 |
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
I'm still having trouble here... Apparently, the ineligible felons, IF they're indeed real, registered under their OWN names and presented THEMSELVES at the polls to vote... Their IDENTIFICATION wasn't the issue... Their eligibility was...
How would a voter ID law fix that?
excon
Hello again, tom:
Yeah, I'm still having trouble... I'm a felon. I don't you think you could FIND another felon who wants to vote MORE than I do... But, casting a fraudulent vote ISN'T worth going to the slam.. I mean, it's NOT like they don't have my name and address. I can think of a MILLION crimes I'd rather commit than THAT.
Now, I can imagine there are one or two felons who could be convinced to risk it ALL for NOTHING in their pockets. Think about it, we're talking about FELONS risking EVERYTHING for NOTHING...
That's NOT how felons act.. It's not how ANYBODY acts. I have a problem believing that somebody convinced 1100 of them to do that...
excon
Cases of voter-ID election fraud found 'virtually non-existent' | MinnPost
Quote:
•Felons or noncitizens sometimes register to vote or cast votes because they are confused about their eligibility. The database shows 74 cases of felons voting and 56 cases of noncitizens voting.
Hello again, tal:
Thanks for that...
Let me see... We got the right wing fear merchants in one corner, and we got the legitimate press who actually conducted an investigation in the other...
I don't know about tom and Steve, but I'm going with the legitimate press..
excon
Ya know Ex, even there guys say there is no fraud, and in PA, the former state attorney now govenor says he has never seen fraud, the party leader said it was to get Mitt in the White House, and still they holler FOUL!!
Go figure! But don't say BOO, or they will soil themselves and blame OBAMA, their mama, and YOU! Good thing the sky hasn't fallen yet. And yes that's pee trickling on their heads... Hehehe! Don't tell 'em. SHHHHHHHH!!
Hello again, tal:Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Yeah, I can see it now..
"Hey Bubba", I say, "comere. I got a caper for us."
Bubba, looking upbeat, says "Cool, ex. I could use some extra bread. Who're we gonna do, and how much is our take?"
I say to Bubba, "Yeah, man... We're gonna VOTE. They'll NEVER catch us, the filthy coppers. If they do, they'll send us back, and we ain't gonna make any money, either... It's our civic duty."
Bubba looks at me crosseyed, and throws me out the door.
excon
Imagine what the wingers would say if Romney won, and they took the senate, and house, and we filibuster all their repeals.
Bwa haw haw!!
"Down the river and thru the woods to grandmas cliff we go, mitt knows the way to hire the slaves, to shovel his ice and snow OHHHH!"
Joke all you want to about it.. the fact is that the convictions are real, and in a close race like the Franken -Coleman race ,it is likely that vote irregularities were decisive . Much of the problem stems from same day registration which is a ridiculous practice begging for fraud .A legitimate voter id system would eliminate those questions .
Tal and Joe Biden... perfect together .Quote:
"Down the river and thru the woods to grandmas cliff we go, mitt knows the way to hire the slaves, to shovel his ice and snow OHHHH!"
I guess what your really saying is there are enough safegaurds in place that voter fraud can't happen? Stop living in the clouds and see what you think of the video.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/04/08/DC-Polling-Place-Holder-Ballot
No one said it can't happen, no one siad it didn't happen, what they said is the incidence is low and even it a single person said he hadn't seen it, that doesn't mean anything. The question is are people being denied their right using technicalities
Since the right is not universal (age ,citizen ,in some states felons are restricted from voting) ,then it necessary to insure the integrity of the franchise . Voter photo id is a reasonable and prudent way to ensure it . ANY fraudulent vote weakens the integrity of the entire franchise .
Also the evidence suggests that Voter id laws do not negatively impact any voting group.
Stephan Thernstrom;a professor of history emeritus at Harvard University,and Abigail Thernstrom,vice chairwoman of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights ,argue in favor of Voter id laws .
Voter ID laws boost democracy - BostonHerald.comQuote:
In the case of Indiana, whose voter ID law was in effect for the 2008 presidential election, there is some data about participation. That was a very good year for Democrats in general, but Democratic turnout rose more in Indiana, with its ID law in force, than in any other state. Georgia, which also had a new voter ID law in place that year for the first time, also had a huge jump in turnout, almost all of it from Democratic voters.
There are better and worse ID laws, and it seems obvious that the requisite proof of identity should not be needlessly burdensome to get; the process should be made as convenient as possible. The Texas Department of Public Safety, for example, provides free election identification cards to citizens who request them. Every state should make acquiring an ID equally easy.
President Ben Jealous of the NAACP has blasted voter ID laws and called for a “high tide of registration and mobilization and motivation and protection.”
If, indeed, the voter ID laws inspire drives to register citizens and get them to the polls (and get them photo IDs), won't America be better off? More people will gain the freedom to watch an argument in a court of law, board a train or a plane, and even buy a bottle of scotch. Democracy will have been enhanced. Sensible civil rights advocates might consider that, and join the drive for ID laws
Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
A good point. The only people who are prepared to, 'jump through the hoops' so to speak are those people who have some some of commitment to the political process. They want their vote because it is important to them. This group represents the 50 something percent that turns out on a regular basis at election time.
The apathetic minority have no political axe to grind. Unless of course they see something in in for them. So if there is even one hoop to jump through in order to get an I.D then they can't be bothered because it is just one vote.
Tut
I have repeatedly said, its not the requirement to have a valid ID that I oppose, it's the roll out of the process that I strongly disagree with. In Texas a third of the county DMV's were closed. I have already stated that in Ohio, despite the 4 hour waiting in line to get a ballot, they have cut the early voting times and this is evident in Florida as well.
Still doing the reseach for the other red states that have enacted these laws, but it seems at this time that they all have one thing and common, no thought was given to how this would cause any hardship on people who have voted before, LEGALLY, but cannot vote NOW. Even in PA its being shown that the government cannot keep there assurance that free ID's would be given to those elderly who want them.
So I ask again, to get a few must the many be denied their rights? Once you recognize that though it's a GREAT idea, you must also recognize the complexities that have to be addressed to implement that idea properly, AND FAIRLY!!
Now what's wrong with that??
I thoroughly reject the notion its okay to make people jump through hoops to exercise their right to vote. That patently straight from Jim Crow.
Boo hoo.. in other countries voters risk their lives to vote. Here a wait on line is an unreasonable inconvenience.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
What good is this?
I am sure that if you had to stand in line for 24 hours to cast a vote your would? But how does such a system cater for the disinterested voter who would give up an go home?
Tut
I find it curious Tom you push and wave the flag of original intent but suddenly you want to use twenty first century methods to define who is eligible to vote. Tell me, Tom, what do you think the original intent was? Was it to give the vote to women, to ordinary people of various races and circumstance or was it a somewhat exclusive club? How come you are not suggesting original intent?Could it be it doesn't suit your purpose or would appear more ridiculous than this insistence on photo id? Will you want an imbedded chip next?Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Why insist on reasonable and prudent measures here when you will not hear of them in any other constitutional argument?
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
So, we should live DOWN to their standards?? What happened to American exceptionalism? You guys are silly.
excon
A little more on original intent
It seems the same attitudes remain todayQuote:
"At its birth, the United States was not a democratic nation—far from it. The very word "democracy" had pejorative overtones, summoning up images of disorder, government by the unfit, even mob rule. In practice, moreover, relatively few of the nation's inhabitants were able to participate in elections: among the excluded were most African Americans, Native Americans, women, men who had not attained their majority, and white males who did not own land.
John Adams, signer of the Declaration of Independence and later president, wrote in 1776 that no good could come from enfranchising more Americans:"
Hello! Original intent said that Amendment changes the Consititution.Voting rights were expanded through the amendment process . Therefore it satifies original intent.Quote:
I find it curious Tom you push and wave the flag of original intent but suddenly you want to use twenty first century methods to define who is eligible to vote. Tell me, Tom, what do you think the original intent was? Was it to give the vote to women, to ordinary people of various races and circumstance or was it a somewhat exclusive club? How come you are not suggesting original intent?Could it be it doesn't suit your purpose or would appear more ridiculous than this insistence on photo id? Will you want an imbedded chip next?
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:31 AM. |