Voting rights achieved; racism greatly diminished

It is hard to find evidence of discrimination in voting. Maybe that is because it no longer is a factor. In fact, if you look at the graph, the logical question might be how were white discouraged from going to the polls?

There are lots of discrimination "problems" that are now solved and remain only in the fevered liberal imaginations.

President Obama is going to talk at the anniversary of the Martin Luther King "dream" speech.

Racial identity is interesting. President Obama has no family history or experience with any of America's racist past. He is essentially the son of an immigrant brought up by in an established white family who helped him travel widely and attend fine private schools. His life has been one of privilege based on race, not challenge. If the President speaks authoritatively on the history of race in the U.S., his authority is based on his research, not his own experience, no matter how he tries to wrap it.

I remember Martin Luther King when he was active; it is unlikely that the President does. He was too young and living too far away. The part about Kings speech I like the best is, "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

This is what we should remember about the speech; that is what the President should emphasize. We should work to make racial identity insignificant. The President, with his background with firm roots in both the black and white communities, should champion that.

Posted by Christine & John at August 19, 2013 12:11 AM
Comments
Comment #369539

“It is hard to find evidence of discrimination in voting.”

Other than caging, gerrymandering and voter ID laws of course, right? The whole success of the 2010 election was not all the right wing morons elected to US Congress by TEA Party voters but rather the swinging of state legislatures and governorships to the right which allows them to control policy related to elections in their states.

“…the logical question might be how were whites discouraged from going to the polls?”

It was a New Black Panther Party member posted at the door of every white polling place in America, right? Time whites get ruled by a black man…

The real answer is McCain and Romney. The best man for the race didn’t win either of those primaries and anti-Obama sentiment wasn’t enough to bring all the discouraged white voters to their polling places. They’re an unhappy lot. Why vote if you think the two parties are virtually the same and our country is being overrun by dark skinned drug mules and black militant Muslim ancestors of slaves.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at August 18, 2013 10:51 PM
Comment #369547

Adam

MOST gerrymandering is BECAUSE of the voting rights act and similar legislation which requires minority majority districts.

Voter ID laws do not stop a signficant number of legitimate voters.

In any case, blacks now vote at higher levels than whites. This is a clear indication that if there is any problem it is not enough to stop voters.

Re the New Black Panthers - that was a single case, but very egregious. Holder was negligent in his duty when he let that drop. Indeed, Holder probably had racial motivation. But the law was no designed to counter black racism, was it.

Re Obama (and Holder for that matter) they are the sons of immigrants with no family history of being slaves in the U.S. Don’t try to pull that slave thing. It is getting old. None of us today experienced slavery. We bear no guilt for it. I do not hold accountable today’s black Americans because some of their ancestors sold slaves, nor some white Americans because some of their ancestors bought them. Nor those who are mixed, like Malcolm X, whose ancestors did both.

Posted by: CJ at August 19, 2013 6:10 AM
Comment #369552

CJ:

You are smarter and wiser than I am on a lot of topics but on the subject of race you seem a bit out of touch with the sentiments of many white conservative voters. I have family members who hate President Obama and blame all their problems on immigrants and blacks. You only have to visit the comment threads on some of the numerous Internet communities out there to see this isn’t a small number of people. It’s crazy. The number of discouraged white voters is growing every year and they are increasingly blaming their problems on minorities.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at August 19, 2013 7:48 AM
Comment #369555

I must say Adam Ducker, you have no idea what you are talking about and your examples of family members mean nothing. As I have stated before; I am black and was raised the son of a share cropper in SC; I can trace my roots back to the slaves of whites in the Albemarle Sound area of NC.

I have black family members who love Obama and I have members who hate Obama. So using family members is ridiculous. The truth is that Democrats have for decades not allowed blacks to be assimilated into society by building low income housing and bunching blacks together in segregated communities. It’s all done in the name of “compassion”, but has only hurt blacks.

C&J is correct in his assumption of the success of 1st an 2nd generation blacks in America. It is only the blacks who have been in America for generations who face problems and this is because of leftist policies. When blacks become educated and are able to do well; they will just naturally move away from liberalism.

Regarding the black panthers; like Sharpton, Jackson, and the modern day NAACP, they are an embarrassment to the black community.

Regarding voter ID; I have o problem with presenting an ID in order to vote. So…Adam Ducker, you do not speak for this back man.

Posted by: Political Hostage at August 19, 2013 10:47 AM
Comment #369556

I might also include; welfare’s purpose was to place the black community on government handouts, the destruction of the black family can be laid at the feet of the Democratic Party, who paid to play. The more children out of wedlock, the more welfare. I personally know black men who lived with women and their OWN children; but because they were not married, they were able to draw welfare checks. I’m sure this happens with whites as well, but the subject is blacks.

The ultimate goal of the Democratic Party is NEVER compassion; it’s always about the votes. I personally know that it is liberal Democrats who are the first to complain when a black moves into their neighborhood, just like it was the Kennedy’s who supported wind turbines as long as they weren’t in their neighborhoods. The life of the liberal Democrat is nothing more than hypocrisy.

It all boils down to this: the left tells blacks and minorities, “you will never amount to anything, you are the down trodden of society, let us help you…let us throw you some scraps”. On the other hand, Conservatives say, “you can be whatever you want to be, let us give you a hand up”. You know the old say, “give a man a fish and the next day he will still be hungry, teach a man to fish and he will provide for himself”. The left gives the fish, and the right teaches a man to fish.

It’s a sad situation when successful blacks like Obama and Holder are unable to tell the black community that success is theirs for the taking. Instead they look down on their own kind and tell them “you must stay down”. MLK was nothing like Obama, Holder, or the false black leadership of today; he believed all Americans, black and white, could be all they wanted to be.

Adam Ducker, we don’t need people like you and Stephen Daugherty who know NOTHING about the black community; we need leaders like Allen West, J.C. Watts, Thomas Sowell, Condoleezza Rice, Alan Keyes, Clarence Thomas, Michael Steele, and Herman Cain.

Posted by: Political Hostage at August 19, 2013 11:13 AM
Comment #369558

It would be interesting to learn how some on WatchBlog would like to ensure that only those entitled to vote, actually vote. Or, is it acceptable for anyone to vote regardless of eligibility?

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 19, 2013 5:05 PM
Comment #369559

Do we have any evidence of large numbers of ineligible people voting in our elections? If this isn’t a current problem, then why do we need to harass eligible voters with stupid laws?

Posted by: Warren Porter at August 19, 2013 5:32 PM
Comment #369561

Why do we harass anybody with stupid laws, not just voter eligibility, Porter??????

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at August 19, 2013 5:44 PM
Comment #369562

I wonder if Warren might consider the existence of “stupid laws” as the reason we don’t have the evidence he speaks of.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 19, 2013 5:48 PM
Comment #369564

Adam

There are hateful weirdos everywhere. I remember people blaming Bush for everything.

I do worry about a “red neck” stereotype. There are people who hate and fear white southerners. My own son had some of those dumb ideas. He has lots of diverse friends. He was telling me about “red necks” and the ideas he got from his friends. I pointed out to him that the people around our farms are red necks and they are the nicest people we know. And the county has lot of black red necks, drive pickup trucks, own guns, work with and go hunting with the white ones. It just is not what we see on TV.

Warren et al

I think this debate on IDs is silly. You say that there is not much voter fraud and you are probably right. But how many people do you think there are in the U.S. w/o some kind of ID? Mind you, these people could not legally drive, cash checks, use credit, own a home, owns a car, borrow a library book, travel on an airplane, have a steady job or collect welfare. A person w/o an ID, in short, cannot do anything a normal person does. If we find a person like this, we would be doing him a favor by bringing him into civilization.

Posted by: CJ at August 19, 2013 7:17 PM
Comment #369565

LOL…good point C/J

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 19, 2013 7:22 PM
Comment #369578
Do we have any evidence of large numbers of ineligible people voting in our elections? If this isn’t a current problem, then why do we need to harass eligible voters with stupid laws?

Posted by: Warren Porter at August 19, 2013 5:32 PM

So, does Warren Porter think we are harassing people when they are asked for an ID at banks, when cashing a check, when going to a doctor, dentist or hospital? Or perhaps when stopped by the police for a traffic violation, or when involved in a traffic accident. I recently traveled with my wife on a cruise and I was asked for an ID before boarding the ship. I had to show a passport ID when entering Mexico and Canada…was that to be considered harassment? I haven’t been to DC in a few years, but tell me, are visitors required to show an ID when entering he Capital building?

What Warren Porter said is truly silly and ignorant. Tell us Warren, how many times a week do you show an ID? Do you feel harassed when you show it?

How can you explain the fact that I am black and I have not problem with showing an ID?

Posted by: Political Hostage at August 19, 2013 9:38 PM
Comment #369594

Political what is silly and ignorant isn’t Warren, it is you and other conservatives that have created this ruse that ineligible voters are voting in elections. It is false and only the ignorant believe it. Only the truly ignorant would compare getting on an air plane, or driving or getting a credit card or any of the other red herrings you have brought up with voting.

The fact is voters are registered to vote and that is enough. For crying out loud I get my ballot in the mail and send it back in. I need no ID because I am registered. Could the ballot be intercepted, yes it could but it hasn’t it isn’t a problem.

The real issue here is the Bircher Conservatives cannot win an election on merit. They need deception, They need gerrymandering, They need small turn outs and they need ignorant people to follow them. They therefore need to create smokescreens to get voter suppression laws passed to create the smaller turn outs. SO far it has back fired. But the truly ignorant such as yourself keep spewing the myths misinformation half truths and outright lies that convince the ignorant conservative that ineligible voters are voting.

Posted by: j2t2 at August 19, 2013 10:50 PM
Comment #369595
You say that there is not much voter fraud and you are probably right. But how many people do you think there are in the U.S. w/o some kind of ID?

There are just 10 such cases of fraud; however, 21 million American citizens of voting age do not have an ID

Posted by: Warren Porter at August 19, 2013 11:16 PM
Comment #369601

As someone who has worked polling places during elections multiple times over the years I can say the voter ID topic is moronic. In Arkansas we ask for a photo ID. If you don’t have it you can provide a current bill with your address. If you don’t have that you vote provisionally and that ballot is put under extra scrutiny before it’s counted. This system works just fine all over the country. Just don’t tell conservatives that. This is another case of white conservatives scared to death that minorities (specially Hispanic people) are voting unlawfully. It ALWAYS comes back to race with the segment of white rube voters that get whipped up into a frenzy every few years around election time and empower the kind of people you shouldn’t trust to wash your car let alone run our country.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at August 20, 2013 1:21 AM
Comment #369602

Political Hostage: “So…Adam Ducker, you do not speak for this back man.”

I don’t recall speaking to you or for you but let me quote this one: “On the other hand, Conservatives say, ‘you can be whatever you want to be, let us give you a hand up’.”

To this I say AHAHAAHHHHHAHAHAHA. I wish you were a parody of a conservative but sadly you’re not.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at August 20, 2013 1:23 AM
Comment #369605

21 million American citizens do not have an ID. WHY???? Do these 21 million have a job, bank account, cash checks, on welfare, collect social security? What do these 21 million people do? All those examples I gave need an ID. So something don’t jive with your numbers, Porter. Same question to you Ducker. If Id’s are so moronic why do we need one for all the little things we do daily??????

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at August 20, 2013 9:32 AM
Comment #369608

KAP, you will notice that AD nor WP answered the question if they had to present ID’s at any time. I want to know why the left is not campaigning and protesting in front of banks, doctor’s and dentist’s offices, or hospitals; claiming it is harassment for these and other institutions to request an ID. In fact, I would like to see these two go on a WH tour or enter the Capital building without presenting an ID.

When this country was founded, only landowners were allowed to vote. Do you reckon the people voting were required to prove they were land owners? So, proof of eligibility to vote was present from the foundation of the country.

The left loves to tout that we live in different times today than we did in times past. Yes we do…we live in times when we have 13-20 million illegals in the country. We have borders that the Obama administration has refused to defend, and we certainly live in times when the rights of voters should be protected. Voter ID’s are a protection. If only one person votes illegally, then one American’s vote has been disenfranchised. How would it be to tell j2t2, AD, or WP, “your vote don’t count”. Would they cry??? Sure they would, but if it’s the possibility of conservative votes being disenfranchised…who cares?

Posted by: Political Hostage at August 20, 2013 10:00 AM
Comment #369611

Hostage, Yep, right on!!!!!!!

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at August 20, 2013 11:19 AM
Comment #369615

“There are hateful weirdos everywhere. I remember people blaming Bush for everything.”

Dang C&J, I would hope you remember yesterday :)

Posted by: kctim at August 20, 2013 12:44 PM
Comment #369616

“21 million American citizens of voting age do not have an ID”

How will they get their “Obamacare?”
How will government “streamline” the process without patient ID?
How will government provide better health care with records that follow patients, without ID?
How will government pay for a patients health care if that person does not have ID?
How will government punish people for not having health insurance?

Posted by: kctim at August 20, 2013 1:03 PM
Comment #369627
I want to know why the left is not campaigning and protesting in front of banks, doctor’s and dentist’s offices, or hospitals

The 24th amendment protects one’s right to vote. It does not protect any right to the services offered by a bank, doctor or dentist. Those are private businesses and their operation is not my business.

When this country was founded, only landowners were allowed to vote. Do you reckon the people voting were required to prove they were land owners? So, proof of eligibility to vote was present from the foundation of the country.
When this country was founded, we didn’t have the 24th amendment to the Constitution.
What do these 21 million people do?
They live free from molestation by their government.
you will notice that AD nor WP answered the question if they had to present ID’s at any time.
It isn’t a relevant question, but if you insist: I visited the dentist yesterday, but I did not present an ID. Last Friday, I went to the bank and deposited my paycheck without presenting any ID. I am aware that some banks operated differently than my bank and some dentists operate differently than my dentist and they are free to do so, which is why your question is stupid and irrelevant. Posted by: Warren Porter at August 20, 2013 5:45 PM
Comment #369633

Warren Porter, since you want to talk like a child, then let me explain so that you can understand: go to a dentist office, doctor’s office, or a bank and set up an account or a first time visit and see if they ask for an ID.

The 24th amendment protects one’s right to vote. It does not protect any right to the services offered by a bank, doctor or dentist. Those are private businesses and their operation is not my business.

Warren Porter; name me one incident where a voter was refused the right to vote? So your comment isn’t relevant due to the fact no American has been refused the right to vote. Do you realize how many years the left has been crying about disenfranchised voters. In fact, every time a state passes a voter ID law, the left starts their crying about disenfranchisement. But no proof, unless WP has some.

But kctim has a point; how are the disenfranchised going to sign up for obamacare without an ID? Where will they get that ID? Will that ID cost them?

Tell me Warren; do you deny American voters the right to know that people who vote are legal?

Posted by: Political Hostage at August 20, 2013 6:26 PM
Comment #369635

By the way WP, doesn’t your side consider Health Care a Constitutional right?

Posted by: Political Hostage at August 20, 2013 6:33 PM
Comment #369639

Warren

Re IDs - I still doubt that anybody who really wants to vote really would be much put out by the need for an ID.

You also assume that the right to vote has no requirements. This is the subject of some debate. Throughout our history, people have had to register and identify themselves.

The U.S. is strange in how liberal it is re voting. Most other places require some proof. In Brazil, they are requiring biometrics.

You correctly point out that there are few cases of voter fraud. But there are some, because there are convictions. I correctly point out that there are few cases of someone who wants to vote and cannot get an ID. In fact, every time we can identify one, we can almost immediately correct the problem.

IMO we can expect at least some cooperation from citizen who want to vote. If they cannot be bothered to do simple things, I would say f them. Lets the courts sort it out each time if we have to go to that.

The fact is that voter suppression is at least as uncommon as voter fraud. But fraud has the potential to grow. It was once common in our country and could be again. They used to have a saying in Chicago, “vote early and often”

One more thing. I believe in the ritual of voting. This is not a legal theory, but I think it is a good thing for a good citizen to show some care on this. There is too much emphasis on rights and not enough on responsibility. I hope the balance shifts back and will do what I can to help it move in the right direction.

Posted by: CJ at August 20, 2013 7:08 PM
Comment #369641
When this country was founded, only landowners were allowed to vote. Do you reckon the people voting were required to prove they were land owners? So, proof of eligibility to vote was present from the foundation of the country.

So what Political this is another ignorant comment that has nothing to do with voter suppression laws conservatives are putting into place today. The fact of the matter is from 1800 on the common man was becoming eligible to vote, by the 1840’s most states had peacefully dropped these restrictions. Then came the 14th and 15th amendment, then the 19th, 23rd, 24th and 26th amendment. No where does it say to restrict and make it harder to vote. In fact the constitution as amended has made voting available to most Americans.

Conservatives have no case to restrict voting it is all BS made up by movement leaders. These silly arguments ” name me one incident where a voter was refused the right to vote?, how are the disenfranchised going to sign up for obamacare without an ID,If only one person votes illegally, then one American’s vote has been disenfranchised” and so on are all puffery, illogical red herrings and straw man arguments that fool only conservatives.

Posted by: j2t2 at August 20, 2013 7:21 PM
Comment #369644

C&J is correct with rights come responsibility, j2 in his comment shows no responsibility as does Warren and Adam. If a person cannot show proof of who he/she is were is the responsibility.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at August 20, 2013 7:47 PM
Comment #369650
Warren Porter; name me one incident where a voter was refused the right to vote

I’ll give you nine.

how are the disenfranchised going to sign up for obamacare without an ID

There is no such thing as “obamacare”. Stupid questions merit stupid answers.

do you deny American voters the right to know that people who vote are legal?
American voters already know that the people who vote in person are the people they claim to be. In-person voter impersonation is virtually nonexistent in this country.
doesn’t your side consider Health Care a Constitutional right?
I certainly don’t consider health care to be a Constitutional Right. It is a privilege that we may choose to grant, but it can just as easily be taken away later.
The U.S. is strange in how liberal it is re voting

Our system of government is unique because we believe every person is endowed by their creator with inalienable rights. It is these very peculiarities that have made our nation the greatest to have ever exist on Earth.

One more thing. I believe in the ritual of voting. This is not a legal theory, but I think it is a good thing for a good citizen to show some care on this. There is too much emphasis on rights and not enough on responsibility. I hope the balance shifts back and will do what I can to help it move in the right direction.
If this is your goal, then repeal of the 24th amendment ought to be your goal. This argument is the same as that used by opponents to the 24th amendment. Posted by: Warren Porter at August 20, 2013 9:23 PM
Comment #369651

j2t2

Obviously if one illegal vote is cast, it negates an honest one.

Indeed, I want to restrict the vote to American citizens legally entitled to vote and I want those American citizens to vote only once in each election. This seems reasonable.

RE IDs - it is true that the hypothetical Democrats you talk about w/o IDs would indeed be unable to sign up for welfare or ObamaCare, so they would be breaking the ObamaCare law and subject to a fine. It looks like ObamaCare will require IDs and so will solve your ID problem that you created.

Posted by: CJ at August 20, 2013 9:27 PM
Comment #369652

Warren

I don’t advocate a poll tax. I simply want to make sure that a honest vote is not cancelled by a dishonest one and that every legal voter has a chance to vote, but only once.

It is a matter of reasonableness. A voter should be able to get to the polls or get somebody to help. We provide polling places but individuals can choose to come or not.

Re the 9 people who allegedly couldn’t vote, they could easily be helped. I think some of them are simply confused or lying. For example, I find it unlikely that Darwin Spinks was told to pay a fee before he could obtain a voter ID in Tennessee, despite the fact that charging someone to vote is unconstitutional.

Here is a woman who voted for Obama six times AND was convicted of doing it. http://reason.com/blog/2013/07/18/ohio-poll-worker-sentenced

I found a story about a woman who voted five times in Texas and 113 people convicted of voter fraud in Minnesota, so we have nine people who may not be able to vote, mostly because they are kind of stupid and/or have no friends to help (let’s be honest) and more than ten times as many voters who were disenfranchised by voter fraud.

So if you and five of your friends voted from Romney in Ohio, that one woman stole all your votes. We should stop her and people like her.

Posted by: CJ at August 20, 2013 9:47 PM
Comment #369654
C&J is correct with rights come responsibility, j2 in his comment shows no responsibility

KAP the responsibility of the voter is to register to vote and then to vote. The illogical assumption of expecting a picture ID from a registered voter at the voting booth is some sort of responsibility is nothing more than a means to suppress the vote.

Indeed, I want to restrict the vote to American citizens legally entitled to vote and I want those American citizens to vote only once in each election. This seems reasonable.

C&J, That is what we have. The requirement for additional law is unnecessary, it is a ruse. Once you have voted it is recorded and you cannot vote again. There is no problem other than repubs/conservatives and the ALEC laws designed to suppress the vote.

http://www.thenation.com/article/161969/alec-exposed-rigging-elections#

Posted by: j2t2 at August 20, 2013 10:28 PM
Comment #369655

When I did g to the polling place in my state I showed my picture ID with NO PROBLEM. Now I vote by mail and still have to either include my Drivers permit number or SS number when sending the ballot back, NO PROBLEM. Why is it such a problem with you Liberal/progressive to have to show an ID. As far as suppressing voters, the only suppression is in your thick liberal head. J2

Posted by: ich KAPitan at August 20, 2013 11:04 PM
Comment #369657

KAP: “Why is it such a problem with you Liberal/progressive to have to show an ID.”

It makes voting harder for specific segments of the voting population under the guise of stopping a nearly non-existent source of fraud. There isn’t much fraud in voting anyway and the largest sources of fraud would not be prevented by ID requirements. Your concern just shows how you’ve been manipulated into believing such a problem exists that is worth making it harder to vote over.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at August 21, 2013 12:15 AM
Comment #369659

Warren Porter; silly boy, the fees were for replacement birth certificates, not voter ID’s.

Posted by: Political Hostage at August 21, 2013 10:05 AM
Comment #369660

Adam, Stop with the BULLS**T everyone should have an ID, even the littlest of things require one not just voting. So your BULLS**T argument dose not hold water. That argument is more like the Titanic.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at August 21, 2013 10:46 AM
Comment #369662

Rich KAPitan:

Just because you say they should have an ID doesn’t change the fact that millions of voting age Americans do not have an ID and that ID laws cut down on voter turnout by several percentage points. That’s turnout, not fraud. You’re taking away thousands of legitimate votes in every state on the off chance that a few people nation wide may break the law by voting fraudulently.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at August 21, 2013 2:43 PM
Comment #369663

Actually, the fact is that millions of Americans choose not to have an ID, and the majority of them probably don’t even care about voting.
Another interesting fact: Choosing not to do something does not mean you have been prevented from doing it. It just means you are lazy or feel entitled to special treatment.

Posted by: kctim at August 21, 2013 3:57 PM
Comment #369664

kctim,

If you choose not to buy health insurance, should the government be empowered to strip you of your voting rights?

Posted by: Warren Porter at August 21, 2013 4:42 PM
Comment #369666

Warren

“If you choose not to buy health insurance, should the government be empowered to strip you of your voting rights?”

Seeing how the left has already empowered the government to require ID before I can exercise my 2nd Amendment rights, and stripped me of my freedom of choice concerning health insurance, why should we care if they do it with voting?

Or, I could use anti voter ID logic and say the government is already empowered to do what you ask. Siince I am punished financially by the government for not buying health insurance, the government is responsible for me not being able to afford gas to make it to the voting booth on election day.

Funny how you bring up such a silly question though, since it won’t be long before the left starts advocating for government issued ACA cards to be accepted as sufficient ID.

Posted by: kctim at August 21, 2013 5:39 PM
Comment #369667

Like I said Adam quit with the BULLS**T. Those people who don’t have an ID can get one if they want, and in some cases free of charge. Also what kctim said in comment 369663.

Posted by: Rich Kapitan at August 21, 2013 5:48 PM
Comment #369672

j2t2

I reference the conviction of the woman who voted at least six times for Obama. She alone disenfranchised at least five honest voters. She was caught only because she bragged about it to everyone. She voted in place of other people.

On the other hand, it is nearly impossible to find someone who has actually been prevented from voting.

I understand why you guys want to make this an issue, but it is silly. A person w/o some kind of ID cannot participate in society in a meaningful way. Such a person who does nothing for his country or with his country is unlikely to really want to vote anyway. If he does, he can easily get a free ID.

I find it interesting that all of us seem to have the same idea about Democratic voters. All of us believe that Democratic voters are more likely to be stupid, criminal, anti-social or irresponsible. A person living in the modern U.S. w/o an ID must be one or more of those things. I know why I believe that, but I don’t understand why you do. Maybe it is true.

Posted by: CJ at August 21, 2013 8:01 PM
Comment #369676
As far as suppressing voters, the only suppression is in your thick liberal head. J2

Were it so KAP. The fact is ALEC laws are intended to do just that suppress votes. Read the article and learn how you re being misinformed.

I reference the conviction of the woman who voted at least six times for Obama.

So out of 52 million voters you are suggesting voter ID laws are needed because a statistically insignificant number of voters, such as you have described, may have taken advantage of the system. Yet you would have us believe that the 12 million without ID should not be able to vote? You would have us believe that it is only the picture ID that conservatives using the ALEC laws to suppress votes are backing? The picture ID’s are just a part of the package C&J.

All of us believe that Democratic voters are more likely to be stupid, criminal, anti-social or irresponsible.

Not all of us C&J, personally I believe it is conservatives that are stupid for falling for the ruse of voter fraud, yourself included. Using one woman to justify this vicious attack on the personal liberties of Americans is as stupid as it gets IMHO. I believe it is conservatives that are the criminals for attempting to make the issue about picture ID when the issue is voter suppression.

Posted by: j2t2 at August 21, 2013 9:51 PM
Comment #369680

j2t2

Who made up that 12 million voters w/o ID? We find no evidence of legitimate voters being unable to vote for lack of ID. Warren managed to find an article where they found nine dubious cases.

Re Democratic voters being stupider etc. - you seem to believe that all or most of the people w/o IDs would vote Democratic. Since nobody w/o an ID can take a really productive role in society, we can safely assume that those w/o IDs are either losers or weirdos (like the UNIBOMBER). You think they are all or mostly Democrats.

I personally don’t know of anybody who doesn’t have some kind of ID. In fact, I have never even heard of anybody like that except in the papers you guys mention. W/o an ID, they cannot hold a regular job or collect welfare, so we have to wonder how they live.

Posted by: CJ at August 21, 2013 10:26 PM
Comment #369683

Exactly C&J I like these brilliant liberals to tell us how these so called IDless people live from day to day. As I said j2 the only suppression is in your thick liberal mind and as I said to Adam quit with the BULLS**T

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at August 21, 2013 10:37 PM
Comment #369689
you seem to believe that all or most of the people w/o IDs would vote Democratic.

You need to re read what I have said C&J. Nowhere have I said that, this little diversion is just another strawman in a long line of illogical arguments put forth by conservatives in an attempt to suppress the vote.

As to the state issued photo ID cards what difference does it make that you don’t know anyone without a photo ID.

http://www.alecexposed.org/wiki/Democracy,_Voter_Rights,_and_Federal_Power

KAP your babbling without adding anything to the conversion.

Posted by: j2t2 at August 22, 2013 7:01 AM
Comment #369692

KAP please spare us your indignation regarding your feelings about Adam or j2t2 or any liberal or progressive, you are acting like an insufferable boor that has no recourse but to sling names and yell. Nothing for you to take pride in as entries on this blog. Put a sock in it. Where in the beloved “Constitushun” you use to beat everyone over the head with does it talk about the need for citizens to have ID, photo or otherwise. People who live without ID’s are those that choose to, it is their right to do that and they should not be punished by a bunch of local politicians that just want to use voter supression to get their candidate elected. That’s disgusting and nothing your “framers” or “founding fathers” would support as legitimate or moral. If you can’t think of anything to add to the discussion please refrain from the incessant ad hominem attacks and just read, the rest of us who come here to read and digest will not miss your comments.

Posted by: Speak4all at August 22, 2013 9:32 AM
Comment #369697

Speak for Yourself and j2, You still haven’t said how those who chose to live without ID do the everyday things that require one. Instead of telling me about my indignation and babbling, answer the question if you can.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at August 22, 2013 11:35 AM
Comment #369698

KAP Could it be that they are not the same as you and do not do the things that you do that require an ID. Everyone is not like you KAP and by virtue of that statement I don’t need to explain anything to you I just want you to understand that statement. Comprehension is a big step in civility towards others. Give it a try, you might find the results to your liking.

Posted by: Speak4all at August 22, 2013 11:52 AM
Comment #369699

Speak for yourself, I guess by your comment you don’
t know how to answer the question, but give the typical liberal beat around the bush answers. Maybe if you try hard you could figure out why those millions of people don’t have ID or are to lazy to get one.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at August 22, 2013 12:00 PM
Comment #369700

KAP I don’t need to figure it out, you do. I have no problem with a citizen of these United States of America not wanting to have an ID for what ever reason they use. You are the one that has a problem understanding that. Therefore you need to come to your own conclusion, not mine. Good luck with that! Speaking of typical, you and your ilk on WB give me great hope for the future. You do not realize that your nonsensical deliberations do not ring with any truth to young people, minorities and women. To me this means you and your ilk on WB are a dying breed and are unable to persuade anyone with a semblance of intelligence that what you speak should be listened to.

Posted by: Speak4all at August 22, 2013 12:45 PM
Comment #369705

You just answered all I need to know, speak for yourself, You don’t know the answer to the question. You and others like you make assumptions for those who do not have ID’s. You can’t answer how they get along in life without the basic necessities such as cashing a check, getting healthcare, getting welfare, food stamps and the like that REQUIRE an ID. So you can go on and play that dumba** game that they choose not to have an ID.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at August 22, 2013 1:51 PM
Comment #369707

KAP again I do not need an answer to a question I don’t have, you do. Keep trying, I’m sure you’ll get there. Not that you don’t already have your preconceived idea of the why or how of the question you keep asking yourself. It’s not a game it is their choice. This is something that some on WB seem to have problems thinking through. People have choices in this country and then live by those. They do not make choices and then expect everyone else to conform to those choices, they live with their choices. Whether that is to not own a gun, not have an ID, not care what people do with their own sexuality or not try to tell a woman and her physician what to decide is best for her health. I don’t see our online conversation going anywhere on this subject since you just want to say you’re dumb, you’re a liberal hack, you lie. Keep thirsty for knowledge KAP, it’s your only hope for understanding.

Posted by: Speak4all at August 22, 2013 2:14 PM
Comment #369717

OK speak for yourself I understand you don’t know how to answer the question. I know it’s hard for liberals like yourself to understand the basics of getting along in life. I know people like you can’t think for yourself without government help. I know people have choices in life, and I guess you want the government to make those choices for you, but I don’t. So goodbye and good luck in your fantacy liberal world.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at August 22, 2013 4:39 PM
Comment #369719

KAP, they won’t answer any questions that might caused them to vaguely agree with the right. If they admitted that all Americans need some form of identification, then it would make their false claims of voter suppression a lie; so they ignore the question and try to make you look like an idiot for even asking it. But we know who the idiots are, don’t we?

Posted by: Political Hostage at August 22, 2013 5:00 PM
Comment #369720

KAP you sir are off your rocker. Please try to hold some manner of decorum in future conversations with me. And oh yes please quit telling me what I think and how I am, you are not qualified to do that. And do try to gain some understanding instead of just spouting nonsense.

Posted by: Speak4all at August 22, 2013 5:04 PM
Comment #369721

Hostage, I completely agree that some people in this country cannot live without ID. I just don’t understand why you feel that you should be able to dictate this to anyone that doesn’t have that need but then again all the conservative/republican/or whatever you refer to yourself as can do is try to tell people what to do because everyone is picking on them and they are all victims. So sorry for you and your inabilities to get along in this country with the rest of us. Oh and one last time I don’t have a question that I need answered you and KAP do. I hope you find your answer but don’t expect to get that from me.

Posted by: Speak4all at August 22, 2013 5:10 PM
Comment #369722

You are so right Hostage.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at August 22, 2013 5:19 PM
Comment #369730
You still haven’t said how those who chose to live without ID do the everyday things that require one…

KAP asked and answered in comment# 369641, it is not relevant to voting. It is a straw man argument meant to cloud the issue. It is a ruse.

Posted by: j2t2 at August 22, 2013 7:31 PM
Comment #369736

Speak4

You might want to spell check the word Constitution. I understand that you are trying to pretend that others would spell it that way. If you see someone who does that, please correct them, as I do to you.

J2t2

I just do not believe that many voters do not have some kind of acceptable ID or could not easily get one. If we identify such people, they achieve nearly celebrity status and I am sure that some eager folks came help these mendicants get the IDs they need.

But, really, how many people are there who do not drive, do not have a bank account or a credit card, do not collect welfare, do not work at a legitimate job, do not borrow books at a library, never travel on airplanes, never enter most Federal buildings …

I just wonder how such people would be able to find the polls or get there if they found them. I pity the fools, but there is not much you can do for them.

The reason I make fun of you all with these voters is that anyone with no ID clearly is not a well-functioning member of society and/or has someone else doing most of the important things in his/her life. I think it is funny that you guys always assume that anything that keeps the stupid or socially challenged people from voting will mean fewer votes for Democrats.

Posted by: CJ at August 22, 2013 8:11 PM
Comment #369738

The only ruse and strawman argument is the one that you and people like you are giving j2. It’s sad when democrats and liberals think some people are getting disenfranchised by having to show an ID.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at August 22, 2013 9:10 PM
Comment #369739
I just don’t understand why you feel that you should be able to dictate this to anyone that doesn’t have that need but then again all the conservative/republican/or whatever you refer to yourself as can do is try to tell people what to do because everyone is picking on them and they are all victims.

Speak4yourself; liberals make up 20% of the electorate and the other 80% are conservative or moderates. Between 70 and 75% of voters support voter ID laws. Unless 75% are conservative/republican/or whatever…then more than just republicans support voter ID laws.

http://www.humanevents.com/2012/08/14/poll-74-percent-of-american-adults-favor-voter-id-laws/

http://www.newsmax.com/US/Rasmussen-voter-ID-laws/2012/10/17/id/460385

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2012/04/18/fox-news-poll-most-think-voter-id-laws-are-necessary/

A majority of Democrats (52 percent), independents (72 percent) and Republicans (87 percent) supported voter ID laws as necessary.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/page/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2012/08/12/National-Politics/Polling/release_116.xml?uuid=E1kPqOQZEeGJ93biOpgtBg

Speak4yourself (good name, since you are speaking for only liberals), there’s no sense in going on with the polls, considering all the polls show a 3/4 majority of American’s want voter ID laws. When Holder (Obama) sues states like Texas, after the SCOTUS has supported ID laws…it only tends to make 75% of the voters mad.

Posted by: Political Hostage at August 22, 2013 10:40 PM
Comment #369740
I just do not believe that many voters do not have some kind of acceptable ID or could not easily get one.But, really, how many people are there who do not drive, do not have a bank account or a credit card, do not collect welfare, do not work at a legitimate job, do not borrow books at a library, never travel on airplanes, never enter most Federal buildings …

C&J, what on earth does this have to do with voting? You are getting as bad as the rest of these conservatives with these nonsensical red herrings and straw man arguments that fool only conservatives.
The fact is ALEC has plotted to suppress votes to favor their candidates. Why not just come out and admit conservatives prefer a limited voter turnout and use multiple strategies including but not limited to requiring photo ID’s. You act like you are ashamed of these brutish attempts to suppress the vote.

The reason I make fun of you all with these voters is that anyone with no ID clearly is not a well-functioning member of society….

Really I thought it was because you had no real argument to defend this drivel so you had to resort to buffoonery such as this.

KAP yet another comment without saying anything. You are babbling without adding to the conversion.

Posted by: j2t2 at August 22, 2013 11:12 PM
Comment #369743

j2t2

What does that have to do with voting?

We know that there is voting fraud. We don’t believe it is a widespread problem, but it has the potential to be, as with the woman who voted six times for Obama and stole five votes.

We believe there might be a problem with some people not having IDs and not being able to vote. This too is a vanishingly small problem. There is almost nobody who does not have or cannot get an ID.

So we are balancing here. Each time someone votes illegally, he/she disenfranchises a legitimate voter. Each time a legitimate voter is not allowed to vote, he/she is disenfranchised. So we are talking about the same thing in both cases.

I believe that the real and potential problem with voter fraud will disenfranchise a greater number of legitimate voters than the real and potential problem with those lacking IDs. The problem with the IDs can be remedied in every case we identify. The problem of fraud can go undetected and is not so easily remedied.

Therefore, more people will be disenfranchised if we have no ID requirements than if we do.

Ideally, there would be no fraud and no ID problem. We can much more effectively address the ID problem and for all practical purposes eliminate it. Fraud will be with us always and we can only work to limit it.

Posted by: CJ at August 22, 2013 11:51 PM
Comment #369745

CJ, you are attempting to use logic and it won’t work on these clowns.

Posted by: DSP2195 at August 23, 2013 12:54 AM
Comment #369747
We believe there might be a problem with some people not having IDs and not being able to vote. This too is a vanishingly small problem. There is almost nobody who does not have or cannot get an ID.

However, this is not a vanishingly small problem. It is a HUGE problem. As per my link in Comment #369595, 21 million Americans are estimated to not have a proper photo ID.

So we are balancing here. Each time someone votes illegally, he/she disenfranchises a legitimate voter. Each time a legitimate voter is not allowed to vote, he/she is disenfranchised. So we are talking about the same thing in both cases.

This completely violates Blackstone’s formulation, an element of the English Common Law that forms the roots of our laws. I thought we ought to let ten guilty people go free instead of letting a single innocent suffer.

The problem with the IDs can be remedied in every case we identify.
Are you seriously that naive. I am pretty sure the vast majority of those without IDs do not have the resources/wherewithal to file lawsuits like the 9 I linked to earlier. These people simply return home and keep quiet about their disenfranchisement, which remains undetected at least as often as fraud.
The problem of fraud … is not so easily remedied.
Here’s an easy remedy to fraud: Arrest the perpetrators, send them to trial, convict them and let them spend time in prison. TA-DA! Problem solved!
We can much more effectively address the ID problem and for all practical purposes eliminate it.
We can never eliminate the problem of people without IDs. Maybe we can correct all the cases where people don’t have IDs because they are too lazy/stupid (which might be the majority of cases). However, I am confident that there are decent number of people who make a choice to live without identification . Perhaps these yeomen live mostly in isolation and subsist off of what their land provides them? However, such people should not be penalized for their legal choices. Posted by: Warren Porter at August 23, 2013 7:25 AM
Comment #369749

Warren and others, If the 21 million people without an ID is such a concern of yours, why don’t all you liberals help them get an ID and if they don’t want an ID then I guess they don’t want anything to do with government and the things they provide so no big loss.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at August 23, 2013 9:30 AM
Comment #369750
What does that have to do with voting?

Exactly C&J. All these red herrings have nothing to do with voting.


We know that there is voting fraud. We don’t believe it is a widespread problem, but it has the potential to be…

C&J ALEC is intentionally attempting to suppress votes. You are talking about such a miniscule number of voter fraud cases, even fewer that an ID would remedy, that it is obvious to all it is nothing more than a conservative desire to win by deception. The fact is for the last 50 years this “potential problem” hasn’t happened. It is a ruse.

CJ, you are attempting to use logic and it won’t work on these clowns.

DPS as I said to KAP, you are babbling, you have added nothing to the conversation but drivel. It seems you wouldn’t know logic if it bit you on the ass.

Posted by: j2t2 at August 23, 2013 9:31 AM
Comment #369751

C/J thanks for the spell check but it wasn’t necessary as most of your comments on this blog entry have been. I will continue to spell anything to the method I want to use and generally put any misspellings in quotes in order to make a point which you obviously can’t comprehend, sorry. You and your conservative allies seem to be caught in some strange circular logic loop. Everybody has ID but those that don’t should be forced to have ID because I feel threatened by them, but everybody has ID so I don’t really need to be threatened however because I feel threatened I need to make sure everybody has ID. To bad I expected more from you regarding the logic and reason for your beliefs. Not my first disappointment in the circular logic that seems to be in play by conservative/republican/whatever…. these days. Just like Obama is so stupid he couldn’t have gotten where he is without rigging the system but he is so devious and smart that he is going to turn our country and the world into chaos and destruction so that he can be the only one to benefit from the bounty of the planet. I get it totally stupid but completely devious and intelligent. Circular logic that goes nowhere. Really, you can do better just tell us how you really feel.

Posted by: Speak4all at August 23, 2013 9:39 AM
Comment #369752

Hostage OK strength in numbers yes!! You and your think “alikes” control the electorate, you are the all powerful and understanding compassionate conservatives. Romney will win by a landslide, Obama will be sent packing we are the all powerful OZ and we have spoken! Let me just try to pull back the curtain for a bit, whoops to bad the Romney thing was just a fantasy invented by Fox, Rasmussen, NewsMax and the rest of the crowd that just can’t get a grasp on the reality of the situation. Most people who vote in this country resoundingly rejected you and your think “alikes” in the last election, that’s a fact.

Posted by: Speak4all at August 23, 2013 9:54 AM
Comment #369760

Let me start with the least first:

So Speak4yourself, you say the multiple polls showing 70-75% of Americans believe voters should have ID’s are a lie and not true of the American people…based on what? Your opinion…opinions are like assholes, everybody’s got one. One of the polls showed 52% of Democrats supporting voter ID’s.

The rest of your comment about compassionate conservatives, the powerful OZ, Romney, Fox, Rasmussen is nothing more than an attempt to be condescending. Rather than have a serious discussion, when losing the conversation, you resort to the liberal personal attacks and trying to degrade the opponent. As you have tried with C&J. It makes you look childish.

To Warren Porter I say; since the left has such a door to door program of registering people to vote (the old get out the vote campaign) and you even bus them to he polls, why are you not also able to get these people to their local DMV for a free photo ID.

With well more than 50% of states now requiring voter ID’s, I could imagine this is throwing the left into panic mode. How can the possibly skew a vote if only qualified people are allowed to vote…and only vote once.

Regarding prosecuting those who commit voter fraud; was that meant as a joke? It has happened in Republican run states. But as Holder had no problem with members of the Black Panthers at polling stations with weapons, I doubt that Democrat AJ’s would have a problem with voter fraud.

Posted by: Political Hostage at August 23, 2013 2:43 PM
Comment #369762
why are you not also able to get these people to their local DMV for a free photo ID

Why did we even bother with the 24th Amendment when the Left could have simply paid the poll taxes on behalf of its voters?

a free photo ID
In many cases the ID is not free. In order to get the ID, documents such as a birth certificate must be shown and acquiring such documents is not free.
With well more than 50% of states now requiring voter ID’s, I could imagine this is throwing the left into panic mode. How can the possibly skew a vote if only qualified people are allowed to vote…and only vote once.
Idle speculation and nothing more.
It has happened in Republican run states.
Check my earlier link regarding fraud (comment #369595). Prosecution happens in states run by both parties.
But as Holder had no problem with members of the Black Panthers at polling stations with weapons.
WRONG! The decision to discontinue that prosecution was made by the Bush DOJ before Holder became AJ. The prosecution was discontinued because the DOJ was unable to find any voters in that precinct who claimed that they were intimidated. I am certain that Holder does not approve of what the NBP did, but he can only prosecute when he has evidence that a law was broken. Posted by: Warren Porter at August 23, 2013 3:34 PM
Comment #369764

Hostage you least of all can speak about degrading your opponent. Condescending? Not at all just used the Romney reference to point out we have all heard about the numbers that you came up with from those sites during the campaign and how Romney was going to wipe the floor with President Obama. I am not sorry it didn’t turn out the way your ridiculous numbers said it would, I don’t doubt the same can be said of the ridiculous numbers you hope to persuade people here by spouting about voter ID polls. I expect that you know everything there is about being an asshole, I wont try to dispute your knowledge there. Sorry if I hurt your tender feelings but you need someone to talk to you in a direct manner. It is comments like yours that have driven thoughtful people from commenting on this site. Adrienne, Highland Angel, Jane Doe, Marine Woman to name a few. Wow you are such a master debater that they just can’t stand to read your vile, hatred filled rants toward their ideas. Funny that the ones I mention are all women, must be something about their ability to see through the most transparent of people and not bother to waste their precious time on someone with so little decency. I always valued their ideas and input here and was sad to see them be less involved. No one would miss you. No personal attacks coming from me, I just call a spade a spade. And oh by the way, I don’t believe for one minute that you are black or any person of color or compassion.

Posted by: Speak4all at August 23, 2013 4:13 PM
Comment #369777

So tell us speak4ourself, who were you writing as in your previous WB life? Evidently you failed under your previous handle. Regarding the women you mentioned, I have never had any conversation with Highland Angel, or Marine Woman. Jane Doe has written in another column within the past day, and Adrienne plays the attack/retreat game. She shows up just long enough to write a profanity laced comment and then disappears back under the rock.

Perhaps you could show us a poll that shows less than 70% of Americans being in favor of voter ID’s; since you don’t believe the polls I gave.

And now, I’m lying about being black? Why is that, because I’m conservative and blacks don’t have the right to be conservative? Oh, by the way, a few months ago Adrienne called me an Uncle Tom. So evidently she believed I was black. Tell me speak4yourself, why are you on WB? Is it your goal to call everyone a liar? How do you debate a point when the first words out of your mouth are “you’re a liar”?

Posted by: Political Hostage at August 23, 2013 5:56 PM
Comment #369781

Hostage Golly maybe you know now how President Obama felt at his first State of the Union address. Your ilk guffawed and chortled about that at the time As I recall the response from the right is the same I will give you “get over it”.

Posted by: Speak4all at August 23, 2013 7:21 PM
Comment #369785

Warren

The number of voters supposedly w/o an ID is based on a telephone survey of 987 people. They took the percentages and then extrapolated to the U.S. population. The questions were loaded, for example:

3) Do you have any of the following citizenship documents (U.S. birth certificate/U.S. passport/U.S. naturalization papers) in a place where you can quickly find it if you had to show it tomorrow?

4) If yes, does [that document] have your current name on it (as opposed to a maiden name)?

At various times in my life, I would have to answer no to those questions. I could not find my birth certificate if I had to show it tomorrow, for example. That does not mean that I did not have a valid ID.

Could you find your birth certificate if you had to by tomorrow? These questions were designed to inflate the number. It is surprising that they didn’t get an even bigger number “w/o ID”

The numbers based on a bogus survey are also bogus.

RE “Here’s an easy remedy to fraud: Arrest the perpetrators, send them to trial, convict them and let them spend time in prison. TA-DA! Problem solved!” – indeed IF you can detect them. Every election cycle, hundreds are in fact detected and convicted of election fraud.

Speak4

Glad to know you can probably spell. Perhaps you should do so. Anyway thanks for the compliment saying that even if you thought my spell check “wasn’t necessary as most of your comments on this blog entry have been.” Although I am disappointed that you cannot understand logic. Perhaps I can recommend some courses you can take. For somebody starting off, as you are, you might try to “Teaching Company.” I bought a good course for my son that might help you

http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/courses/course_detail.aspx?cid=9344

Posted by: CJ at August 23, 2013 8:34 PM
Comment #369791

C/J please reserve your reccomendatioms regarding logic to your son I’m sure he needs that if he’s been paying any attention to your logic. I don’t probably spell, what I do is present you with direct confrontations to your ill conceived suppositions. This can cause you great consternation, I understand and respect your concerns. Please continue to make evident your concerns we need to not agree, thank you.

Posted by: Speak4all at August 23, 2013 10:04 PM
Comment #369793

It has taken me a little while to figure this out; but I figure Speak4 is the husband of Adrienne, or perhaps her girlfriend. Same mentality and way with words. I see a deep seated anger.

Posted by: Political Hostage at August 23, 2013 10:23 PM
Comment #369797
The number of voters supposedly w/o an ID is based on a telephone survey of 987 people. They took the percentages and then extrapolated to the U.S. population.

I am fully aware that this was based upon a scientific poll. However, I am also aware of the powerful truths that can be revealed by such a poll if the sample is truly random and the questions worded fairly.

The questions were loaded, for example:

The relevant question here is the first one:
“Do you have a current, unexpired government-issued ID with your picture on it, like a driver’s license or a military ID?” Where is this question “loaded”? 11% of participants stated that they lacked such a document, which leads us to the conclusion that 11% of all Americans lack such a document. It cannot be anymore straightforward than that.

At various times in my life, I would have to answer no to those questions. I could not find my birth certificate if I had to show it tomorrow, for example. That does not mean that I did not have a valid ID.
Questions 3 & 4 sought to address a slightly different issue. Many of these laws have tried to dodge the poll tax issue by making photo IDs available free of charge. However, what many people forget that is that other documentation (such as a birth certificate) are needed in order to get the free photo ID. Most Americans (including you apparently) do not have ready access to these documents; therefore, it will be an onerous burden for many Americans without a photo ID to procure one. It is because of this burden that these laws are functionally equivalent to poll taxes. Posted by: Warren Porter at August 23, 2013 10:59 PM
Comment #369817

Warren

Indeed, I did not have ready access. But it is not onerous to get such things. I have not actually has a Social Security card since I lost my wallet when I was 18 (i.e. forty years ago) but I know how to get one and I expect I will need one when I apply for SS.

The question also creates unnecessary time pressure. It asks if you could get it TOMORROW. I don’t have a copy of my birth certificate at home. Today is Saturday and so I could not get a hold of it by tomorrow (Sunday) but I can get it.

The point is that I am able to prove my voting status with other IDs. And I doubt there exists a large number of people who cannot do that, certainly not 21 million.

Speak4

I fail to understand how your misspelling words is a direct confrontation to other readers. Perhaps you can explain that in a way a simple person like me can understand. I have sometimes made spelling and grammar errors, but they were direct confrontations only to my lack of attention.

RE logic - you did not address the logic and instead merely made attack. Let’s cut to the end. I believe that both fraud and lack of ID affect small numbers of people. Fraud and lack of ID both would disenfranchise one voter, i.e. in the case of fraud, each illegal vote negates one valid one and in the case of ID, if one person is prevented from voting it negates one potential valid vote. I believe that the potential for fraud invalidating votes is greater than the potential for lack of ID to do that. Perhaps you disagree with conclusion, but if you disagree with the logic, I expect you can explain why.

Posted by: CJ at August 24, 2013 11:49 AM
Comment #369856
The question also creates unnecessary time pressure. It asks if you could get it TOMORROW. I don’t have a copy of my birth certificate at home. Today is Saturday and so I could not get a hold of it by tomorrow (Sunday) but I can get it.

You are putting undue focus on question 3’s faults when it is the results of survey question 1 that are actually relevant here.

As explained by the Brennan Center, the purpose of the word tomorrow was to determine who has “ready access” to their documents. Apparently, you do not have “ready access” to your SS card or Birth Certificate. If you decided to obtain a replacement SS card or Birth Certificate, I guarantee it would cost you money, which is why these laws are essentially poll taxes. The only situation when a voter doesn’t pay the poll tax is when the voter already has all the necessary documents in his possession. Everyone else is paying a poll tax.

I have not actually has a Social Security card since I lost my wallet when I was 18

According to your logic, this demonstration of laziness on your part means you have abrogated your responsibilities as a voter and that you shouldn’t have the right to vote.

In any case, let’s cut through the crap. Question 1 on the survey is the question that matters. 11% of survey respondents claim they do not possess a valid photo ID. End of story. Stop worrying about questions 3 & 4, which are tangential to my original claim of 21 million voters without IDs.

I believe that both fraud and lack of ID affect small numbers of people. Fraud and lack of ID both would disenfranchise one voter, i.e. in the case of fraud, each illegal vote negates one valid one and in the case of ID, if one person is prevented from voting it negates one potential valid vote. I believe that the potential for fraud invalidating votes is greater than the potential for lack of ID to do that. Perhaps you disagree with conclusion, but if you disagree with the logic, I expect you can explain why.
What happened to Blackstone’s ratio? Posted by: Warren Porter at August 25, 2013 8:36 AM
Comment #369861

Warren

I think we disagree about how easy we have to make things. These mendicants could get IDs and their lives would probably improve if they did.

I don’t believe the drafters of the constitution envisioned voting being so casual and voters so irresponsible that they some people would not bother to identify themselves.

I would support an exception for a person lacking ID, if I voter who could identify himself swore that he was legally certain the non-ID person was legally entitled to vote. I don’t think you all would go for that.

Actually, what do you advocate? Do you envision somebody just walking in and claiming he is John Smith and then voting? How could you ever prove voter fraud? A dishonest group could obtain voter lists and check who has died or is out of town, or maybe non-citizens who had “accidentally” registered and send people to vote in their stead. After they did the deed and left the polling place, catching them and proving they did it would be almost impossible, if you even detected the problem.

Bush defeated Gore in Florida by only 537 votes. You could easily envision scenarios where that many votes were frauds. Al Franken won by only 312, after some “new” votes were counted. It is interesting that found votes seem to be mostly for Democrats. We also had that remarkable case in S Dakota a few years back, where the Republican Senator was winning but then evidently everybody voted on Indian reservations and almost all of them voted Democratic. It is remarkable that nobody was sick that day, or had car troubles etc.

Re Blackstone - it does not apply here. There is a one-to-one ratio of fraud disenfranchisement v ID problems. Each invalid vote cheats one honest voter out his his/her valid vote.

Posted by: CJ at August 25, 2013 1:57 PM
Comment #369863
if I voter who could identify himself swore that he was legally certain the non-ID person was legally entitled to vote.

I could sign onto that.

Actually, what do you advocate?
I advocate the status quo. For the first 235 years of our nation’s history, people didn’t need to show IDs to vote. Why should today be any different?
Bush defeated Gore in Florida by only 537 votes. You could easily envision scenarios where that many votes were frauds. Al Franken won by only 312, after some “new” votes were counted.

When the margin of victory is that small, it is impossible to actually count the votes accurately enough to determine the victor. Inevitable random errors in both directions are great enough to impact the results so the process is essentially probabilistic.

It is interesting that found votes seem to be mostly for Democrats.
It is true that the people who don’t follow the directions properly are more likely to be Democratic votes.
Re Blackstone - it does not apply here. There is a one-to-one ratio of fraud disenfranchisement v ID problems. Each invalid vote cheats one honest voter out his his/her valid vote.

How is this any different than murder? When one murder’s another, one innocent life is stolen. When one wrongfully convicts, one innocent life is stolen. Apart from the higher stakes involved, the situation is identical. There is a one-to-one ratio of lives stolen by murder and lives stolen by wrongful conviction.

Posted by: Warren Porter at August 25, 2013 3:18 PM
Comment #369876

Warren

Re blackstone - it is different because we are talking two equal dangers and talking prospectively. It is reversible.

We could argue that we should be especially vigilant against fraud so as not to compromise a vote, using a Blackstone like argument, or the reverse.

This would be much more akin to a civil case, where both side have equal claim to justice.

It is also very easy to correct the problem of no ID. If you identify such a person before the election, it need not miss even one vote. If you identify the person at the election, he can vote provisionally and then prove his identity ex-post-facto. There is no reasonable scenario where a legitimate voter is determined to vote and will be prevented from doing so. A person would have to willfully avoid getting an ID.

Posted by: CJ at August 25, 2013 8:37 PM
Comment #369893

I advocate the status quo. For the first 235 years of our nation’s history, people didn’t need to show IDs to vote. Why should today be any different?

Warren , you are part of the tech generation and you see no need for security? Are you honestly saying you see no difference between voting in 1778 and 2013?

There was a time when people didn’t have to hire organizations like “Lifelock” to protect our identity and credit ratings, but we do today. If there was ever a time in history where voter fraud could take place, it is today.

As I have said before, as a black man, I have absolutely NO problem in showing an ID in order to vote. For the life of me, I cannot figure out why the left is so outraged at requiring an ID to vote. The idea that it disenfranchises minorities is condescending and racists. You are saying that white people have the intellect and ability to get an ID, but minorities do not. The only reason I can see for the great objection, is to ALLOW and INCOURAGE voter fraud.

Posted by: Political Hostage at August 26, 2013 10:17 AM
Comment #369896

C/J to busy doting on grandchildren over the weekend to respond. I like my return of investment of time with them, you not so much. I have no interest in attempting to use my logic in a defense against your zealotry. Warren seems to have done an admirable job of attempting to follow you down your rabbit hole and has given ample cause for you to see the tortured nature of your pretzel logic. Take a look at who you are rubbing elbows with at your table of discontent.

Hostage first I was Stephen’s other handle now I am Adrienne’s husband no girlfriend. Just suffice it to say that I am everything you need to fear that is liberal and goes bump in the night. Sleep with the knowledge of light on and you might overcome your fear or seek professional help with your obsession, please.

Posted by: Speak4all at August 26, 2013 2:20 PM
Comment #369898

Hide behind your laptop screen and spout off you little twit. I will lose no sleep over your socialist theology. People like you are a minority in this country and thank God for that.

C&J (Christine and John) are probably two of the most level headed conservatives on WB. Both of them write under the same name, they are courteous and almost never lose their temper. Most liberals treat them with respect, even if they don’t agree. But you sir/madam have crossed the line of being civil with them. I personally will have nothing more to say to you. In other words, you can kiss my behind.

Posted by: Political Hostage at August 26, 2013 3:10 PM
Comment #369899
A person would have to willfully avoid getting an ID.

And why should we penalize someone who chooses not to have an ID?

Re blackstone - it is different because we are talking two equal dangers.
When we talk about murder, it is also a case of two equal dangers. The murdered victim has his life taken away unjustly and the innocent man who is convicted has his life robbed as well. Ultimately, both sides of the ledge are equal, but it is not our legal tradition to treat both outcomes as equal.
It is also very easy to correct the problem of no ID.
It is just as easy to correct the problem of an innocent man locked away in prison. Releasing him after exonerating evidence comes to light is analogous to validating a provisional ballot when evidence identifying the voter as legal appears.
Warren , you are part of the tech generation and you see no need for security? Are you honestly saying you see no difference between voting in 1778 and 2013?

Committing in-person voter impersonation fraud is no different today than in the 18th century. And it is no more prevalent today than it was then either. New technologies pose risks in many different spheres, but elections aren’t one of them (apart from unsecured electronic voting machines, but this is a separate matter from voter IDs).

There was a time when people didn’t have to hire organizations like “Lifelock” to protect our identity and credit ratings, but we do today. If there was ever a time in history where voter fraud could take place, it is today.
2013 is a perfect time to not hire a firm like “Lifelock”. Your reference to LifeLock betrays your frequent consumption of conservative talking points broadcast on talk radio where LifeLock frequently advertises. Businesses such as LifeLock are a scam. It’s as simple as that. Posted by: Warren Porter at August 26, 2013 3:39 PM
Comment #369909
Committing in-person voter impersonation fraud is no different today than in the 18th century. And it is no more prevalent today than it was then either. New technologies pose risks in many different spheres, but elections aren’t one of them (apart from unsecured electronic voting machines, but this is a separate matter from voter IDs
)

Don’t you suppose the workers at voting polls personally knew the people who were voting in their districts?

Regarding Lifelock; Warren, I see Lifelock commercials everyday on cable TV. I have no idea who on conservative radio advertises for them. It was simply a point being made; I could just as easily said a national bank also offers credit and ID protection. I believe it is Fifth Third Bank who offers the same protection. I’m sure there are many others. The point is, if we can’t protect our own identities; how can we possible protect our voting rights to people who have no identities?

And why should we penalize someone who chooses not to have an ID?

Just curious, do you think we should penalize someone for not wanting health insurance? Or does that just pertain to ID’s?

Posted by: Political Hostage at August 26, 2013 10:43 PM
Comment #369910
Don’t you suppose the workers at voting polls personally knew the people who were voting in their districts?

Not in cities like New York, Philadelphia, Boston, etc

The point is, if we can’t protect our own identities; how can we possible protect our voting rights to people who have no identities?

The incentives simply aren’t there. The payoff is miniscule compared to the massive amount of investment needed to successfully impersonating a voter. The best a criminal can hope for by impersonating is a single vote in an election where thousands upon thousands are cast. And this comes with the risks of getting caught and facing the penalties (which are severe). On the other hand, stealing an identity for financial gain carries much greater rewards for far less investment (namely the crime can be conducted remotely rather than in person).

do you think we should penalize someone for not wanting health insurance?
People will still be able to vote if they don’t have health insurance so I don’t understand your point here. Posted by: Warren Porter at August 26, 2013 11:02 PM
Comment #369913

Warren

But people do it. We had the woman who voted six times for Obama. We know there was massive fraud of this type in places like Chicago, where the dead always voted for the Daley machine.

The risks of getting caught are small, if you don’t need an ID. The woman who voted six times for Obama would never had been caught, had she not made a YouTube bragging about it. Once the guy is in and out, how do you prove it was him, IF you even detect the fraud? Could a poll worker correctly identify the crook a few weeks later, after seeing thousands of people.

In modern America, such fraud is uncommon, but it is still more common than people who want to vote and are denied because they don’t have IDs.

As I said, they are identical in their result. One voter is cheated out of his/her vote.

Beyond that, I just do not believe an ID is a very onerous thing. Good citizens should be interested in protecting the vote and this little thing does it.

Speak4

I have to agree with Political H. You are not up to my standard of debate and unlike people like Stephen, you are a bit to arrogant in your ignorance. I will have to give up on you. Sorry.

Posted by: CJ at August 27, 2013 6:51 AM
Comment #369915
We had the woman who voted six times for Obama.

I believe this had to do with absentee ballot fraud, which doesn’t have much to do with Voter ID laws.

such fraud is uncommon, but it is still more common than people who want to vote and are denied because they don’t have IDs.
Proof? I have already shared evidence suggesting that 21 million American voters lack an ID. Do you really believe there are 21 million undetected cases of voter impersonation?
As I said, they are identical in their result. One voter is cheated out of his/her vote.
They are not identical. It is far worse to deny a legitimate voter his/her vote than to miss prosecuting an individual who casts an invalid ballot. This is just like how it is far worse to imprison an innocent man than to let a guilty murderer to go free.
I just do not believe an ID is a very onerous thing.
A $1 poll tax wouldn’t be onerous, but it would still be unconstitutional.

Look, if you are really worried about the miniscule number of occasions where people cast multiple ballots fraudulently, why don’t we just make voters dip their thumbs in indelible ink?

Posted by: Warren Porter at August 27, 2013 8:36 AM
Comment #369918

I have no problem dipping our thumbs in ink; but I guarantee there would be cries of racism or some other violation of our rights from the left, if it was done.

There is a greater sinister event taking place with this ID thing. We are required to have ID’s in every aspect of our lives and not one peep out of the left. The people who show up at one of Obama’s ongoing campaign speeches are required to show an ID…and no cries of foul.

There is a history, in every election, of the military votes being lost, or arriving too late, or just not being counted. There have been attempts and laws passed to speed or modernize the military absentee ballot process, but we continue to see problems with the military vote. Yet, I see none of the left crying for the rights of the military. Tell me Warren, have you ever posted for the rights of the military to have their votes counted? And it just so happens that most military votes are conservative…interesting.

Military voters have long been disenfranchised — both at the state and federal level.

I don’t think the objections from the left of voter ID laws have anything to do with voter disenfranchisement, if they did then there would be concerns of military voters too. I believe it all has to do with Democrat votes. The low information crowd, who are too ignorant to go get an ID, are Democrat voters. So it all has to do with the democrat votes.

Posted by: Political Hostage at August 27, 2013 10:15 AM
Comment #369919

I continue to think about this thought; since Obama loves to surround himself with African Americans at his speaking tours, at a greater ratio than the population of America, would a black person be able to get into one of Obama’s speeches, stand behind him as he speaks…without showing a picture ID? Could they get in by showing their last electric or cable bill as proof of their ID?

Posted by: Political Hostage at August 27, 2013 10:23 AM
Comment #369925
Tell me Warren, have you ever posted for the rights of the military to have their votes counted?

If the information in the Heritage Article is accurate, then voters serving in our military deserve the at least as much attention as low-information voters who lack IDs.

We are required to have ID’s in every aspect of our lives and not one peep out of the left.
We are required to show an ID when we wish to exercise a privilege, but we are never required to show an ID when we wish to exercise an inalienable right. Posted by: Warren Porter at August 27, 2013 3:28 PM
Comment #369936

Warren

The woman voted both in person and absentee. Actually she voted 8 times for Obama, not only six. You are right that we should probably be more careful with absentee ballots. How do you suppose we should stop that fraud.

You can see the woman here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAg3zDHn7pI

There is another interesting piece about voter fraud and how Al Franken won.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZZ0WbKlugs

Re voter fraud

In both cases one voter is cheated. If one person commits voter fraud, he cheats on one vote. Just because you cannot identify a person doesn’t change the math.

If you look at the above video, you find it is almost impossible to convict on voter fraud. If a person votes twice, all he needs do is claim he made a mistake and there is no intent. Only those dumb enough to admit they did it on purpose can be punished and there is not much punishment.

Re IDs and poll tax - let’s see how the Supreme Court rules. If the Supreme Court says it is unconstitutional to require IDs, it is. If not, it is not. So far, it is not.

Posted by: CJ at August 27, 2013 8:20 PM
Comment #369938

Why would the information at Heritage not be accurate? Because it’s a conservative site???

We are required to show an ID when we wish to exercise a privilege, but we are never required to show an ID when we wish to exercise an inalienable right.


Inalienable rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights. Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101.

“Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred.” Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523:

You can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift from the creator to the individual and can not under any circumstances be surrendered or taken. All individual’s have unalienable rights.

The question is Warren, are you talking about “inalienable” or “unalienable” rights. I believe an ID can be included in “inalienable” rights. However, I assume you are talking about “unalienable” rights.

WHEN in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to desolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the seperate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.


“The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable.”


Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;’ and to ‘secure,’ not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor’s injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor’s benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation. BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

http://www.gemworld.com/USA-Unalienable.htm

In order to own property which was just proven to be an unalienable right, one must have an identity. I own several pieces of property…my name is on the deed or title…in order to put my name on the deed or title, I had to prove who I was with an ID. So whether you are talking about inalienable or unalienable rights, an ID is required for both.

Posted by: Political Hostage at August 27, 2013 8:33 PM
Comment #369942
Because it’s a conservative site???

No, it’s because it is a secondary source.

are you talking about “inalienable” or “unalienable” rights

The difference between those words is negligible. I don’t know why you are making hay out of this because even this small bit of nuance does nothing to change my point, which stands regardless as to whether an individual is able to enter into a contract where he/she legally forfeits his/her right to vote.

In order to own property which was just proven to be an unalienable right
You haven’t shown that owning property is an unalienable right. However, I will grant you this premise anyway.
one must have an identity. I own several pieces of property…my name is on the deed or title…in order to put my name on the deed or title, I had to prove who I was with an ID. So whether you are talking about inalienable or unalienable rights, an ID is required for both.
An identity is required to exercise those rights, but it is not required to possess in ID. 21 million Americans have no ID, yet they continue to own and exchange property without any trouble. Posted by: Warren Porter at August 27, 2013 9:30 PM
Comment #369944

Warren

Again, I don’t believe that 21 million is based on sound statistics.

A person w/o a valid way to identify himself, which would make it possible for him to have an ID, really cannot own property above a very small amount. He could not own a car, land or a house for example. I mean, in theory it would be allowed, but he would not have access to a checking account, so would be unable to pay property taxes unless he showed up at the clerk office and then he would probably have to show an ID, even if he could get there, since he would be unable to drive. And he would not be able ever to sell the property or buy another.

In fact, I content that it is impossible for anyone to lead anything like a normal life w/o an ID. I don’t believe that there are 21 million Americans living like Ted Kaczinski. Actually I think even he probably had an ID.

It is really a practically invalid argument. Anybody who doesn’t have an ID would have to be retarded or anti-social and it is unlikely such a person would want to vote or be able to get to the polls anyway, since he could not drive and evidently doesn’t have any friends with IDs who could help him get an ID of his own.

One way to destroy any system is to demand perfection in all cases. I think that is what liberals are doing with their opposition to IDs. We can conjure up a hypothetical where a person would want to vote but be stopped because of no ID, but it is hard to find a real case. I know your article had nine of them, in our country of 300 million, but some of their stories didn’t sound plausible and others could be easily remedied.

Posted by: CJ at August 27, 2013 9:51 PM
Comment #369945

Warren, you are just being silly. The court case linked to was referring to the ownership of land. Do you know of anyone who has bought land or a house without showing proof of who they are?

Posted by: Political Hostage at August 27, 2013 9:53 PM
Comment #369946

How does one receive a paycheck for employment? How does one have a job? How does one have a SS number? I’m sorry, but I agree with C&J, it is impossible that 21 million Americans have no ID. Even at my age, I was born in a house, but I have a birth certificate. It was required when I got my SS card at 12 years old. It’s impossible for 1/10 of the America adult population to not have some type of ID.

Posted by: Political Hostage at August 27, 2013 10:02 PM
Comment #369949
I don’t believe that 21 million is based on sound statistics.

You continue to assert this, but you don’t have any way to back this up. The fact of the matter is that 987 Americans of voter age were called at random and asked, “Do you have a current, unexpired government-issued ID with your picture on
it, like a driver’s license or a military ID?”. 11% of respondents answered “No”. At this point, in order for the survey to be false, there has to a massive case of deliberate fraud going on at the Brennan Center.

I content that it is impossible for anyone to lead anything like a normal life w/o an ID.

You are correct that these people do not live normal lives, but having an atypical lifestyle is not a valid reason for abrogating one’s right to vote. You say it is impossible for anyone to live such an abnormal lifestyle, but I can speculate a number of lifestyles that do not require ID: Subsistence farmers/hunters like Ted Kaczinski and most homeless lifestyles do not require an ID.

It is not unheard of for much of the working poor to get by without identification. They live paycheck to paycheck and utilize the services of “Checks Cashed” service rather than a bank. They don’t drive or own cars (they take public transit to work). They rent an apartment rather than own a condo/house. They don’t borrow or save money, they simply spend every cent as soon as they can. It’s a foolish lifestyle, but it’s a lifestyle nonetheless.

Elderly people also have a much easier time living without identification because they do not work and likely have their daily needs provided by outside caregivers. It is true that an outside caregiver could probably assist in the acquisition of a Photo ID, but this doesn’t do squat with regards to the constitutionality of the law. A $.01 poll tax is probably a burden to no one, yet it is still prohibited by the Constitution simply as a matter of principle. THe same goes for Photo ID reqs.

Posted by: Warren Porter at August 28, 2013 4:02 AM
Comment #369951

Re 21 million - I do indeed continue to assert this. I explained that I believe that the study that asserted the 21 million number is seriously flawed. I don’t believe in the methodology and I don’t believe in the number. You find surveys proving lots of things that are not true, and/or other surveys come up with different numbers.

A true measure would be simply counting. How many legally registered voters are prevented from voting because they cannot prove their identity? You could find out by counting numbers that show up at the polls and are not allowed to vote, even provisionally. We hear lots of stories about this, but whenever they dig deeper the stories just disappear. I always call them ghost stories. IF you do find such an case, it can be easily corrected.

You mention the 11%. They were asked if they CURRENTLY have such things. It doesn’t say they cannot get them. Even if the number is correct, I don’t believe it is too much to ask to get an ID and since the Supreme Court up until now has not ruled on this, and so allows it, it is constitutional to demand it.

Beyond that, any person w/o an ID who can be identified can be easily corrected. If he is a registered voter who shows up at the polls w/o an ID, he can vote provisionally. After that, he can get an ID. So the worst case scenario he is inconvenienced one time and then can correct the problem.

My meta point is about perfection, but you are looking for perfection on only one side. You want to make a policy based on the assumption that a few hypothetical voters will be inconvenienced. There will always be a few problems. Perfect is unattainable and should not be pursued as anything except an aspiration. But if we demand perfection, we would also seek perfection in preventing fraud. Each invalid vote negates an honest one.

If we take your case of the guy who has no ID. Assume he is allowed to vote, fine. Now someone across town votes for the opposing candidate but does so illegally. One vote cancels the other. His legal vote still didn’t matter.

Pursuing perfection in both preventing disenfranchisement by checking IDs and by making it possible to vote w/o identification is impossible. So we need to make a real world balance. How can we minimize disenfranchisement? I think that a voter ID is the to minimize disenfranchisement.

Let me say again, the voter ID laws in place now have not been struck down by the Supreme Court, so they are currently constitutional. If at some time they are ruled unconstitutional, they will be gone. Until then, we respect the law and the constitution by supporting them.

Posted by: CJ at August 28, 2013 6:08 AM
Comment #369953
Re 21 million - I do indeed continue to assert this. I explained that I believe that the study that asserted the 21 million number is seriously flawed. I don’t believe in the methodology and I don’t believe in the number. You find surveys proving lots of things that are not true, and/or other surveys come up with different numbers.

In other words, the results disagree with your ideology so you decide to disregard the survey instead of questioning your ideology.

A true measure would be simply counting. How many legally registered voters are prevented from voting because they cannot prove their identity? You could find out by counting numbers that show up at the polls and are not allowed to vote, even provisionally. We hear lots of stories about this, but whenever they dig deeper the stories just disappear. I always call them ghost stories.

Firstly, this method only works in places where the laws are enforced (which is currently a minority of the country). Secondly, this method fails to count people discouraged from even showing up because they lack ID.

IF you do find such an case, it can be easily corrected.
No, correcting the problem isn’t easy. A few people don’t live with IDs as a matter of personal choice. Many other people don’t have Birth Certificates or other documentation needed to acquire a photo ID in the first place. You are incorrectly assuming that these people live the same affluent lifestyle that you or I do, but they don’t and it is this empathy gap that is impairing your judgement.
My meta point is about perfection, but you are looking for perfection on only one side. You want to make a policy based on the assumption that a few hypothetical voters will be inconvenienced. There will always be a few problems. Perfect is unattainable and should not be pursued as anything except an aspiration. But if we demand perfection, we would also seek perfection in preventing fraud. Each invalid vote negates an honest one.

I am not seeking perfection because I am willing to tolerate a few fraudulent votes in order to make sure every eligible citizen can cast a ballot.

One vote cancels the other. His legal vote still didn’t matter.
You can make this claim about ANY crime, and if you do that then Blackstone’s principle goes by the wayside. What makes voting different than murder in this respect? Despite the preponderance of evidence establishing that George Zimmerman murdered Trayvon Martin, he was acquitted because his lawyers identified reasonable doubt that he may have been acting in self-defense. If we adopted your standard, Zimmerman would have been found guilty.

There’s a reason we presume innocence in this country; and it’s because the symbolic significance of state-sanctioned punishment of an innocent is far worse than the harm an innocent may receive at the hands of a criminal. This is true even if from a practical standpoint the harms are the same.

One vote cancels the other. His legal vote still didn’t matter.
One more point on this matter. You incorrectly assume the election is a binary choice. Some elections pose three or more candidates, in which case a fraudulent vote need not cancel a legitimate one at a one-to-one ratio (which makes the case for abandoning Blackstone even weaker for voting than it is for murder). Posted by: Warren Porter at August 28, 2013 7:21 AM
Comment #369956

Her is a little research in opposition to the left’s claim of 21 million who do not have valid ID’s.

Anti-ID zealots point to the Brennan Center for Justice of NYU, which sponsored a survey in 2006 to ask people if they had a current photo ID. They’ve been trumpeting the results ever since:

But before we get too worried about disenfranchising all those poor ID-less voters, let’s look at the questions they asked:

1) Do you have a current, unexpired government-issued ID with your picture on it, like a driver’s license or a military ID?
2) If yes, does this photo ID have both your current address AND your current name (as opposed to a maiden name) on it?
3) Do you have any of the following citizenship documents (U.S. birth certificate/U.S. passport/U.S. naturalization papers) in a place where you can quickly find it if you had to show it tomorrow?
4) If yes, does [that document] have your current name on it (as opposed to a maiden name)?

So, once again we see it’s all based upon the questions asked. Warren makes the statement that “They rent an apartment rather than own a condo/house.” People that rent an apartment tend to move much more than one who owns. The moving from one apartment to another, or moving from an apartment to their parent’s home, or as we live in a day of couples living together and not marrying, we find couples living together and splitting up. These scenarios of changing addresses are part of the makeup of these people who are determined to not have valid ID’s. So, I can understand how this 21 million poll is completely skewed. I simply cannot accept the fact that there are 21 million Americans who are virtually unknown or hidden from our society. It is impossible.

Posted by: Political Hostage at August 28, 2013 10:48 AM
Comment #369973

Political Hostage,

Thank you for attempting to disprove the Brennan Survey’s findings. I’ll try and address every point raised by you and geoff.

For Reference, here is the Brennan Survey

geoff writes:

Now a lot of people have a drivers license with an old address on it. In fact, I do, and so does my wife. But in my state that’s no problem – the state doesn’t require a current address for your drivers license to be accepted as valid ID (sometimes you have to show them a recent bill with your current address on it).

So we would have been part of the 11%, even though we have had valid IDs for 35 years.

Actually, the 11% statistic represents responses to the first question, not the second. Of people who answered yes to the first question, 10% answered no to the second question and geoff is part of the 10% (not the 11%). If his state required that only Photo IDs with a current address were acceptable, then 20% of eligible voters would be disenfranchised (assuming the states demographics don’t diverge from the whole country).

Hmmmm. 87.5% of the voting age public has a drivers license, and 87.9% used their license to prove identification. Those numbers are unbelievably close, indicating that the numbers associated with other forms of ID are likely to be representative of the public as a whole. And as we can see, the overwhelming majority were able to present a picture ID.

That same survey said that among the 2000 registered voters interviewed by phone, 97.3% voted (p. 115). Of the 2.7% who did not vote, lack of proper ID was found to be a 5.5% effect. So perhaps 0.15% of voters were inhibited by improper ID.

Now, there may be a disproportionate number of people out there who didn’t register to vote because they lacked ID, but since the percentage of people using drivers licenses matches the percentage of people with drivers licenses, I don’t think it’s very likely.

In short, the Photo ID controversy shouldn’t be much of a controversy at all. And that 11% number is wildly inflated.


geoff’s link to Pew is broken, but I’ll trust that he reported his numbers accurately.

I may be misreading geoff’s analysis, but this looks like a very poor application of Bayes’ theorem as well as the law of conditional probability. It is true that if the proportion of voters who possess a driver’s license is equal to the proportion of license holders in the overall population, then voting and obtaining a license are independent events. However, we don’t know the proportion of voters with a drivers’ license. In lieu of this statistic, geoff relies on an unproven assumption that all voters who did not utilize a license as an ID don’t possess one. It ignores the reality that some voters may have both a license and alternative ID but choose to use the alternative ID instead of the licence. This means that registered voters probably possess driver’s licenses at a rate greater than the population as a whole. The flip side of this is that people who aren’t registered to vote(and people who registered to vote, but didn’t show up) probably possess licenses at a rate less than the population as a whole.

Another way of thinking about this: 87.5% of Voting Age Americans have licenses. Thus, 12.5% lack licenses. Brennan tells us that 11% lack govt-issued photo ID. This is plausible because it leaves us with 1.5% who have alternative ID, but no license.

Also, note that 313/4098=7.63% voters in that survey did not claim to have presented got-issued photo ID. They utilized non-photo ID or non-Govt ID, which would put them into the 11% category if that is their only form of ID. However, this ignores people didn’t vote. The 11% of Americans found to lack govt-issued photo ID by Brennan either lurk amongst this 7.63% or they didn’t attempt to vote at all (possibly because they weren’t registered).

Posted by: Warren Porter at August 28, 2013 4:27 PM
Comment #369994

Warren

Re the survey - I am not questioning it based on ideology. This survey is badly designed from the technical point of view. One of my degrees involves market research and I use surveys a lot in my work. I would not be able to use this survey professionally, or I don’t trust it here either.

Keeping with the technical flaws of the numbers, you say “A few people don’t live with IDs as a matter of personal choice. Many other people don’t have Birth Certificates or other documentation needed to acquire a photo ID in the first place. You are incorrectly assuming that these people live the same affluent lifestyle that you or I do, but they don’t and it is this empathy gap that is impairing your judgement.”

If you want to find out how many people could not get IDs, check into the number of people w/o birth certificates. Even people born at home get birth certificates. This has been the case for a century. In 1922, only three states did not have a system in place or in the works. In the 1940s birth certificates became more important because of the war. A naturalized American would have his naturalization papers.

Re the Blackstone idea re crime - one is proactive, the other ex post facto.

If you want an operative question, you would have to be talking about a future murder.

But let’s get to the bottom line. The Supreme Court will/may sometime decide if ID laws are constitutional. As of today, the laws in place have not been successfully challenged. So currently, requiring an ID is constitutional. So we can set that aside. ID laws do not violate the constitution.

Now we come only to our differing opinions. I don’t believe it is onerous to require IDs and I believe that MORE votes will be invalidated if we do not have ID laws than if we do. I don’t believe very many people could not have access to IDs, in fact that number that cannot do so approaches zero. You think that we have no right to inconvenience those who may not have ready access. I think it is within our rights to demand IDs. So far, the law is on my side.

Posted by: CJ at August 29, 2013 4:16 AM
Comment #370002

The SCOTUS will decide whether voter ID’s laws are constitutional, and I agree they will find them legal. It is for this very reason the attack has now shifted to the Justices of the SCOTUS.

Melanie Campbell, the president of the National Coalition on Black Civic Participation, said though black Americans are not threatened by biting dogs and KKK members in white hoods, the “dogs are still biting in other ways” and there is still “racism and inequality.”

She said, “Today there are no white sheets, but there are judges in black robes in the U.S. Supreme Court striking down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, opening the floodgates in many states to pass more voter ID laws… with the goal of ensuring we never see a black man elected to the president, or woman, of the United states of America.”

Posted by: Political Hostage at August 29, 2013 11:01 AM
Comment #370030

Political

Our leftist friend have changed the definitions of racism. They like to talk in terms of dogs and beatings. That is why they always harken back to times before most of us were born. Today, they define racism as someone not agreeing with Obama.

I guess that the U.S. has become so soft that we don’t recognize reality.

Posted by: CJ at August 29, 2013 9:14 PM
Post a comment