to vote? Oh, and just for the record, my state has required ID ever since I moved here 14 years ago and we all seem to vote just fine. Even my black friends!
Comment by JustShootMeNow — January 11, 2012 @ 10:55 pm - January 11, 2012
CNN has added live cameras to the counting of votes, which is in the interest of an open democracy.
They need a few live cameras on the voter tables at polling stations, it can only help keep the process open.
Comment by Geena — January 11, 2012 @ 11:13 pm - January 11, 2012
There are always hidden costs. Even though checking an ID doesn’t take much time, the little bits of time add up. In crowded districts, you will invariably have crowds at closing time because the flow of voters into the booth will be slowed down. Next, at some point, there will be training required of the poll workers to make sure they know the difference between a valid ID and a fake. And there will be an increase in screening of volunteers, to make sure those people are trustworthy…..
What, do you think that new laws, even when they are not supposed to cost money, don’t end up costing money?
Comment by sonicfrog — January 12, 2012 @ 12:15 am - January 12, 2012
Oh, and don’t forget the lawsuits brought by people who were falsely accused of having fake ID’s
Comment by sonicfrog — January 12, 2012 @ 12:37 am - January 12, 2012
Yes, they will have to add on to the training a bit, but they already have training sessions. Yup, might add a bit of time at the beginning of the day of voting, but once the line starts to back up, those pole workers can check ID’s and get you signed in faster than you can vote straight party. They won’t add one single minute to the wait. Lawsuits? Haven’t heard of any in my state. It is time we the people take responsibility for making sure we are doing all we can to keep our elections clean. If that means that stupid or addicted or lazy people don’t get to vote in one election, well I call that a learning experience. If they don’t get to vote a second time, I call it a blessing. if we put reasonable controls in place so acorn/SEIU or whoever tries can’t vote 10 times, that is priceless. Voting isn’t just a right, it’s an honor.
Comment by JustShootMeNow — January 12, 2012 @ 1:20 am - January 12, 2012
#8
Oh please. If nightclubs can do it, I should think the polling places can. I’d also think that it shouldn’t be too hard to have some sort of system where when a death is reported to one agency, all the rest know about it.
We can create excuses all the damn live long day. Shouldn’t we demand that they grabbed their gear and got to work doing something useful like figuring out solutions?
Comment by TGC — January 12, 2012 @ 1:27 am - January 12, 2012
That’s how it is in California as well. I have been a poll worker a few times and one of the things they stress is that we cannot ask them for identification, and even if we are certain they are lying about their eligibility to cast a ballot, we are not allowed to turn anyone away.
The person who ran the training seminar actually told us that if someone was visiting the US from another country and disclosed that to us and then asked if they could vote, we should provide a ballot, although if their name is not on our list, they get a provisional ballot and their vote ends up in a box with Al Gore or Al Franken (must be an Al thing) suing to have it counted. But there simply isn’t any defense against people voting under false identities because the state provides no mechanism to verify that the ballot belongs to the person that shows up a the poll. The argument I hear the most is just that it doesn’t happen often enough to spend money solving the problem or that for some reason it is racist.
I wonder, though, if the founders of this country had intended to produce a society that will go into massive debt to provide an endless array of social programs and government agencies but is unwilling to assure the complete security of the single most important aspect of our freedom.
Comment by Jimmy — January 12, 2012 @ 2:22 am - January 12, 2012
Seeing how this is yet another James O’Keefe video, I’m anxiously waiting for it to be revealed how he faked this one.
Comment by Serenity — January 12, 2012 @ 5:12 am - January 12, 2012
If your birthdate is 1919, you should look to be in your nineties. If someone present a name with that birthdate and look to be thirty, what is the nice little lady in New Hampshire where you need no ID to do?
So, then the actual person comes in looking every bit his age and is told he his name has been checked off. In New Hampshire, the second person should have gotten there earlier than the phony voter.
Evil people look at this type of Chinese fire drill and act accordingly. Better yet, evil people make a racket about how this type of Chinese fire drill must be kept in place for every reason except the nefarious truth.
What person does not have ID? The same person who can not register to vote like real citizens do.
The secret ballot is a farce if it promotes the system of the fraudulent ballot.
Comment by Heliotrope — January 12, 2012 @ 9:07 am - January 12, 2012
Progressive Debating Tactics 101.
Comment by V the K — January 12, 2012 @ 10:18 am - January 12, 2012
Slightly longer Amy,
I can’t be bothered to refute the argument, so I’ll attack the person.
I’m not wasting any serious amount of time on a clown like O’Keefe.
Comment by Serenity — January 12, 2012 @ 10:34 am - January 12, 2012
Would anyone want to have dinner with that dizzy English bint?
Comment by V the K — January 12, 2012 @ 2:01 pm - January 12, 2012
Actually I just came back from having dinner with two other people earlier tonight. We had a lovely time talking about our shared love of London, the merits of 3D movies, and the enduring appeal of Transport Tycoon.
I don’t assume you’re the same person in real-life that you are on this site, I’d hoped you’d have the good sense to do the same.
Comment by Serenity — January 12, 2012 @ 3:31 pm - January 12, 2012
What I want to know is, what are the laws in New Hampshire on impersonating someone. Additionally, we have no proof that he didn’t actually go into the voting booth and vote once handed the ballot, which might be an additional crime. (The whole “I require an ID” schtick establishes nothing) Also, what he doesn’t establish is how long the deceased have been on these lists, as there is no system in place to purge dead people from the list upon death.
And it’s hilarious how the person says, “I require an ID” like he’s standing for something greater and then goes on to lie and say “I will be back with my ID.” For all we know, he voted.
Comment by Cinesnatch — January 12, 2012 @ 5:06 pm - January 12, 2012
Ryk Bullock (who gets my vote for most gloriously outdated hairstyle) says there is a system, but according to this video, it’s not efficient (what do you expect?). I don’t expect it to be. It’s the government. Again, I want to know the longevity as to how long these names stay on the list. The death dates he has shown establish a three-month length. I’d be alarmed if the people had been dead for years.
Comment by Cinesnatch — January 12, 2012 @ 5:13 pm - January 12, 2012
I love how it occurred to the filmmakers to include the “Death Date” of the voter AFTER they began filming. Geniuses!
Also, did they have to pay MGMT royalties?
Comment by Cinesnatch — January 12, 2012 @ 5:22 pm - January 12, 2012
#24 through #26:
James O’Keefe picks liberal pets and skewers them. That’s every bit as fair as the MSM daily fare with conservatives. James O’Keefe caused a tsunami that shattered ACORN. The left fought back and did everything they could to discredit him. But the substance of his work stands and the damage has been done. Even the Time article linked to in #24 says as much.
It is passing strange that anyone would cry foul over James O’Keefe copying the methods used by Katie Couric in her Sarah Palin hit piece which was replete with all the editing shenanigans, context manipulation and intentional highlighting of unflattering moments.
To muse about whether the O’Keefe guy actually voted is like claiming virginity on Mother’s Day. The issue is that so far as the NH polls are structured, the O’Keefe guy was actually encouraged to vote without any ID by the poll worker. His demurring is a credit to his integrity. The point in that if he intended to vote dishonestly, he could have done so. Which is why Democrats round up winos, the homeless and people who will go door the dirty for a pack of cigarettes.
The system is actively and assiduously kept corruptible by those who want to corrupt it. That would be the progressives. That is how they turn their small numbers into winning numbers by voting early and voting often.
The little old poll worker asked the young O’Keefe impostor if his birthday was something, something, 1919. The impostor said “yes.” No one looked at him and said “you look very young for 92.” Why should they, in that totally-ready-for prime-time-corruption system?
You are welcome to your opinions of O’Keefe, but I would ask you to be a bit more attuned to what your own crowd passes off as “business-as-usual” or as “a-necessary-evil” or whatever solipsism permits you to look the other way.
Only you can send yourself off on a research assignment. However, I will implore you to pay attention to what the charges against O’Keefe have actually been in your assessment of the “validity” of his work.
Comment by Heliotrope — January 12, 2012 @ 5:57 pm - January 12, 2012
Gladly.
Gladly.
Because it makes your blatant, unprincipled bigotry all the more obvious.
You would think that, if Pomposity was principled, it would hold Barack Obama in the same contempt for actually doing all the things it accuses James O’Keefe of doing.
But Pomposity is not principled. It is omeone who could not give less of a shit about the truth and will happily lie about what people said and did in order to keep its welfare addiction going no matter what the larger consequences of its deceit, just like its Barack Obama.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 12, 2012 @ 6:35 pm - January 12, 2012
Helio >> I would appreciate if you didn’t put me in “that” group (“your own crowd”), as I have already attested to being in the center for all intents and purposes. While my criticisms in the past have been largely towards the right, I’m not lobbing the ball from the baseline on the other side of the court. In case you have a hard time seeing me, I’m by the net. Therefore, it’s not my responsibility to defend Katie Couric. Just so we’re clear: I don’t regard her as a LEGITIMATE JOURNALIST. And it’s insulting to me for anyone to assume that I do. However anyone else acts does not bear any relevance on my opinion of O’Keefe, any more than it does Michael Moore. They’re both hacks, as far as I’m concerned.
But, let’s talk bypass all that and get to the crux of things and talk about the substance of O’Keefe’s argument and forget about his preschool style of reporting: should voter ID’s be required to vote?
If I am homeless and have no address and am not allowed to purchase an ID card, should I not be allowed to vote?
If I am poor and have not the money ($7 in CA), should I be required to buy an ID card to be allowed to vote?
Where in the constitution does it require me to prove my citizenship in order to have my voice at the voting booth? Would the voter-ID requirement not be a violation of the Commerce Clause?
If someone really wanted to vote in the election and commit voter fraud, would it not be easy to create a series of fake ID’s? Do we then have to develop a system (more regulation; more government) to police these efforts?
Frankly, I think ID-requirement is a great idea, but these are questions I find myself asking.
How prevalent is this a problem that necessary action must be taken? Please provide some links about your progressive-voting-early-often comment if you have some handy. It makes me curious.
Comment by Cinesnatch — January 12, 2012 @ 7:07 pm - January 12, 2012
And, by the way … $50,000 it cost O’Keefe to produce that? I could have done it for 1/10th of the cost and did a way better job. Somebody needs to ask for a refund.
Comment by Cinesnatch — January 12, 2012 @ 7:09 pm - January 12, 2012
Bad news for you, toots. I am the same person on-line as I am in real life. Conservatives don’t have to fake anything.
Comment by V the K — January 12, 2012 @ 7:24 pm - January 12, 2012
Does this mean ND30 is not a conservative?
Comment by Cinesnatch — January 12, 2012 @ 7:36 pm - January 12, 2012
Let us demonstrate the point in a way that Cinesnatch will understand in response to each of his questions.
<blockquoteIf I am homeless and have no address and am not allowed to purchase an ID card, should I not be allowed to vote?
If Republicans want to bribe homeless people, poor people, and people with fake IDs with meals and cigarettes and drive them from precinct to precinct to vote, will you tolerate that as a necessary part of the process?
Will you oppose any measures put in place to prevent it?
If Republicans want to get non-citizens to go to the polls and vote, , poor people, and people with fake IDs with meals and cigarettes, will you tolerate that as a necessary part of the process?
Will you state that any attempt to restrict this by requiring people to prove their citizenship prior to voting is a violation of the Commerce Clause?
I think what needs to happen here is that we need to realize that Cinesnatch and other Obama Party voters are simply not going to fix a problem that they think benefits them. Thus, since both they and the DOJ say that voting multiple times, without IDs, and by non-citizens is all right, the Republican Party should take full advantage of that fact.
Since they refuse to follow or enforce the laws, clearly Republicans should not in any way feel compelled to do the same.
And then when the Obama Party is finally pushed out of office, we can put in place sane safeguards to make sure only eligible citizens vote – and only once.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 12, 2012 @ 8:20 pm - January 12, 2012
Yes.
I believe I already answered your question here:
Yes.
Yes.
Comment by Cinesnatch — January 12, 2012 @ 8:48 pm - January 12, 2012
ND30, feel free to readdress my previous post now that you have my answers to your questions.
Comment by Cinesnatch — January 12, 2012 @ 9:18 pm - January 12, 2012
Cines*****,
My apology is in order. I recall, now, that you informed me before that you do not consider yourself to be liberal. I will try to avoid the reminder in the future by having been twice warned. Good on you, and let me know if I slip up again.
I favor ID to vote. I favor being registered to vote “X” number of days before the election. (I prefer at least 30 days.) No person should be able to vote in more than one state or in more than one precinct within a state.
The homeless person conundrum does not move me much. I deal with some of the alcoholic homeless. I also deal with the homeless which the Salvation Army will shelter for limited time. We are talking about a category (homelessness) which is populated by the mentally ill, responsible people in crisis, misfits and so forth. There is much to be argued out in this category vis a vis aiding and abetting them in voting.
In no circumstance should the ID card be a form of Poll Tax which was outlawed by an amendment to the constitution.
Citizenship is a sovereignty right of every nation on Earth. We the People of the United States established and ordained the Constitution of The United States of America. It was not We the People in the United States. I have no idea why or how the Commerce Clause would have any effect on citizenship. States set the requirements for voting. Every state requires citizenship. There are no Federal elections. The candidates for president are represented in each state election by the election in each state of a slate of electors who will vote later in their state capitols as a part of the national electoral college.
I reluctantly favor a national ID card which should help provide citizenship verification nationwide. It would not ascertain state citizenship, but it should mesh nicely with state records.
Locally, we had a situation with the Democrats going to nursing homes to get people to vote absentee. The problem arose when alzheimer’s patients were “helped” through the process.
It seems that when accommodations are made for good purposes that people with evil intent flood in to take advantage.
I have no idea of the relationship of voting irregularity findings to the two political parties. It is common wisdom, however, that if an election is close that Democrats are experts at coming up with “lost” ballots and pulling off a win. The Al Franken election in Minnesota is a classic and the Gore attempts to structure the recount in Florida in 2000 are also classic.
If either party can herd “marginal” people into the polls with clear instructions the concept of one man, one vote is corrupted by “paying” (in a multitude of possible ways) for someone’s vote.
Winning by any means possible is not in the same spirit as the platitude of “getting out the vote.”
Comment by Heliotrope — January 12, 2012 @ 10:15 pm - January 12, 2012
No worries, Helio. Thanks for your thoughts and response.
Questions:
1a) Why are you reluctant about the national ID card? I think it’s a great idea. (Canada issues a citizenship card)
1b) Would every citizen have a right to a free national ID card every X amount of years (having to pay for any lost cards in the interim period) without having to pay for one? (The cost could easily be offset by the number of people who would surely lose their cards on a regular basis and have to cough up the dough.)
1C) If not, why? And if not, would that not be an inadvertent poll tax? If you have to prove your citizenship to vote and you need an ID to do so, if the only way to procure an ID is to purchase one, is that not essentially a form of poll tax?
1b) Would not a physical address included on the card amend *most* residency discrepancies?
Comment by Cinesnatch — January 12, 2012 @ 10:42 pm - January 12, 2012
I just realized that people would have to get a new card every time they changed addresses.
HOWEVER, if they are registered at a certain precinct and they have an ID card with a different address, it should still be fine, the name and picture would prove their identity.
Comment by Cinesnatch — January 12, 2012 @ 11:09 pm - January 12, 2012
Actually, your answers did a fine job of making my point for me.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 13, 2012 @ 2:03 am - January 13, 2012
For those of you here who actually have an open mind on this issue, I suggest you actually read this very careful study, rather than dismiss it blindly wtihout at least considering that you may be misguided: http://www.truthaboutfraud.org/pdf/TruthAboutVoterFraud.pdf
I actually know Justin, he actually went to my high school, and he is one of the most diligent, reasonble, hard-working people you will ever meet, not someone prone to reaching a conclusion then bolstering it post-hoc.
The fact is, every single fair-minded assessment of the issue has concluded that voter fraud is simply not a material issue, not even close, and that voter suppression (particularly suppression of minorities via scare tactics and misinformation) favored by the right is a much, much, MUCH bigger issue (although still not one that is likely determinative, ultimately, of many federal elections). This is the ultimate red herring, and the ultimate effort by the right wing to shine a light on a problem which does not actually exist to detract attention from a far more serious problem, which happens to benefit its candidates, so they will happily look the other way, and even encourage policies sure to lower turn-out among eligible voters that they simply don’t want to have a voice.
Comment by Jeff — January 13, 2012 @ 3:23 pm - January 13, 2012
Wow, that was a lot of “actually’s” in my last comment
. Feel free to ignore my poor writing, and focus on the study itself.
Comment by Jeff — January 13, 2012 @ 3:26 pm - January 13, 2012
The flaw with studies that claim ‘voter fraud isn’t a problem’ base it on the small number of prosecutions for a crime that is nearly impossible to prosecute. A person who votes anonymously by pretending to be someone else doesn’t leave a trail. Not to mention, most voter fraud occurs in areas run by Democrat machine where everyone who would have to investigate and prosecute vote fraud is part of the machine that benefits from it.
So, the foxes are guarding the hen house, and they insist they don’t see any missing chickens, and how dare you question their integrity?
Comment by V the K — January 13, 2012 @ 4:25 pm - January 13, 2012
I do so love when liberals try to quote studies.
Case in point, this hilarious statement on page 18.
Ah yes, well, then, that’s OK; if you claim you didn’t intend to commit fraud, you didn’t, and it’s not a problem, according to Justin. He gets around the fact of voter fraud by redefining the casting of illegal votes as not being fraudulent; voila, voter fraud vanishes.
And then Jeff, this was an interesting sentence:
How convenient. Even though there are studies that show the opposite of your assertion, they are not “fair-minded” and thus can be ignored as data points.
Next up is the assertion that supporting voter ID and citizenship checks means you are a racist, because apparently only minorities don’t have ID cards and aren’t citizens.
That’s the most interesting thing of all. Both Jeff and Justin try their hardest to argue that the vast majority of voter fraud instances can be explained away as random errors and omissions on government forms, lack of ID, or lack of citizenship proof.
But oddly enough, anti-Republican partisans like Jeff and his “friend” Justin insist that any type of ID or proof of citizenship checks would only disenfranchise Obama Party voters — which would mean that random errors, omissions, lack of ID, and lack of proof of citizenship only occur among Obama Party voters.
This therein is the problem. Republicans don’t believe that poor, elderly, or minority folks are any more or less likely to be unable to prove their identities or subject to random errors and omissions on government data forms. Obama Party members insist that a person’s skin color, age, and socioeconomic status indicate that they won’t have an ID, won’t have proof of citizenship, will be uniquely susceptible to random errors and omissions on government forms, and will vote only Obama Party.
In short, the basic problem is this: Republicans judge by what a person actually does, while Obama Party members make assumptions based on what a person is. It’s the old judging on character versus minority status question, as usual; Obama Party members believe that minority status determines behavior and Republicans think it doesn’t matter.
But anti-Republican partisans like Jeff and his friend Justin insist that random errors and the like only happen to Obama Party voters. Thus they believe that ANY sort of verification of ID or proof of citizenship will ONLY affect Obama voters.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 13, 2012 @ 4:41 pm - January 13, 2012
You are putting an awful lot of words / assumptions in my mouth. I don’t think that voter suppression efforts are necessarily racist, even though some in the GOP have outright admitted to a goal to discourage minority voting turnout, rather, I think the aim of suppression policies which are legal (such as requiring folks to purchase an ID) or more invidiously, well-documented illicit voter suppression efforts (fliers in minority neighborhoods giving the wrong date for elections, etc. etc.) have a disparate racial impact … big difference. The goal is to suppress the votes of folks who will more likely be sympathetic to your poltiical opponent — I don’t think the folks pushing these efforts give a damn about race, it’s all about, like most things in politics, winning.
And here is a question: why would the virtually non-existent documented examples of voter fraud benefit the Dems more than the GOP? Either side is equally capable of voter fraud. Unlike voter suppression efforts, which are clearly aimed at harming democratic voter turn-outs among majority-Democrat demographic constituencies (otherwise, why would the GOP be pushing these policies so hard), there is no reason to believe that the virutally non-existent voter fraud materially benefits either party, if it exists at all. Voter fraud is a red herring, an excuse to push policies that will help the GOP electorally by making likely-Dem voters less likely to vote. It’s really as simple as that.
By the way, I happen to be a prosecutor who handles far more complex / difficult cases than voter fraud cases, involving far more sophisticated defendants, who have a lot more to gain from breaking the law. If this practice was widespread (which logically makes no sense — the immense costs far outweight the potential small benefit to anyone who would be committing the fraud), it wouldn’t be all that difficult to investigate or prosecute, relatively speaking.
I think if you are enacting massive, substantial policies, with real costs / consequences etc., to address a purported problem, the burden shoudl be on you to prove that a problem actually exists, not on the left to prove the non-existence of said problem. At least, that is what I THOUGHT conservatives were in favor of: as little government action as possible, and only in response to an actual, documented issue that needs to be resolved. I am still waiting for any actual evidence of even mildly pervasive voter fraud. You can keep talking in the abstract, but as with many gov’t initiatives you love to criticize, the gov’t actions you are pushing to “solve” voter fraud will do a lot of harm with no documented good. And that seems antithetical to conservative ideology, to me.
Comment by Jeff — January 13, 2012 @ 5:06 pm - January 13, 2012
What this boils down to, Jeff, is that you oppose any type of validation of a person’s identity, residence, or citizenship in United States elections.
Furthermore, you insist that any attempt to do any of these validations is an attempt to drive Obama Party voters away from the polls.
To which I simply respond: why are only Obama Party voters unable to produce proof of identity, residence, and citizenship?
The reason you are tap-dancing around that subject is because if you were actually to apply your rant that validating identity, residence, or citizenship disenfranchises people, the net effect would be seen across both political parties – which would also mean that Republicans were suppressing their OWN votes as well as those of Obama Party members.
To suppress your own party’s votes in order to suppress the other makes no sense. It blows a hole in your demagoguing that Republicans are racists who don’t want minorities to vote.
Meanwhile, the Constitution is clear; only eligible citizens have the right to vote in US elections. The attempts of people like yourself and Justin to ignore this and to encourage and support ineligible voters to vote is a flagrant and blatant violation of the constitution, and well within the enforcement rights of government to prevent.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 13, 2012 @ 6:52 pm - January 13, 2012
And this one was funny.
By the way, I happen to be a prosecutor who handles far more complex / difficult cases than voter fraud cases, involving far more sophisticated defendants, who have a lot more to gain from breaking the law. If this practice was widespread (which logically makes no sense — the immense costs far outweight the potential small benefit to anyone who would be committing the fraud), it wouldn’t be all that difficult to investigate or prosecute, relatively speaking.
Really?
How, Jeff, do you prove that a given ballot was illegally cast?
After all, you want to be able to walk up to any polling place, be handed a ballot without any proof of identity, citizenship, or residence, fill it out, and drop it into the box.
Even if I had a registration list, you simply claim that you just moved into the area and didn’t have time to register; same-day registration, as demanded by the Obama Party, means you simply get to cast a ballot and go.
You can then drive to other precincts and repeat the process, registering as a new person each time. And then, later on, how am I going to prove it’s the same you? You could sign the cards differently, use different addresses, and so forth.
Furthermore, even in the event that I caught you voting multiple times using same-day registration, what do I do? I can’t pull your ballot out of the box because I don’t know which one it is. I can’t arbitrarily subtract one or however many times I think you voted from the total. The final count has to stand.
And as a final pleasant twist, you are electing the very officials who would be responsible for prosecuting you. They simply exercise “discretion”, and off you go.
This is why voter ID is necessary. There simply is no place to stop voter fraud other than the checkpoint. Once the ballot is in, there is nothing that can be done, and if sufficient fraud is done to elect a given politician, that person can then short-circuit the punishment process.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 13, 2012 @ 7:09 pm - January 13, 2012
Vince,
I am “reluctant” about a national identity card because it comes way too close to a number tattooed on your wrist that the Nazi regime found useful. It is anti-libertarian in nearly every respect. On the other hand, I wish I could flash a card at the TSA and bypass the indignity being just another piece of meat that might be a terrorist.
In terms of how to plan out the potential uses of a national identity card, I suspect that the same minds that design web sites could also brainstorm on how to make a national ID cover a lot of bases.
We are a very mobile country and voting in state elections may be a bit passé, but I doubt it. Certainly states need to update their computer logs and be more prepared to fend off voting fraud.
The problem lies not so much on the honest intent of the voter, but the dishonest intent of the party or group that is structured to prey upon the weaknesses of the voting system. You might ask Bill Ayres about how that form of amorality works. I am not a particularly good resource on how the criminal or immoral mind works.
Comment by Heliotrope — January 13, 2012 @ 7:58 pm - January 13, 2012
Thanks, Helio.
Thanks, Jeff. I hope someone can thoughtfully address all of the great points/questions you brought up, because I would like to hear the responses.
Comment by Cinesnatch — January 13, 2012 @ 9:09 pm - January 13, 2012
Vince,
Another issue I have with a ‘national ID card’ is that it would be prone to be (mis)used like Social Security numbers. It’s only been in the last ten years that companies have stopped using the SSN for everything, which it was never intended for.
Comment by The_Livewire — January 13, 2012 @ 10:02 pm - January 13, 2012
The_Livewire,
I still get unnerved a little when someone asks me for my SSN. I want to say: it’s none of your God-damn business!
Comment by Cinesnatch — January 14, 2012 @ 12:10 am - January 14, 2012