Political Philosophy

Remove all ads!

Yeah the whole article was kinda hinky. Makes you wonder.

 

Something that some of us suspected all along:

I'm so surprised....

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2...ssion/index.html?source=rss&aim=/news/feature

 

Yeah chandos except for the fact that Lorraine Minnite is about as unbiased as ann Coulter.
She also thinks it is just criminal to ask for id before being able to vote(oh the horror !, they want me to prove i am who i say i am).

 

I know Michelle Malkin is reviled by the progressives, but she has a great article on the voter fraud going on in Ohio.

Read here

There is more, but the majority of the rest of it was video and pasted pictures which don't post well.

 

You're really pushing it with this one. Lorraine Minnite is a respected political scientist who has spent the last 8 years studying voter fraud and I've seen nothing that would lead me to the conclusion that she considers it "just criminal" to require ID at the polls. Anne Coulter, on the other hand, isn't even respected in conservative circles.

After years of study, it is Lori Minnite's conclusion that voter fraud is rare, that safeguards to prevent fraud are already in place, and that individual voter fraud rarely sways election results. She bases this viewpoint on data, not on partisanship. Granted, she could easily appear biased if you aren't actually looking at the data.

Regarding ID's at the polls, the argument against requiring them is rather more academic than emotional. Put simply, a large percentage of the elderly (about a quarter) don't have drivers licenses or any other photo identification, most students don't have drivers licenses which show their current address, and minorities living in urban areas are more likely not to have a valid drivers license**.

* A University of Milwaukee study found that 97% of Wisconsin students do not have driver's licenses showing their current address.

** The same study also revealed that only 47 percent African Americans and 43 percent of Hispanics living in Milwaukee County have valid driver's licenses.

 

There is an answer to that: Obviously Lorraine Minnite lies. Probably she has made a typo somewhere, that proves it. If not, that only proves how cunning a liar she is. And anyway, if she doesn't lie, she's biased, which is about the same. The difference between 'lie' and 'dislike' are just four letters - and an excuse sought and found.

That's just their fault and they have no one to blame but themselves. It isn't as if the GOP took their driver's licenses away. Presumable voting preferences aside, by not having valid drivers licences they clearly say that they do not want to vote. And that they are negligent and should not vote. That's what driver's licenses are all about. It's a litmus test. The GOP cannot possibly be blamed for making reasonable proposals, only because they happen to give them more electoral leverage.

 

And here, all this time, I thought they were about "driving." Just as I thought my SS# was "supposed to be" about my SS retirement account. Silly me.

Yes, everyone who does not have a drivers license should be accused of "fraud."

 

Well, driving without a valid drivers license at least. Which certainly is, at the very least, a felony, for which they would forfeit their right to vote anyway.

The best thing is that voter ID laws allow to prevent some of them pacos and negroes from voting, not to mention them lefty students, while being able to accuse them of trying to break the law - voting without a proper ID - which is just awesome. First screw them, then blame them.

These criminals have to be blocked from voting, to defend the rule of law against the onslaught of criminals.

​

 

Ragusa, I actually don't consider requiring a picture ID to be entirely unreasonable, but the legislation being floated (and, in a few states, passed) wants the address on the ID to match the home address. This is a problem for college students (who often attend school out of state or live at home when they are not at school), the homeless, the elderly, the infirm, travelers, etc. The ultimate question as I see it is why, when we don't actually have a problem with voter fraud, should we be checking ID's at the voting booth?

 

Well, it's the best thing for the Republican Party since Richard Nixon declared the "war on drugs." RN's solution was just keep all those "lefty students" locked-up for smoking a little MJ. It's hard to vote from a jail cell.

 

You know what, I have to show my ID card when I go voting. But I live in Germany where we conduct our elections orderly So orderly in fact that I don't need to register for voting because I am registered: You need to register when you take a residence. The district of my residence determines where I can vote (and where I have to pay taxes). A lot of this voter suppression nonsense cannot occur here, and luckily, fortunately doesn't.

And then, there have not been sudden changes in the requirements, as 'just in time before the elections'. I mean, how long does it take to get a new, valid driver's license? Or a passport? Or an ID card? In Germany, it took them six weeks or so to deliver my forgery proof ID card. And that wasn't at a time when hundreds, thousands suddenly wanted new ones, too.

Good question. What strikes me is that the ID issue is being raised only by the right with regard to elections, and only then, and by Homeland Security. I would more inclined to accept such laws as reasonable, if they would give people time to adapt and get themselves proper papers so that they would not face problems at the ballot. Iirc these laws were being put in power shortly before the current election, iirc exclusively by R dominated legislatures. Why the hurry? Oh I forgot, voter fraud is rampant and action must be taken! Now! In my view America's voting laws are dangerously incoherent at best (like: One state completely bans felons, another does not, a third differentiates ...). It is beyond me why the US does not tackle this issue comprehensively because it is poisoning US politics by questioning the integrity of the elections.

---------- Added 0 hours, 41 minutes and 44 seconds later... ----------

martaug,
you might be interested in this: I mailed an inquiry to Lt.Gov. Bohlinger's office and got this reply:

Mr. St. Pierre ending up in the US Armed Forces when he joined the Canadian Navy is plausible (think of this and this).

 

Wow drew i guess those 47% of blacks & 43% of hispanics never cashed a check(needs an id) or got a job(needs an id) or got a utiltity service in their name(needs an id) or bought a car(needs an id) or got a credit card . . . well you get the picture.
Also the issue of voter id has been around for years, i can remember them trying to pass a voter id law here in nc back in the early 90's.

College students are eligible to get a state issued id from the dmv with their in-state address, if the don't drive.
Now if they drive, almost all states require you to get a valid state drivers license if you live in-state more than 30 days & have out of state license(just like when you move from one house to another).

On lorraine minnite, you might want to look into some of the amici briefs that were filed with the US Supreme Court concerning Indiana Democratic Party v. Todd Rokita and William Crawford v. Marion County Election Board cases, you know, the voter id cases they ruled on last year.
She was one of those saying the laws would suppress poor & minority voting.
But i forgot, she's not biased, just because she co-authored a book titled
"Keeping Down the Black Vote
Race and the Demobilization of American Voters"
No,no bias there.

 

Stop being intentionally dense, Martaug. The drivers license is hardly the only form of ID in existence, first of all, and a license that is no longer valid is still usually enough to pass muster as a photo ID. People who no longer drive are unlikely to feel a reason to bother. Housewives, who don't need to have a job, are also less likely to need a photo ID at all.

Further, requiring a college student or a transient to foot the bill for an additional non-driver ID just to vote when we don't actually have a problem with voter fraud serves no purpose but to make it harder for them to vote. It would be one thing if the government actually required everyone to have a current photo ID that has the correct address, but it currently does not. Ultimately, these measures are going to serve to drive a substantial number of minorities, the young, and the elderly (with the possible exception of the elderly, all very strong democratic blocs) away from the polls.

 

Actually drew most state ID's from the dmv are either free or about $10.
Personally, i don't know any college students that don't have ID as they need them to buy alcohol, tobacco & get into clubs(expired id's don't work as clubs keep all expired or obviously fake id's & destroys them.

And i like being dense thank you very much

 

In Canada, in addition to the card they mail out telling you where to go to vote, you also need 2 pieces of Identification. One with your name and photo, the other with your name and Address. In my case, since I CAN'T get a liscence due to a Neurological disability (the ability to drive a car safely is apparently a pre-requisite), I was able to use a passport and an admission card from a Hospital to satisfy the requirements. Since such leeway is potentially there, I don't consider it wrong to ask voters to prove their identity and address before handing them a ballot.

 

Which states gives out non-driver ID's for free? I don't disbelieve you, per se, but I've never seen that. The issue with students, remember, isn't that they don't have a valid license, but that the address listed on it isn't the address at which they reside on voting day. Most students use their parents' address until they graduate, and for good reason - they live there half the year (just not on election day). Requiring them to go pay $10 at the DMV in order to simply exercise their constitutional right to participate in our democracy is, in effect, charging them $10 to vote.

There's a simple solution to this, though. Require a current photo ID (as I said, I don't consider this unreasonable*), but remove the address requirement. People move, maintain multiple addresses for various reasons, become homeless, live on the road as part of their jobs, etc. No one should be getting turned away at the polls for forgetting to update for forgetting to update his license after a move (or, worse, moving and dutifully updating his license the day before the election, causing it to no longer match what the poll workers have on file), having his other home address on his license, etc. Further, a state that chooses to require the presentation of a photo ID should also grant it's non-driver ID's free of charge. They shouldn't be charging people to vote.

* Were it not for the fact that the republicans pushing for these measures have been flat-out lying about the severity of voter fraud in our country, I'd be willing to buy into the idea that this isn't just a partisan ploy, but I think the dems have been handling this incorrectly. Rather than cry foul as they have, the dems should call the GOP on its bluff, arguing that of course they want to prevent voter fraud (who wouldn't?!), just as the GOP obviously doesn't want to see any fraud prevention measures drive people away from the polls, taking the wind out of the GOP's sails and, by taking part in the legislative process and providing some much needed transparency to the initiative, ensuring that no one legally entitled to vote is turned away from the polls. Triangulation is a beautiful thing.

 

Drew,
don't be so darn sensible.

 

Drew, half the point of the voter IDs is to ensure that tehy aren't voting in multiple areas.

As for the claim that voter fraud is not a problem, what do you call ACORN? This isn't the first year they've pulled stuff like this, just the first year it's been so big and widespread. Just look up the issue of the dead vote if you think voter fraud is new or unreal. That's been going on for decades.

 

I agree, but the thing is, if a college student goes out of state to school (s)he likely still has his/her original state's drivers license. State laws on drivers licenses generally require that you get a new license within 30 days of establishing a new permanent address. The thing is, a dorm room isn't considered your permanent address - that's usually still your parent's house, and most college students don't have cars anyway (except commuters who live in-state), so what's the point of getting a new license? An out-of-state drivers license will be good enough to allow you to buy a pack a cigarettes (and alcohol for those student at least 21 years of age), but it won't do you any good when you show up to vote.

You do realize that there is a big difference between voter fraud and voter registration fraud, right? Most states require all "new registrations" to be verified before they are officially put on the rolls. So all of these bogus registrations will wind up in the waste bin. The problem areas are some states allow you to register at the polling station, and then proceed directly to the voting booth. But all these early fraudulent registrations aren't getting through.

 

It turns out, upon looking at the data, that this almost never happens. It isn't exactly hard to figure out that someone commited voter fraud when two Gary Bussey's with the same social security number vote in two different districts. The state is going to notice, whether they ask for ID or not. If Gary tries to vote in two different states, asking for ID isn't really going to stop him from doing it.

Aldeth addressed this just fine. Voter fraud =/= registration fraud.