Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

kronk wrote:Frazzled, just digging around, I could only find articles where a handful of people over the last decade were tried and convicted for it. It certainly doesn't seem that wide spread.

I'm not against having to show ID, but I just don't think it's as big an issue as it's being made out to be.

How do you convict someone when by the nature of the crime you can't have proof?

As the OP is an example. How are you going to catch people illegally voting if you have no way to prove who they are and can't ask?

Ex. Party A decides to stack the vote. It submits fraudulent registration forms using the names of the dead, cartoon characters, and anyone else they can think of (actual examples).
Party A then gives people $10, a name, and buses them to vote.
Voila

Its not difficult. just ask any illinois politician.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/04/09/the_democrats_election_forgery_racket_113722.html

Frazzled wrote:But then again, don’t pay attention, after all I’m delusional for even thinking there might be voter fraud.

Straight from the horse's mouth -- too bad it's sarcastic. Of course, the voter fraud we're looking for is that which would tend to show that voter ID requirement laws are necessary -- and of course none could be found when SCOTUS asked Indiana about this. But you're very fond of referring to SCOTUS, so I bet you'd know that even if you hadn't ignored me posting it half a dozen times.

Frazzled wrote:Its passed in two dozen states, and withstood SCOTUS review. Evidently someone thinks its an issue.

Yes, it's pretty clear that Republicans think it is an issue. As for SCOTUS, the review was simple enough -- voter ID requirements are the subject of legitimate state interests and their imposition does not violate the Constitution. Big deal. The question here (in this thread) is not whether the federal government should break this up, or even whether states have a hypothetical legitimate interest in restricting voting rights. The issue is, since there is no evidence of actual voter fraud, this is (as noted by the circuit court in Crawford as well as both dissenting opinions on review) nothing but a disenfranchisement of the poor and the old.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:How do you convict someone when by the nature of the crime you can't have proof?

From the page you yourself linked:

At least two whistle-blowing government officials came forward to expose the forgery racket, which court documents say was formulated by Democratic Party officials inside local party headquarters.

Wait so you admit your argument is blown out of the water and moot as SCOTUS has already decided it? Excellent. . .

Frazzled wins. (does Tbone happy dog dance).

Now is we can just get Holder to admit the same and quit stalling for political purposes.

Frazzled wrote:Wait so you admit your argument is blown out of the water and moot as SCOTUS has already decided it? Excellent. . .

Seeing how you read (or don't read) my posts makes it easy to understand why you think voter ID requirements are meant to address voter fraud.

Manchu wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Wait so you admit your argument is blown out of the water and moot as SCOTUS has already decided it? Excellent. . .

Seeing how you read (or don't read) my posts makes it easy to understand why you think voter ID requirements are meant to address voter fraud.

Oooh now personal attacks. That will not save you. I'm used to TBone growling at me when I carry him in and out of the car because he's too old to jump - even though he wants me to do it. So more wiener happy dance for YOU!

EDIT: Keep up the growling and I'm going to think you want your belly rubbed. Who's a good manchu? AW you're a good Manchu or yes you are, yes you are!

For anyone actually interested in learning about voter fraud:

http://www.truthaboutfraud.org/pdf/TruthAboutVoterFraud.pdf


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Oooh now personal attacks.

Just like dozens of users calling you a troll every day doesn't actually make you a troll, accusing me of personal attacks when I call out your blatant misrepresentation of my posts or facts about voter fraud doesn't actually make them personal attacks.

Manchu wrote:For anyone actually interested in learning about voter fraud:

http://www.truthaboutfraud.org/pdf/TruthAboutVoterFraud.pdf

or alternatively, from an equally unbiased news source:
http://frontpagemag.com/2010/10/29/voter-fraud-in-america/


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Just like dozens of users calling you a troll every day doesn't actually make you a troll, accusing me of personal attacks when I call out your blatant misrepresentation of my posts or facts about voter fraud doesn't actually make them personal attacks.

True that, calling someone delusional does however. More happy dance for you.

Frazzled wrote:

Well, kronk, I don't mean to suggest that this is what Republicans are necessarily trying to accomplish. But I can't see any other result of these laws. I know Republicans aren't naive or totally uninformed. I know they know there is no voter fraud -- put it another way, I know this isn't an attempt to ban lightsabers. So what's up?

The problem of course, is that your argument is based on the false premise that there is no voter fraud. A simple google search pulls 20.5mm hits.

1. It isn't.
2. Googling "No voter fraud" gets 36mm hits.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=no+voter+fraud&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&redir_esc=&ei=taSET_xTxazRBbDy8cIH

Haggis.

I win.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Well, kronk, I don't mean to suggest that this is what Republicans are necessarily trying to accomplish. But I can't see any other result of these laws. I know Republicans aren't naive or totally uninformed. I know they know there is no voter fraud -- put it another way, I know this isn't an attempt to ban lightsabers. So what's up?

The problem of course, is that your argument is based on the false premise that there is no voter fraud. A simple google search pulls 20.5mm hits.

1. It isn't.
2. Googling "No voter fraud" gets 36mm hits.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=no+voter+fraud&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&redir_esc=&ei=taSET_xTxazRBbDy8cIH

Haggis.

I win.

The GoogleForce is strong with this one.
Pizza in the USA rates 48.8mm hits.. have at you Haggis boy!

Frazzled wrote:

Manchu wrote:For anyone actually interested in learning about voter fraud:

http://www.truthaboutfraud.org/pdf/TruthAboutVoterFraud.pdf

or alternatively, from an equally unbiased news source:
http://frontpagemag.com/2010/10/29/voter-fraud-in-america/

The points made in that two-page opinion piece from a conservative webrag that you posted are directly addressed by the law journal article published by a state university that I posted.

True that, calling someone delusional does however.

I think you're referring to this:

Manchu wrote:

Frazzled wrote:I’m worried about voter fraud disenfranchising MY voting rights.

Then you are worried about something that you have no evidence of existing. This is called delusional behavior. The further argument that the evidence actually does exist but is being suppressed by a society-wide conspiracy is called paranoia. You might as well be worried that the unicorn nazis are out to take your ballot.

I described a behavior as delusional and an argument as paranoia. The fact that you happened to be engaged in both doesn't make a personal attack. For example, the statement "posting controversial threads and then posting pictures of wiener dogs instead of actual discussion is spammy and trollish" is not a personal attack against you.

Nonsense, you know you were trying to be mean to poor old Frazzled, who never did no one any harm.

Au contraire, I'm not even a little bit French:



I understand you are, comment dit-on, less popular there.

Manchu wrote:Au contraire, I'm not even a little bit French:



I understand you are, comment dit-on, less popular there.

I don't know what that says but hate now burns bright in the eyes of ten million bad breathed little demons. It is officially France's ass for that. It may take us a while to get there, but when we do, all your French poodles shall be reviled!

It could be a Canadian sign, TBH. But wherever it is it is no doubt a perfidious example of voter fraud in action.

Manchu wrote:It could be a Canadian sign, TBH. But wherever it is it is no doubt a perfidious example of voter fraud in action.

Its still France's ass, even if they are innocent. IN their hearts they know they are guilty.

Frazzled wrote:

Manchu wrote:Au contraire, I'm not even a little bit French:



I understand you are, comment dit-on, less popular there.

I don't know what that says but hate now burns bright in the eyes of ten million bad breathed little demons. It is officially France's ass for that. It may take us a while to get there, but when we do, all your French poodles shall be reviled!

When The Great Weinie comes, France will suffer. It will be The Great Weinie Roast.

Manchu wrote:The press is interested in these sorts of things. As are lobbyists. Also, it appears that successful political candidates are interested, as well, given that they are in fact the ones trying to pass this law. They're especially interested when they have to defend the law before the Supreme Court. But, as I mentioned, even being as interested in finding evidence of voter fraud as is possible doesn't mean that one will actually be able to find it.

You just mentioned a lot of different groups with no subpoena power or a myriad other useful investigative tools used by people actually appointed to investigate such things.

I'd imagine it would officially fall to state Boards of Elections, myself, though I don't know.

]Not really. The assumption is that voter fraud will inevitably become a problem in the future. I don't think that assumption is very tenable.

Based on what, exactly? Your powers of prognostication? We've absolutely had issues with voter fraud before. To suggest that it won't come up again because (you believe) it isn't an issue now is like me suggesting I won't ever need a snow shovel because it's currently spring.

You are saying that voter ID requirements are a deterrent against voter fraud. But that argument relies on the likelihood of the target behavior -- so see my point above.

No, it doesn't. At all. Unless you really are saying it's possible to deter only likely behavior.

Well, perhaps at least you and I can agree that the problem with voter ID requirements is not that they enable totalitarian regimes.

I don't grant the premise that there is a problem with them.

Phanatik wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Manchu wrote:Au contraire, I'm not even a little bit French:



I understand you are, comment dit-on, less popular there.

I don't know what that says but hate now burns bright in the eyes of ten million bad breathed little demons. It is officially France's ass for that. It may take us a while to get there, but when we do, all your French poodles shall be reviled!

When The Great Weinie comes, France will suffer. It will be The Great Weinie Roast.

Damn straight! The Lord of all BADGER DOGS does not forgive insult.

The Great Wienie is watching YOU.

Seaward wrote:
Based on what, exactly? Your powers of prognostication? We've absolutely had issues with voter fraud before. To suggest that it won't come up again because (you believe) it isn't an issue now is like me suggesting I won't ever need a snow shovel because it's currently spring.

Explain how requiring a photo ID to vote prevents voter fraud when I can get a fake ID that will stand up to any reasonable level of inspection for 20 dollars in the back room of nearly any convenience store.

dogma wrote:

Seaward wrote:
Based on what, exactly? Your powers of prognostication? We've absolutely had issues with voter fraud before. To suggest that it won't come up again because (you believe) it isn't an issue now is like me suggesting I won't ever need a snow shovel because it's currently spring.

Explain how requiring a photo ID to vote prevents voter fraud when I can get a fake ID that will stand up to any reasonable level of inspection for 20 dollars in the back room of nearly any convenience store.

Execute fake ID sellers in the street?

Frazzled wrote:
Execute fake ID sellers in the street?

Good luck with that.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Execute fake ID sellers in the street?

Good luck with that.

Hey if its good enough for the Mao Tse Tung its good enough for me.

Frazzled wrote:

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Execute fake ID sellers in the street?

Good luck with that.

Hey if its good enough for the Mao Tse Tung its good enough for me.

You have to phrase it in a way the Left can identify with.

WWCD

(what would Castro do?)

Regards,

Phanatik wrote:
You have to phrase it in a way the Left can identify with.

WWCD

(what would Castro do?)

Mao wasn't a leftist?

dogma wrote:
Explain how requiring a photo ID to vote prevents voter fraud when I can get a fake ID that will stand up to any reasonable level of inspection for 20 dollars in the back room of nearly any convenience store.

I don't believe you can. Nobody designs fake IDs for their home state; everybody knows what they look like. When making fakes to get kids into bars, you go with something far-flung and easy. When I was making them in college, that was Texas and New Jersey. Hell, New Jersey didn't even have a hologram on theirs back then. Today, with multiple holograms and inversed pictures and all sorts of other crap? No, you're not going to find a credible fake ID for the state you're in in the back of a convenience store for 20 dollars.

Seaward wrote:Today, with multiple holograms and inversed pictures and all sorts of other crap? No, you're not going to find a credible fake ID for the state you're in in the back of a convenience store for 20 dollars.

Are you kidding?

First, let's address inverse pictures. You can invert pictures in iPhoto, among many other programs. No protection is offered there. If you're talking about rotation, then even a child can do that with MS Paint.

Holograms are just a matter of ink type, and the stock on which its applied. You think your licensing fee pays for the card itself?

Seaward wrote:Nobody designs fake IDs for their home state; everybody knows what they look like.

If you're trying to bilk idiot kids, sure.

It isn't hard to make any in-state fake, its just easier to take money from kids that are already committing a crime while minimizing your effort.

People committing voter fraud, en masse, don't care about money. Hell, even if they do, that seemingly real Illinois DL might look damn good in Texas, or Oklahoma.

Then make a better card. The Texas ID has holograms and magnetic crap all over it. Regardless, that doesn't matter in the slightest. Laws are not predicated on the ability to violate them easily without discovery.

Frazzled wrote:Then make a better card. The Texas ID has holograms and magnetic crap all over it.

All easily faked. Not for 20 bucks, but if you're talking about mass voter fraud that kind of cost doesn't really matter.

Frazzled wrote:
Regardless, that doesn't matter in the slightest. Laws are not predicated on the ability to violate them easily without discovery.

Yeah, they actually are. Whether or not a law is enforceable is a pretty significant consideration.

dogma wrote:

Seaward wrote:Today, with multiple holograms and inversed pictures and all sorts of other crap? No, you're not going to find a credible fake ID for the state you're in in the back of a convenience store for 20 dollars.

Are you kidding?

First, let's address inverse pictures. You can invert pictures in iPhoto, among many other programs. No protection is offered there. If you're talking about rotation, then even a child can do that with MS Paint.

Holograms are just a matter of ink type, and the stock on which its applied. You think your licensing fee pays for the card itself?

I didn't say it was particularly difficult, though nor is it as easy as you make it out to be. I said it wasn't going to be done in the back of a convenience store for 20 dollars, as you claimed. I realize you were trying to make a point by making up facts, but it's unfortunately an area in which you seem to have no idea what you're talking about. Of course, you can always prove me wrong by walking into the nearest 7-Eleven and asking to browse their fake ID selection.

It is entirely possible to get around voter ID laws. It is entirely possible to get around tax evasion laws. That the laws can be evaded is not an argument against having them. Hell, it's pretty easy to commit murder, despite the laws prohibiting it. Incidentally, punishments for fake ID manufacturing have gotten a little more strict since the whole 9/11 thing, so that's another deterrent to entry for people who would be using them for serious crimes.

People committing voter fraud, en masse, don't care about money. Hell, even if they do, that seemingly real Illinois DL might look damn good in Texas, or Oklahoma.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. If I was trying to vote in Virginia, I doubt a Texas license would be acceptable to prove my identity as a registered Virginia voter.

dogma wrote:
Yeah, they actually are. Whether or not a law is enforceable is a pretty significant consideration.

Um...no its not, at all.

Here's a small list of laws and regulations:
*Every drug law ever made.
*Laws on alcohol
*Laws on cigarettes
*Just about every felmony or misdemeanor - well all of them.
*Curfews
*EPA regulations
*Banking regulations

Unless there is a countervailing law that requires some sort of impact assessment or feasibility, its enforceability is rarely a material issue.