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.

Monster Rain wrote:Okay, by "actual problem" I mean that voter fraud becomes something that is happening in sufficient numbers to substantially affect election outcomes.

As someone who has lobbied in other threads against the current crop of voter ID laws, I'd also like to say I'd be all for these requirements in the situation you describe. I think they currently are an unreasonable burden for a nearly nonexistent problem but as the latter changes so must the former.

The test is false.

To prove the issue, lots of people need to go to a voter photo ID jurisdiction and get caught with a false ID.

So arrest the guy for voter fraud, case closed.

In other news cars are being manufactured to never go over 70mph, conservatives hail the move as a sure fire way to cut down on speeding.

Kilkrazy wrote:To prove the issue, lots of people need to go to a voter photo ID jurisdiction and get caught with a false ID.

Even then it remains a case of begging the question.

Ouze wrote: I think they currently are an unreasonable burden for a nearly nonexistent problem but as the latter changes so must the former.

Which is totally fair.

Manchu wrote:We'll end up going around and around. Frazzled, for example, has already said that de minimis fraud is effective disenfranchisement. And I don't think that is the real issue, anyhow. For example, does a voter ID requirement actually eliminate de minimus fraud? -- on it's face, no. It only makes fraud marginally more problematic for the absolutely least capable/committed fraudsters.

Well we have laws on the books against murder as well. It still happens but we keep the law strangely enough.

"He who breaks the Law must go to the House of Pain!"
- some animal person


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:The test is false.

To prove the issue, lots of people need to go to a voter photo ID jurisdiction and get caught with a false ID.

I'm not trying to prove the issue. I just think the fact they could do it to the head f the DOJ to be hysterical.*

*but only in a 'huh huh' sort of hysterical.

Laws against murder put no undue burden on anyone.

(in before T-Bone joke)

Manchu wrote:Laws against murder put no undue burden on anyone.

(in before T-Bone joke)

It sure puts a crimper on my style. I don't know about you, but I have a list.

Frazzled wrote:

Manchu wrote:Laws against murder put no undue burden on anyone.

(in before T-Bone joke)

It sure puts a crimper on my style. I don't know about you, but I have a list.

Yeppers, my list has gone from a few names to just about everybody.... can't wait until law and order break down and disgruntled peoples everywhere can go on killing rampages for no good reasion without fear of reprisal Truly a perfect world.

So then what would stop someone from killing you?

Presumably, one would be required to have some kind of vendetta murder ID.

Monster Rain wrote:So then what would stop someone from killing you?

Full auto wiener dogs...DUH!

Do not underestimate the Dachshund.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/9172692/Meet-Beyonce-the-worlds-tiniest-dog.html

Thats our secret agent mini wienie.

Some people in this thread have consumed soooo much cool-aid I wouldn't be surprised if their skin had a red tint to it. Please show me evidence that voter fraud is nonexistent. Because the last several elections have had pretty big dust ups over the voting process.

SickSix wrote:Some people in this thread have consumed soooo much cool-aid I wouldn't be surprised if their skin had a red tint to it. Please show me evidence that voter fraud is nonexistent. Because the last several elections have had pretty big dust ups over the voting process.

The argument against voter registration is not "voter fraud is nonexistent".

The argument against voter registration is "it's not a large enough problem to justify draconian measures".

Voter Identification isn't exactly "draconian" though, as much as I love hyperbole.

Monster Rain wrote:Voter Identification isn't exactly "draconian" though, as much as I love hyperbole.

The proposed measures were ridiculously restrictive.

From what I can recall (I don't know if the measure has been rewritten), out of state identification and college issued identification were some examples of identification which was not considered "valid" for purposes of voting.

It just seems to me a elegant solution would be, when your a senior in high school take everyone down for a field trip to the DMV.

The kids register for the draft, Get a photo ID, and register to vote, all at no cost to the kids.

Either that or just start RFID'ing everyone, put a chip in everyones thumb for all their banking/medical/anything else they can put on it. Then all you would need is a reader for your computer and you can vote from home.

Kanluwen wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Voter Identification isn't exactly "draconian" though, as much as I love hyperbole.

The proposed measures were ridiculously restrictive.

From what I can recall (I don't know if the measure has been rewritten), out of state identification and college issued identification were some examples of identification which was not considered "valid" for purposes of voting.

Any one going to college gets an ID. It in no way is tied to citizenship, residence in a electoral district, or whatever. An out of state ID is also not good. It could very well indicate you are registered to vote in the state which issued the ID. It also places a burden on the folks at the poll to be able to correctly identify IDs from all over the place and determine their validity.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:Okay, by "actual problem" I mean that voter fraud becomes something that is happening in sufficient numbers to substantially affect election outcomes.

Shouldn't you have to show that requiring an ID keeps enough people from voting as to substantially affect election outcomes? Shouldn't the argument work both ways?

CptJake wrote:Shouldn't you have to show that requiring an ID keeps enough people from voting as to substantially affect election outcomes? Shouldn't the argument work both ways?

Well, I think the burden of proof would lie on the person trying to implement a change. In this case, in order to make a new law there would have to be a measurable need.

Actually no burden of proof is needed. If a state gets a law passed it gets a law passed. If the electorate of that state perceives a need and their elected officials pass a bill according to their constitution (or other document) then they are good.

To claim the passed law hurts others once passed to get it repealed or declared unconstitutional DOES require proof. If your logic for acceptability is 'doesn't affect the election' than you would have to prove it did to get the passed law sticken.

CptJake wrote:Actually no burden of proof is needed. .

It probably isn't, but you asked about the argument itself, right?

Ideally, there'd be some effort to show that a law is necessary before it gets thrown onto the books. Especially if there's a potential to deny votes to law abiding, eligible citizens.

Monster Rain wrote:

CptJake wrote:Actually no burden of proof is needed. .

It probably isn't, but you asked about the argument itself, right?

Ideally, there'd be some effort to show that a law is necessary before it gets thrown onto the books. Especially if there's a potential to deny votes to law abiding, eligible citizens.

Now you are being just silly. You expect all these elected folks to ONLY pass necessary laws?

Heh. I wish. We could easily ditch 75% of all Federal laws.

As for potential to deny votes, again, your argument is that it would have to be enough to affect the election... Pretty sure if groups like ACORN (or what ever their name is today) can 'mobilize' folks to vote, they can mobilize them to get them an ID a few weeks ahead of time.

I'm for voter IDs if we need them, but I think the argument against that is that voting is free and IDs are not.

I'm not sure how one can function in today's society without an ID, but that's a whole other ball of wax.

Manchu wrote:We're talking about legislation to discourage non-existent behavior.

Where are all the small government conservatives???

If you think voter fraud isn't happening, you:
1. know nothing about ACORN or have never heard of "voting the dead."
2. live in pleasantville.
3. are too busy painting that 5th 40k army to pay attention to the real world.
4. didn't consider how you can say that it isn't happening, if voting doesn't require valid identification to start with. I mean, how can you know?

Being a small government conservative includes expecting elections to be valid. Do we live in some 3rd world country, or are we a nation of laws?

Regards,

I really don't think conservatives are in any way justified to be throwing stones about fraudulent elections.

Don't worry, Kan. There is no evidence of voter fraud therefore it must be happening. We should let these geniuses get back to solving the important problems.

Like why my computer isn't writing my paper for me?

Kanluwen wrote:I really don't think conservatives are in any way justified to be throwing stones about fraudulent elections.

I was waiting for that.