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.

@djones:

I get it. It's total coincidence that

1) there was never any proof that in-person voter fraud was a problem.
2) nobody that supported the bill has been able to answer how it would fix voter fraud
3) every "fix" targets groups that swing democrat while expired IDs and non-ID voting options that swing republican are allowed.

 d-usa wrote:
@djones:

I get it. It's total coincidence that

1) there was never any proof that in-person voter fraud was a problem.
2) nobody that supported the bill has been able to answer how it would fix voter fraud
3) every "fix" targets groups that swing democrat while expired IDs and non-ID voting options that swing republican are allowed.

1. Examples have been shown. You're just ignoring them.
2. It will fix the potential issue of disenfranchisement of voters but helping eliminate double voting or fraudulent voters from doing so. It should be part of a package of laws and processes to address new technology and concerns.
3. No, thats supposition. None have been shown, unless you assume Democratic voters are dumb or too lazy to get an ID. If you've seen some right wingers at Walmart or congress, stupidity is not bound by either party.

So you have posted sources backing up your claims, because I have.

How does eliminating early voting fix voter fraud? It doesn't, but they got rid of it and it was mostly used by democrats.
How does getting rid of Sunday voting fix voter fraud? It doesn't, but they got rid of it and it was mostly used by democrats.
How does getting rid of pre-registration prevent voter fraud? It doesn't, but young voters are voting democrat.
How does not allowing student IDs or out-of-state licenses stop voter fraud? It doesn't, but college students vote democrat.
How does allowing expired IDs prevent voter fraud? It doesn't, but old people vote republican.
How does allowing mail-in-voting without any ID at all prevent voter fraud? It doesn't, but those voters are republican.

If you don't wanna see that these fixes don't do anything and that they are targeted at one party, then be my guest.

 d-usa wrote:
So you have posted sources backing up your claims, because I have.

How does eliminating early voting fix voter fraud? It doesn't, but they got rid of it and it was mostly used by democrats.
How does getting rid of Sunday voting fix voter fraud? It doesn't, but they got rid of it and it was mostly used by democrats.
How does getting rid of pre-registration prevent voter fraud? It doesn't, but young voters are voting democrat.
How does not allowing student IDs or out-of-state licenses stop voter fraud? It doesn't, but college students vote democrat.
How does allowing expired IDs prevent voter fraud? It doesn't, but old people vote republican.
How does allowing mail-in-voting without any ID at all prevent voter fraud? It doesn't, but those voters are republican.

If you don't wanna see that these fixes don't do anything and that they are targeted at one party, then be my guest.

You know, early voting and Sunday voting and a lot of these things are pretty recent things. There used to be one day to vote and you went to the designated polling place for your county.

You seem to think that opening up non-election day polling or using Sunday voting to pander to specific segments of the population which benefitted the Democratic party was good, but taking away that advantage is now bad.

The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States.

Seems the guys who wrote the constitution, looking at a population that traveled mostly by foot, thought they could do with voters all voting on one particular day.

So get rid of voting by mail then?

I think getting rid of special provisions used by one group, and leaving special provisions that are used by another is bad.

Especially if it is done in the name of "pretenting voter fraud" when the actions don't have anything to do with fraud.

How does eliminating early voting fix voter fraud? It doesn't, but they got rid of it and it was mostly used by democrats.
***You have no proof of your statement and the argument is utter bs. Put some effort into likfe, join the 20th century and get an ID. If you can’t be arsed to get an ID you can’t tell me you’re going to vote.

How does getting rid of Sunday voting fix voter fraud? It doesn't, but they got rid of it and it was mostly used by democrats.
***you have no proof of your statement, but I am not defending this section.

How does getting rid of pre-registration prevent voter fraud? It doesn't, but young voters are voting democrat.
***supposition on your part. I like the concept though and am not defending this section.

How does not allowing student IDs or out-of-state licenses stop voter fraud? It doesn't, but college students vote democrat.
***This one is simple. They aren’t state issued IDs. Really?

How does allowing expired IDs prevent voter fraud? It doesn't, but old people vote republican.
***Because it was a state issued ID. I agree with you though. They should be current.

How does allowing mail-in-voting without any ID at all prevent voter fraud? It doesn't, but those voters are republican.
***You have no proof of your statement.

Frazzled, you say I have no proof of my statements?

I can honestly say that you are a bold-faced liar now, because I posted my proof earlier when I broke down the percentages of what group of voters utilized every form of voting.

I posted the statistics from the North Carolina Elections that showed that showed that 66% of absentee ballots were Republican. I posted the source that showed that early voting was 47% D and 31% R.

If you want to lie and say I don't have proof when I already shared my sources, including the election office from that state, then there is really no point in talking to you.

It's already pretty telling that the defense of this by others has gone from "It prevents fraud" to "it's cheaper" to "they were able to walk to a village in the 1800s so deal with it".

 d-usa wrote:
Frazzled, you say I have no proof of my statements?

I can honestly say that you are a bold-faced liar now, because I posted my proof earlier when I broke down the percentages of what group of voters utilized every form of voting.

I posted the statistics from the North Carolina Elections that showed that showed that 66% of absentee ballots were Republican. I posted the source that showed that early voting was 47% D and 31% R.

If you want to lie and say I don't have proof when I already shared my sources, including the election office from that state, then there is really no point in talking to you.

It's already pretty telling that the defense of this by others has gone from "It prevents fraud" to "it's cheaper" to "they were able to walk to a village in the 1800s so deal with it".

I guess there's no point talking to me then. You should save yourself the trouble and stop posting.

And leave your wiener-dog driven nonsense stand alone?

I will still post, I just know that you will ignore facts and pretend they don't exist. But that's nothing new.

I posted the sources. If you want to pretend they are not real and that the NC election office made them up then go ahead. It says more about you than I could.

 d-usa wrote:
It's already pretty telling that the defense of this by others has gone from "It prevents fraud" to "it's cheaper" to "they were able to walk to a village in the 1800s so deal with it".

Well, it hilariously stumbled right out of the gate, and it has been rather downhill ever since.

Don't think that's your call to make actually

Query :

What relationship -- if any -- do those proposing these changes have to

http://www.alec.org/ ?



My understanding of this is that the above organisation involved Paul Weyrich of

"I don't want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of the people. They never have been from the beginning of our country and they are not now. As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down."

fame. Which.. well... would or does cast some aspersions upon the motivations of those involved does it not ?

Guys... let's dial it back a bit... okay?

I'd be willing to bet that some federal judge will throw this out anyways... *shrugs*

Why can't we use the purple ink-to-finger system?

Some are to busy having their fingers in their ears going "lalalalalalalalalalalallalalala"?

You're making suppositions then posting general websites. I'm not going to wade through all that to get to your data. Sorry.

My issue is only addressing the voter ID thing. I am not versed in the other items and, as noted am not defending them. I just don't care.

The voter ID thing boils down to: getting IDs requires me to go somewhere-OH NOES! A law that is tailored to provide a free option is not a significant enough burden to be an issue.

This isn't 1820.

 d-usa wrote:
Some are to busy having their fingers in their ears going "lalalalalalalalalalalallalalala"?

Yeah... that's true.

So, lets go back to square one, shall we?

According to the US Constitution:

(Article I, Section 4) The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of choosing Senators.

Therefore, the legislative body makes the laws. There are no Constitutional requirements for any early voting, same day registration, or out of precinct voting, except for what is described above...

Therefore, the NC law is within those made by Congress. Right?

Now, if you want to get into the CONTEXT of this... sure, I can see why some folks are upset. But, this is the same ol' gambit EVERY politician does in their political sphere... 'tis why we get really wonkey districting throughout the US (gerrymandering).

So... I'm going to use a popular phrase used against me during Obama's election...

Election has consequences.

What's funny is that the following states has this:
Illinois – “Any time a voter uses Early Voting, the voter must present a government-issued photo ID.” An ID with your name and address is required. The IDs are not required to feature a photograph of the elector.[12] “If you register by mail, you must vote in person the first time, either at the polling place, in-person absentee or early voting, unless you submit with your mail-in registration form your driver license number or state ID number, the last four digits of your social security number, or one of the forms of ID listed below.”[13]

Delaware – Valid voter ID includes a photo ID, utility bill, paycheck or any other government document with your name and address on it.

Hawaii – In order to vote, electors must present valid photo ID with a signature. Additionally, voters will be asked to sign a poll book to record that they voted at the polling place. Voter Registration Notice is NOT an acceptable form of identification.

California – SB1016 (effective January 1, 2006) requires voters to provide their driver’s license number or state identification number. If they do not have either, they may use the last four digits of their social security card. If they also do not have a social security card number, the state will assign a unique number which may be used for voting purposes.

These states don't have problems electing their politicians (mostly, Democrats).

As to NC... I realize it's a big change, but ya'll have 2 years to get the required ID. That's not a burden imo.

 Frazzled wrote:

This isn't 1820.

Frazz comes out in favour of updated gun laws

 reds8n wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

This isn't 1820.

Frazz comes out in favour of updated gun laws

Wut? o.O

 reds8n wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

This isn't 1820.

Frazz comes out in favour of updated gun laws

You're right. I should be allowed to carry wherever I want and not be hampered by laws put in place by Yankees to hold down "those people."
Aren't we past that already?

 Frazzled wrote:
You're making suppositions then posting general websites. I'm not going to wade through all that to get to your data. Sorry.

So you say I'm wrong because you are lazy? Gotcha.

Never mind that at least half of those links are exactly one page of data...

Didn't say I was wrong. Did say I was lazy.

Again, my only issue is the voter ID thing. I don't care about the other points, nor NC actually.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
And you might note that my comments are about this law, which is not simply "Present an ID".

Now, an individual who actually has a driver's license (16 and 17 year olds) but is unable to vote will not be able to vote as the "Voter Preregistration" is being repealed.
Right now in NC if you get a driver's license, you are put into the voter rolls when you turn 18 without you having to go through the process of registering to vote.
If you do not get a driver's license(which is possible as licenses are commonly tied to grades here in NC), there would be voter registration drives done every year before the timeframe for elections to get anyone who recently turned 18 or would be turning 18 by the time for elections to get registered--without those individuals having to miss classes.

BOTH OF THOSE AVENUES ARE BEING REPEALED AS PART OF THIS LAW.

I only said I was in favour of voter ID. And voter drives don't already take place?

It just so happens that voter drives are being repealed as part of this law.

Amazing, right?

 Kanluwen wrote:
Christ you are as obnoxious as Whembly.

I have lived in North Carolina all of my 26 years of life.
If there were an election held RIGHT NOW, I would not be able to vote as I have a college issued ID as my 'primary form of identification'.
I can present it to the bank and get access to my money.
I can use it, currently, to apply for a job.
I can also use it to buy alcohol and cigarettes or get into strip clubs or bars.

Yet I would not be able to vote.
Do you not see why this is an issue?

Throwing mud just because we disagree with you? Throwing up barriers to a discussion doesn't help (and ironically, you are complaining about alleged barriers to voting)
Stop talking about "RIGHT NOW". That is a strawman and you know it. I, and many others here, are talking about a more than reasonable time to implement this law to prevent as much voter disenfranchisement as possible.

There is nothing whatsoever that is a strawman in regards to my statement.

The fact that you are trying to decry my statements as "slinging mud" just shows how little of this bill you actually understand.

Alfndrate wrote:Kan, I thought you had a state ID, but the UPS guy wouldn't accept it, or did you mean that your college ID wasn't accepted?

Yeah, however that was one of the few times my college ID has not been accepted at the UPS store.

Frazzled wrote:
gak on a shingle, man up already, get your friend to take you to the DMV and get an ID. Put some effort into life. Plus then you'll be able to legally drink. What a concept.

How many times do I have to repeat this statement:
I can already buy alcohol legally using a college issued ID.

So drinking is more important to you then voting? OK, I have to say, when I was younger I could agree with that!

 Kanluwen wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
gak on a shingle, man up already, get your friend to take you to the DMV and get an ID. Put some effort into life. Plus then you'll be able to legally drink. What a concept.

How many times do I have to repeat this statement:
I can already buy alcohol legally using a college issued ID.

If you are in North Carolina, you may well be wrong. You may be getting away with it, BUT you are not supposed to be sold alcohol without one of the following (and your college ID isn't listed).


•A valid driver's license
•A valid North Carolina State ID card (no other State ID cards are acceptable)
•A valid passport
•A valid U.S. Military ID

See thats what threw me. In Texas if you didn't have a license you were right out.

 Frazzled wrote:
See thats what threw me. In Texas if you didn't have a license you were right out.

Thus why I had posted mine earlier in the thread. My college id doesn't have DoB, or any other personal information.

 CptJake wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
gak on a shingle, man up already, get your friend to take you to the DMV and get an ID. Put some effort into life. Plus then you'll be able to legally drink. What a concept.

How many times do I have to repeat this statement:
I can already buy alcohol legally using a college issued ID.

If you are in North Carolina, you may well be wrong. You may be getting away with it, BUT you are not supposed to be sold alcohol without one of the following (and your college ID isn't listed).


•A valid driver's license
•A valid North Carolina State ID card (no other State ID cards are acceptable)
•A valid passport
•A valid U.S. Military ID

It is a nonissue for me as I do not drink heavily nor purchase alcohol, but on several occasions that has been the case when I was carded at clubs.

Your school ID does not affirm that you are a resident of the country, much less the state you are in. Plus, it can be easily faked and the octogenarian looking it over is not going to be up to speed like your basic bartender.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
gak on a shingle, man up already, get your friend to take you to the DMV and get an ID. Put some effort into life. Plus then you'll be able to legally drink. What a concept.

How many times do I have to repeat this statement:
I can already buy alcohol legally using a college issued ID.

If you are in North Carolina, you may well be wrong. You may be getting away with it, BUT you are not supposed to be sold alcohol without one of the following (and your college ID isn't listed).


•A valid driver's license
•A valid North Carolina State ID card (no other State ID cards are acceptable)
•A valid passport
•A valid U.S. Military ID

It is a nonissue for me as I do not drink heavily nor purchase alcohol, but on several occasions that has been the case when I was carded at clubs.

Let me point out the bolded part. You're talking about a business that tends to mostly serve younger age groups and in many areas couldn't care less about the liquor laws where they are. Hell, most of the ones I've been in never card and aren't above inviting in everyone off the street, regardless of how very obviously under age they are(we're talking teenagers being let in) and the laws stating that they should card at the door, not just when you purchase.

Hell, if there are cops around, as long as you're flashing something that could possibly be an ID from several feet of way, they'll let you in. Them taking your college ID was lip service to the law. I'd bet your ID never left your hand at those instances.

 Frazzled wrote:
Your school ID does not affirm that you are a resident of the country, much less the state you are in. Plus, it can be easily faked and the octogenarian looking it over is not going to be up to speed like your basic bartender.

Yeah... I was very confused that you could use your School ID to vote in the past.

Not all students are eligible to vote, as some students could be from out-of-state or non-native students on visas...

The only function of a picture ID is to verify that the picture matches the name on the ID.

So if the register at the polling place says "d-usa" and I hand them my drivers license all they care about is that the picture on the ID matches my face and that the name on the ID matches the name on the register. Excluding some picture IDs and not others really only serves the function to exclude certain demographics.

Out-of-state student are able to vote in the state they go to school in, so that's a non argument. And non-native student are still unable to vote unless they somehow were able to forge their voter registration to begin with. Of course this ignored the fact that out-of-state or non-native students can still get North Carolina DLs, so saying "no student IDs" really does nothing to prevent these demographics from cheating if they wanted to.

Which brings us back to the point that this bill does nothing of what it actually says it does.