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.

 whembly wrote:

Manchu wrote:So with that in mind, let me slightly rephrase the question: if less than one percent of all gun crime is committed with firearms by citizens who legally and privately own those firearms, is it necessary or unnecessary for the government to further restrict private ownership of firearms assuming that such a restriction would be constitutional?

Nope, still infringes on the 2nd.

Nah, as I've pointed out there are tons of constitutional gun control laws on the books. There are constitutional ways to limit a person's access to constitutional rights. Whether they are necessary or unnecessary is a different matter. So again, the question assumes that the gun control is constitutional. That's clearly a reasonable assumption. So given that, I'd like to know whether you think such government action is necessary or unnecessary.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jihadin wrote:

Gun Control Facts: Existing Gun Laws Would Reduce Crime, But These Are Not Enforced

Why are we introducing more gun laws though....

 Jihadin wrote:
Manchu your question, for lack of words, to broad.

Not at all. I'm not phrasing it any more broadly than the headline your quote above.

 Manchu wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Manchu wrote:So with that in mind, let me slightly rephrase the question: if less than one percent of all gun crime is committed with firearms by citizens who legally and privately own those firearms, is it necessary or unnecessary for the government to further restrict private ownership of firearms assuming that such a restriction would be constitutional?

Nope, still infringes on the 2nd.

Nah, as I've pointed out there are tons of constitutional gun control laws on the books. There are constitutional ways to limit a person's access to constitutional rights. Whether they are necessary or unnecessary is a different matter. So again, the question assumes that the gun control is constitutional. That's clearly a reasonable assumption. So given that, I'd like to know whether you think such government action is necessary or unnecessary.

Well... I'll be honest with you... you've got me thinking. ( )

My gut reaction is still "unnecessary".

 whembly wrote:
My gut reaction is still "unnecessary".

Same here.

It's like Jihadin pointed out -- there are already so many gun control laws. How about we just enforce them rather than taking on further ones? I think you and I and Jihadin are all on the same page there.

Now, as you expect, the question can come around to another constitutional right -- namely, the right to vote.

If less than one percent of all in-person voting is fraudulent is it necessary or unnecessary, totally separate from the question of constitutionality, for the government to put more qualifications on everyone's access to voting?

 Jihadin wrote:



Whembly. You back up what you say with Manchu. Manchu your question, for lack of words, to broad.

This is not a beat stick on Obama because the same can apply to Bush Jr.

I'm not sure I understand you buddy... we haven't discussed anything related to Obama/Bush. o.O

Me and Manchu are having a nice discourse here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:

 whembly wrote:
My gut reaction is still "unnecessary".

Same here.

It's like Jihadin pointed out -- there are already so many gun control laws. How about we just enforce them rather than taking on further ones? I think you and I and Jihadin are all on the same page there.

Of course...

Now, as you expect, the question can come around to another constitutional right -- namely, the right to vote.

If less than one percent of all in-person voting is fraudulent is it necessary or unnecessary, totally separate from the question of constitutionality, for the government to put more qualifications on everyone's access to voting?

And here's the $64,000 question...

Hypothetically speaking Manchu... if I can be reasonable assured that "If less than one percent of all in-person voting is fraudulent", then yes I'd agree with you that it's unnecessary.

However, I'm not assured of this. That's why I'm in favor of these various VoterID laws. Sure, some are stuck on stupid (looking at NC's recent one). But flashing an ID at the polling station so that the pollsters can check off the registered list... itself isn't even on the radar of being "onerous".

The other thing that drives me bonkers about this is that every voting group is playing by those same VoterID rules. Know what I mean? That is to say, I've yet to see a VoterID act that forces one social/racial/economic voting group to vote differently than their counter-part.

 Manchu wrote:

 whembly wrote:
My gut reaction is still "unnecessary".

Same here.

It's like Jihadin pointed out -- there are already so many gun control laws. How about we just enforce them rather than taking on further ones? I think you and I and Jihadin are all on the same page there.

Now, as you expect, the question can come around to another constitutional right -- namely, the right to vote.

If less than one percent of all in-person voting is fraudulent is it necessary or unnecessary, totally separate from the question of constitutionality, for the government to put more qualifications on everyone's access to voting?

I maybe wrong but isn't like a large amount of gun violence caused by lawful gun owners such as accidents, suicide, etc?

We're just making an assumption for the sake of argument.

 Manchu wrote:
We're just making an assumption for the sake of argument.

OK I won't complicate things then especially since I'm making assumptions as well.

 whembly wrote:
And requiring photo ID to vote will do absolutely nothing to stop any of that.

I disagree... evidently the states that passed versions of VoterID laws disagrees with you too.

Sigh. Why is this so hard to understand? The states that passed voter ID laws did so as a deliberate attempt to harm turnout for groups that tend to lean democrat. The idea that voter ID supposedly stops fraud is just a flimsy excuse invented to justify it so that the courts don't immediately say "no, stop being stupid".

And that's exactly what's happening now in NC. The republican party got control of the state legislature for the first time in decades, and suddenly voter fraud is a major top-priority issue. Why? Because Art Pope wants to protect his investment, and he hopes that the cumulative effect of all of the new voting laws and gerrymandering is that he gets to keep power long enough to accomplish all of his goals.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
The other thing that drives me bonkers about this is that every voting group is playing by those same VoterID rules. Know what I mean? That is to say, I've yet to see a VoterID act that forces one social/racial/economic voting group to vote differently than their counter-part.

As we've pointed out before it's not an openly targeted law, but the people proposing these laws know perfectly well that the groups that most often lack the required ID (poor people, college students, etc) are ones that lean democrat. The goal isn't to keep all of them from voting, it's to discourage enough of them to swing the election results a bit in favor of the republican candidates in districts where it's close to a 50/50 split. And it's also a cumulative effect. A potential voter might be willing to go to the DMV to get an ID card if that was the only new requirement, but on top of shorter early voting times, no sunday voting, etc, that might just be the last thing that keeps them home.

And let's not forget the context of these laws. This is just one law of many, all of them aimed at reducing turnout among democrat-leaning groups, while republican-leaning groups are not hindered at all (and even get exemptions from the laws).

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
And requiring photo ID to vote will do absolutely nothing to stop any of that.

I disagree... evidently the states that passed versions of VoterID laws disagrees with you too.

Sigh. Why is this so hard to understand? The states that passed voter ID laws did so as a deliberate attempt to harm turnout for groups that tend to lean democrat. The idea that voter ID supposedly stops fraud is just a flimsy excuse invented to justify it so that the courts don't immediately say "no, stop being stupid".

And that's exactly what's happening now in NC. The republican party got control of the state legislature for the first time in decades, and suddenly voter fraud is a major top-priority issue. Why? Because Art Pope wants to protect his investment, and he hopes that the cumulative effect of all of the new voting laws and gerrymandering is that he gets to keep power long enough to accomplish all of his goals.

Alright... let's tango.

1) Is it too much to ask for to show an ID at the polls, whether or not that it'll have any impact to voter fraud?

2) In NC's case: Reducing absentee ballots from 2 weeks to 1 weeks... everyone is bound by that if they qualify... right?

3) In NC's case: Removed Sunday voting... why is this a problem again?

4) In NC's case: The program to register newly 18 year olds... so, they'll have to learn how to take initiative to pre-register / vote themselves.

I really don't see it as "ermah gawd" those icky republicans are suppressing the democratic votes.

Everyone is still "playing" by the same rules.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
The other thing that drives me bonkers about this is that every voting group is playing by those same VoterID rules. Know what I mean? That is to say, I've yet to see a VoterID act that forces one social/racial/economic voting group to vote differently than their counter-part.

As we've pointed out before it's not an openly targeted law, but the people proposing these laws know perfectly well that the groups that most often lack the required ID (poor people, college students, etc) are ones that lean democrat. The goal isn't to keep all of them from voting, it's to discourage enough of them to swing the election results a bit in favor of the republican candidates in districts where it's close to a 50/50 split. And it's also a cumulative effect. A potential voter might be willing to go to the DMV to get an ID card if that was the only new requirement, but on top of shorter early voting times, no sunday voting, etc, that might just be the last thing that keeps them home.

And let's not forget the context of these laws. This is just one law of many, all of them aimed at reducing turnout among democrat-leaning groups, while republican-leaning groups are not hindered at all (and even get exemptions from the laws).

So why is there preferential treatment to those groups that lean-democrats then?

(even get exemptions from the laws? wut? are you referring to expired licenses on Elderly voters?)

You wouldn't increase gun control on law abiding citizens if less than 1% of gun related crimes involved legal weapons, but you will increase voting regulation on law abiding citizens when less then 1% of voting irregularities arise from fraud. Seems like consistency is a problem here.

Just to go back to the start and answer Frazzled's question;

 Frazzled wrote:
In light of the NC court case, for those against voter ID requirements. If you could use a recognizable state ID, or two forms of ID include an alternative recognizable pic ID, would there be an issue? Aka if you didn't have a state ID but had a school pic ID, passport or even SAMs Club, you'd be good.

If such a reform was coupled with an extensive and genuine effort on part of government to ensure that all registered voters have sufficient ID, including giving them such ID free of charge should they lack it, then I'd be fine with the law.

And so to ask a question in reply to the folk who support voter ID laws, would you support an effort to ensure that all registered voters be supplied with such ID free of charge?

 whembly wrote:
1) Is it too much to ask for to show an ID at the polls, whether or not that it'll have any impact to voter fraud?

It doesn't matter. This is like the scammer asking you for $1000 to bribe the officials to let them have their $1 million back and promising to pay you half as a reward. It doesn't matter that the numbers are in your favor by a huge margin, you know that the scammer is lying to you and you reject the "offer". Voter ID is the same kind of thing. You can talk all you want about how the deal is superficially a reasonable one, but it doesn't matter because the people proposing these laws are lying s who just want to ensure they keep getting elected by any means necessary.

2) In NC's case: Reducing absentee ballots from 2 weeks to 1 weeks... everyone is bound by that if they qualify... right?

Everyone might be bound by the same law, but that doesn't mean that it isn't targeted at democrat-leaning groups.

3) In NC's case: Removed Sunday voting... why is this a problem again?

Because it is being removed for exactly one reason: black churches often organize "drive to the polls after church" days, and they lean democrat. There is no plausible argument for ending sunday voting besides "it will help us win the election".

4) In NC's case: The program to register newly 18 year olds... so, they'll have to learn how to take initiative to pre-register / vote themselves.

And again, there's no reason why this should be ended besides the fact that younger voters lean democrat.

I really don't see it as "ermah gawd" those icky republicans are suppressing the democratic votes.

Seriously, go learn about NC politics. If you don't understand how these new laws are a blatant attempt to protect Art Pope's investment in the state legislature then you really need to learn more about recent events here.

So why is there preferential treatment to those groups that lean-democrats then?

There isn't.

(even get exemptions from the laws? wut? are you referring to expired licenses on Elderly voters?)

Yes, that's one of the things I'm referring to. It makes an absolute joke out of the idea that voter ID is about preventing fraud when you leave such a massive security hole in the plan. If the people advocating the ID law were really serious about security they'd close the hole. The only reason they don't is that that "stopping fraud" is nothing more than a flimsy pretense to keep the courts from shutting the whole thing down, and older people that would be hindered by the new law tend to lean republican.

 Ahtman wrote:
You wouldn't increase gun control on law abiding citizens if less than 1% of gun related crimes involved legal weapons, but you will increase voting regulation on law abiding citizens when less then 1% of voting irregularities arise from fraud. Seems like consistency is a problem here.

This is the same mindset that, for example, bitterly criticizes government intrusion into people's lives via healthcare laws while proposing legislation that obliges women seeking abortions to submit to medically unnecessary trans-vaginal ultrasounds.

 Manchu wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
You wouldn't increase gun control on law abiding citizens if less than 1% of gun related crimes involved legal weapons, but you will increase voting regulation on law abiding citizens when less then 1% of voting irregularities arise from fraud. Seems like consistency is a problem here.

This is the same mindset that, for example, bitterly criticizes government intrusion into people's lives via healthcare laws while proposing legislation that obliges women seeking abortions to submit to medically unnecessary trans-vaginal ultrasounds.

I criticize government intrusion but oppose the ultrasound legislation as being both expensive and stupid.
I also want voter id and other protections on suffrage put into place. Our voting system is declining in its veracity, and with multimillion illegal alines, its ripe for corruption.

Interestingly California just started permitting illegal aliens to have CA driver ID.

I'm in a very odd place atm. I can see how laws like NC's are targeted at people that tend to vote democrat, but at the same time, my state has had voter ID laws for as long as I can remember (even when I would go with my parents as a youngin'). When you show up at a polling place in Ohio, you need a valid form of ID, the state says the following are valid forms of ID that have to match the address that you have when you registered to vote:


Out of all of those, most people should be able to come up with something that helps prove who they are, and even if you have an State ID, you can still vote even if the address on the ID doesn't match the address on your voter registration (this happened to me in 2011). So I look at this and say, "why is it so hard to prove who you are?" Kan was in the last thread yelling up a storm about how he couldn't use his College ID to vote under this new law, but could use it to buy beer and smokes. So I could see why someone would be upset that they couldn't use their college ID for that, because here in Ohio college IDs don't have anything relating to age on them and thus don't really prove who you are, nor how old you are.

I feel that people should have to prove who they are when they get to the polling place, because while voter fraud isn't a big issue, it seems as if that would be a way to keep the integrity of our voting system intact. This doesn't mean that I feel it should be a photo id only, though I do feel that it is one of the easiest ways to prove you are who you are.

Though it seems I have to send off a letter/communique to my local state representative. As it stands, Ohio is attempting to institute 3 separate bills in regards to voting. The first is a Voter ID bill (which is dumb because we have one already that works and isn't abusive) that would essentially cut out most of the things we currently allow as proof of identification and only accepting State Drivers Licenses, State IDs, Military IDs, and Passports. The second bill reduces early voting from 35 days before the election to 17 days. While I don't totally agree with that change, the third bill is what makes it stupid. The third bill seeks to reduce the hours and days that a person can do in-person absentee voting (early voting). The schedule is a little different county to county from what I can tell, but they're allowing it to open up earlier (7:30 instead of 8:30) and going until 4:30, but cutting out weekend voting.

The 'light' to our voter ID law is that the state would provide IDs to those at or below the poverty level, but the whole thing seems stupid.

And apparently this guy is a fething nutjob... He says he is the most conservative politician in the Ohio Legislature... He also wrote a letter to a local news paper in 2003 that the federal government should amend the constitution to prohibit same-sex marriages, or kick Mass. out of the union because they allowed same-sex marriages...

This quickly went from something that seemed kind of reasonable to, "this guy is a fething nutjob"...

Note: Ohio apparently had 135 cases of voter fraud during the 2012 election out of 5.6 million ballots cast (huh, we vote more in this state than I thought )

 Alfndrate wrote:
I'm in a very odd place atm. I can see how laws like NC's are targeted at people that tend to vote democrat, but at the same time, my state has had voter ID laws for as long as I can remember (even when I would go with my parents as a youngin'). When you show up at a polling place in Ohio, you need a valid form of ID, the state says the following are valid forms of ID that have to match the address that you have when you registered to vote:

Spoiler:

A current and valid photo identification card issued by the State of Ohio or the United States government; or
A military identification ("military ID"); or
An original or copy of a current utility bill; or
An original or copy of a current bank statement; or
An original or copy of a current government check; or
An original or copy of a current paycheck; or
An original or copy of a current other government document, other than a voter registration acknowledgement notification mailed by the board of elections, that shows the voter’s name and current address.

OK that works for me completely. In Texas we get voter registration cards before major elections as well (IIRC, I seem to get them randomly). Can you use that as well?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
And requiring photo ID to vote will do absolutely nothing to stop any of that.

I disagree... evidently the states that passed versions of VoterID laws disagrees with you too.

Sigh. Why is this so hard to understand? The states that passed voter ID laws did so as a deliberate attempt to harm turnout for groups that tend to lean democrat. The idea that voter ID supposedly stops fraud is just a flimsy excuse invented to justify it so that the courts don't immediately say "no, stop being stupid".

And that's exactly what's happening now in NC. The republican party got control of the state legislature for the first time in decades, and suddenly voter fraud is a major top-priority issue. Why? Because Art Pope wants to protect his investment, and he hopes that the cumulative effect of all of the new voting laws and gerrymandering is that he gets to keep power long enough to accomplish all of his goals.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
The other thing that drives me bonkers about this is that every voting group is playing by those same VoterID rules. Know what I mean? That is to say, I've yet to see a VoterID act that forces one social/racial/economic voting group to vote differently than their counter-part.

As we've pointed out before it's not an openly targeted law, but the people proposing these laws know perfectly well that the groups that most often lack the required ID (poor people, college students, etc) are ones that lean democrat. The goal isn't to keep all of them from voting, it's to discourage enough of them to swing the election results a bit in favor of the republican candidates in districts where it's close to a 50/50 split. And it's also a cumulative effect. A potential voter might be willing to go to the DMV to get an ID card if that was the only new requirement, but on top of shorter early voting times, no sunday voting, etc, that might just be the last thing that keeps them home.

And let's not forget the context of these laws. This is just one law of many, all of them aimed at reducing turnout among democrat-leaning groups, while republican-leaning groups are not hindered at all (and even get exemptions from the laws).

Remember this is my OP. The states didn't post the ideas, I did. I welcome all eligible US citizens except those in mental facilities and in prison at the time of election.

 Frazzled wrote:
OK that works for me completely. In Texas we get voter registration cards before major elections as well (IIRC, I seem to get them randomly). Can you use that as well?

Um... I think if you're not registered or if you voted absentee in the previous election you get those cards I'll tell you in the next week or so when this stuff starts going out

Also in the state of Ohio you can check with your local Board of Elections to see you are registered and at what address.

Though it seems I have to send off a letter/communique to my local state representative. As it stands, Ohio is attempting to institute 3 separate bills in regards to voting. The first is a Voter ID bill (which is dumb because we have one already that works and isn't abusive) that would essentially cut out most of the things we currently allow as proof of identification and only accepting State Drivers Licenses, State IDs, Military IDs, and Passports.

I'd be ok with this only if the ID were freely available. I like your current setup.

The second bill reduces early voting from 35 days before the election to 17 days.

Unless there's a major economic reason for this, why?

While I don't totally agree with that change, the third bill is what makes it stupid. The third bill seeks to reduce the hours and days that a person can do in-person absentee voting (early voting). The schedule is a little different county to county from what I can tell, but they're allowing it to open up earlier (7:30 instead of 8:30) and going until 4:30, but cutting out weekend voting.

I can see cutting out weekend voting in certain locations-but thats due to where the locations are only. It depends on where the early voting is held.

 Frazzled wrote:
I criticize government intrusion but oppose the ultrasound legislation as being both expensive and stupid.

But you don't oppose it as intrusive? Very telling, Frazz. One would think sticking a metal rod into your nether parts without your consent is the very definition of intrusive.

 Frazzled wrote:
Our voting system is declining in its veracity, and with multimillion illegal alines, its ripe for corruption.

You don't have the evidence to back up the first part of that two-part statement. As to the second part, you're just trying to pretend you have evidence for the first part: "if there are lots of undocumented immigrants then in-person voter fraud must be a problem." Weak stuff.

Meanwhile, the real question for sincere conservatives as opposed to partisan hacks remains:

 Manchu wrote:
If less than one percent of all in-person voting is fraudulent is it necessary or unnecessary, totally separate from the question of constitutionality, for the government to put more qualifications on everyone's access to voting?

 Frazzled wrote:

Though it seems I have to send off a letter/communique to my local state representative. As it stands, Ohio is attempting to institute 3 separate bills in regards to voting. The first is a Voter ID bill (which is dumb because we have one already that works and isn't abusive) that would essentially cut out most of the things we currently allow as proof of identification and only accepting State Drivers Licenses, State IDs, Military IDs, and Passports.

I'd be ok with this only if the ID were freely available. I like your current setup.

I like our current setup as well
The IDs for people at or below the poverty level would be free as long as the following requirements are met (basically formalities as long as you actually are at or below the poverty level)

The second bill reduces early voting from 35 days before the election to 17 days.

Unless there's a major economic reason for this, why?

According to Nutjob Becker, "2 weeks is ample time to vote." Too bad he's cutting those 17 days to a 'realistic' level of 17 days of absentee by mail and 11-15 days of absentee in-person voting depending on what your local BoE says. So if you mail in your ballot, then it's not too big of an issue, but with the USPS being what it is, I'd rather have my vote in earlier than a week or so. If you work an 8 to 5 job it becomes really tough to make that weekday polling time, which I made a mistake in my previous post on this. The time I had said was 7:30 to 4:30, this was reported incorrectly by the Cleveland Plain Dealer. The bill actually states 8am to 4:30pm.

While I don't totally agree with that change, the third bill is what makes it stupid. The third bill seeks to reduce the hours and days that a person can do in-person absentee voting (early voting). The schedule is a little different county to county from what I can tell, but they're allowing it to open up earlier (7:30 instead of 8:30) and going until 4:30, but cutting out weekend voting.

I can see cutting out weekend voting in certain locations-but thats due to where the locations are only. It depends on where the early voting is held.

To use my county of Cuyahoga as an example, we currently have in-person absentee voting on Saturday November 2nd from 8:30am to 2:00pm and Sunday November 3rd from noon till 5:00pm. Becker's reason for introducing this bill is to cut costs, which I can get behind, but reducing the voting time from 35 days to 17 days is more than enough time cut, there's no need to reduce it anymore.

 Alfndrate wrote:
I feel that people should have to prove who they are when they get to the polling place, because while voter fraud isn't a big issue, it seems as if that would be a way to keep the integrity of our voting system intact.

The issue is, the integrity of our voting system is not currently in peril nor is there any credible reason to believe it might soon be. There is therefore no above-board reason to make voting rights even one iota less accessible.

 Manchu wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
I criticize government intrusion but oppose the ultrasound legislation as being both expensive and stupid.

But you don't oppose it as intrusive?
I thought the term "stupid" included "intrusive" nicely

Very telling, Frazz. One would think sticking a metal rod into your nether parts without your consent is the very definition of intrusive.

Hey what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas baby!

 Frazzled wrote:
Our voting system is declining in its veracity, and with multimillion illegal alines, its ripe for corruption.

You don't have the evidence to back up the first part of that two-part statement. As to the second part, you're just trying to pretend you have evidence for the first part: "if there are lots of undocumented immigrants then in-person voter fraud must be a problem." Weak stuff.

Its not weak where I live.

Meanwhile, the real question for sincere conservatives as opposed to partisan hacks remains:

 Manchu wrote:
If less than one percent of all in-person voting is fraudulent is it necessary or unnecessary, totally separate from the question of constitutionality, for the government to put more qualifications on everyone's access to voting?

Sorry please restate your question to clarify.

Are you saying is 1 in 100 votes are fraudluent would ID be prudent, you betcha.

The thing about voting fraud is that there isn't any good motive to commit the crime. You get practically nothing for pretending to be someone else to vote -- unlike say driving without a licence, when you get the benefit of driving -- while there is a big downside if you are caught.

Voting fraud only makes sense if large numbers of people can be mobilised to commit a fraud in crucial areas. In such a case it would be more likely to be discovered, unless a well organised conspiracy was able to produce good quality fake IDs whatever the system imposed by the state. (Which they undoubtedly could. It happens with everything else.) Even then, it would be likely to come to light due to statistical analysis.

Illegal aliens are doubly unlikely to vote fraudulently because they want to avoid situations in which they come into contact with the authorities.

All this helps explain why voter fraud is practically non-existent in the USA.

 Frazzled wrote:
Its not weak where I live.

Yes it is. The mere presence of undocumented immigrants does not prove that our election system is in decline as a result of in-person voter fraud.

 Frazzled wrote:

Meanwhile, the real question for sincere conservatives as opposed to partisan hacks remains:

 Manchu wrote:
If less than one percent of all in-person voting is fraudulent is it necessary or unnecessary, totally separate from the question of constitutionality, for the government to put more qualifications on everyone's access to voting?

Sorry please restate your question to clarify.

Are you saying is 1 in 100 votes are fraudluent would ID be prudent, you betcha.

The question is perfectly clear. Now let me apply your answer to gun control: you would necessarily be in favor of increased restriction on private ownership of firearms if 1 in 100 gun crimes are committed by people using guns they have legally obtained and privately own, right? You betcha?

“According to Nutjob Becker, "2 weeks is ample time to vote." Too bad he's cutting those 17 days to a 'realistic' level of 17 days of absentee by mail and 11-15 days of absentee in-person voting depending on what your local BoE says. So if you mail in your ballot, then it's not too big of an issue, but with the USPS being what it is, I'd rather have my vote in earlier than a week or so. If you work an 8 to 5 job it becomes really tough to make that weekday polling time, which I made a mistake in my previous post on this. The time I had said was 7:30 to 4:30, this was reported incorrectly by the Cleveland Plain Dealer. The bill actually states 8am to 4:30pm. “
-I could understand only for substantial operational reasons. Having said that I think Texas (or this county anyway) is more like two weeks, but I like the idea of it being longer, given here there are only specific locations for early voting.

“To use my county of Cuyahoga as an example, we currently have in-person absentee voting on Saturday November 2nd from 8:30am to 2:00pm and Sunday November 3rd from noon till 5:00pm. Becker's reason for introducing this bill is to cut costs, which I can get behind, but reducing the voting time from 35 days to 17 days is more than enough time cut, there's no need to reduce it anymore.”
Indeed, if cutting it you should leave the weekends alone.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Its not weak where I live.

Yes it is. The mere presence of undocumented immigrants does not prove that our election system is in decline as a result of in-person voter fraud.

Yea it is. If you have severale million people committing ID crimes daily, its a problem. You may disagree but I too bad.

 Frazzled wrote:

Meanwhile, the real question for sincere conservatives as opposed to partisan hacks remains:

 Manchu wrote:
If less than one percent of all in-person voting is fraudulent is it necessary or unnecessary, totally separate from the question of constitutionality, for the government to put more qualifications on everyone's access to voting?

Sorry please restate your question to clarify.

Are you saying is 1 in 100 votes are fraudluent would ID be prudent, you betcha.

The question is perfectly clear. Now let me apply your answer to gun control: you would necessarily be in favor of increased restriction on private ownership of firearms if 1 in 100 gun crimes are committed by people using guns they have legally obtained and privately own, right? You betcha?

You betcha and we already have it. We have background checks, ID requirements, and substantial limits on who can own firearms which are far more restrictive then voting. Apply the same laws to voting...wow...how restrictive of you. You don't want to compare all the gun laws to voting laws boyo.

 Manchu wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:
I feel that people should have to prove who they are when they get to the polling place, because while voter fraud isn't a big issue, it seems as if that would be a way to keep the integrity of our voting system intact.

The issue is, the integrity of our voting system is not currently in peril nor is there any credible reason to believe it might soon be. There is therefore no above-board reason to make voting rights even one iota less accessible.

While I agree it's not in peril, and I don't see it becoming one, you think it's completely fine if I get to a polling place before you, and walk up and say, "Hi my name is Manchu" and the person at the polling place checks your name off and says, "Here is your ballot, when you're done bring it up here and slide it in that box."? What happens then if you get to the polling place and they say, "I'm sorry sir but our records indicate you've already voted."

I'm not saying that you need very specific forms of ID, but when you get to a polling place, you should have to be registered to vote (following those requirements), and have a way to prove that you're Manchu who lives on X street by providing some form of identification like a utility bill and an out of state driver's license, or a utility bill and your government welfare check. Just something that proves you are who you say you are.

 Frazzled wrote:

Manchu wrote:you would necessarily be in favor of increased restriction on private ownership of firearms if 1 in 100 gun crimes are committed by people using guns they have legally obtained and privately own, right? You betcha?

You betcha and we already have it.

And we already have hundreds of voter fraud laws in place, which is the only reason why you even hear about the meager instances of it in the first place.

Don't try to dodge the question. I put the word "increased" above in bold, italics, and underlined it. There's no way you can miss it.

 Alfndrate wrote:
you should have to be registered to vote (following those requirements), and have a way to prove that you're Manchu

You're assuming the conclusion of your own argument. You're saying I should have to present ID because I should have to present ID. It's not very convincing, Alf.

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:
I feel that people should have to prove who they are when they get to the polling place, because while voter fraud isn't a big issue, it seems as if that would be a way to keep the integrity of our voting system intact.

The issue is, the integrity of our voting system is not currently in peril nor is there any credible reason to believe it might soon be. There is therefore no above-board reason to make voting rights even one iota less accessible.

While I agree it's not in peril, and I don't see it becoming one, you think it's completely fine if I get to a polling place before you, and walk up and say, "Hi my name is Manchu" and the person at the polling place checks your name off and says, "Here is your ballot, when you're done bring it up here and slide it in that box."? What happens then if you get to the polling place and they say, "I'm sorry sir but our records indicate you've already voted."

Except that it really isn't happening. You have a solution in search of a problem, and one that is problematically being introduced, both legislatively as well as philosophically.

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:
I feel that people should have to prove who they are when they get to the polling place, because while voter fraud isn't a big issue, it seems as if that would be a way to keep the integrity of our voting system intact.

The issue is, the integrity of our voting system is not currently in peril nor is there any credible reason to believe it might soon be. There is therefore no above-board reason to make voting rights even one iota less accessible.

While I agree it's not in peril, and I don't see it becoming one, you think it's completely fine if I get to a polling place before you, and walk up and say, "Hi my name is Manchu" and the person at the polling place checks your name off and says, "Here is your ballot, when you're done bring it up here and slide it in that box."? What happens then if you get to the polling place and they say, "I'm sorry sir but our records indicate you've already voted."

Then you have engaged in identity theft and voter fraud.

I'm not saying that you need very specific forms of ID, but when you get to a polling place, you should have to be registered to vote (following those requirements), and have a way to prove that you're Manchu who lives on X street by providing some form of identification like a utility bill and an out of state driver's license, or a utility bill and your government welfare check. Just something that proves you are who you say you are.

And why are those things better than a college ID with a photo? Or a voter registration card or selective service card?

As Peregrine keeps saying, the NC bill is nonsense of the highest caliber.

 Manchu wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Manchu wrote:you would necessarily be in favor of increased restriction on private ownership of firearms if 1 in 100 gun crimes are committed by people using guns they have legally obtained and privately own, right? You betcha?

You betcha and we already have it.

And we already have hundreds of voter fraud laws in place, which is the only reason why you even hear about the meager instances of it in the first place.

Don't try to dodge the question. I put the word "increased" above in bold, italics, and underlined it. There's no way you can miss it.

 Alfndrate wrote:
you should have to be registered to vote (following those requirements), and have a way to prove that you're Manchu

You're assuming the conclusion of your own argument. You're saying I should have to present ID because I should have to present ID. It's not very convincing, Alf.

We have over 25,000 firearms laws and regulations. Come talk to me when you get 10% of that for voting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:
I feel that people should have to prove who they are when they get to the polling place, because while voter fraud isn't a big issue, it seems as if that would be a way to keep the integrity of our voting system intact.

The issue is, the integrity of our voting system is not currently in peril nor is there any credible reason to believe it might soon be. There is therefore no above-board reason to make voting rights even one iota less accessible.

While I agree it's not in peril, and I don't see it becoming one, you think it's completely fine if I get to a polling place before you, and walk up and say, "Hi my name is Manchu" and the person at the polling place checks your name off and says, "Here is your ballot, when you're done bring it up here and slide it in that box."? What happens then if you get to the polling place and they say, "I'm sorry sir but our records indicate you've already voted."

Then you have engaged in identity theft and voter fraud.

I'm not saying that you need very specific forms of ID, but when you get to a polling place, you should have to be registered to vote (following those requirements), and have a way to prove that you're Manchu who lives on X street by providing some form of identification like a utility bill and an out of state driver's license, or a utility bill and your government welfare check. Just something that proves you are who you say you are.

And why are those things better than a college ID with a photo? Or a voter registration card or selective service card?

As Peregrine keeps saying, the NC bill is nonsense of the highest caliber.

Selective service card? Seriously. Thats kind of grasping at straw a bit.