Voter Photo ID, Minnesota.........

[TwinTownBisonFan]

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

You can tell where each major party's bread is buttered when it comes to the question of voter fraud by watching what happens with efforts to make voter fraud more difficult and efforts ot make it easier.

If there is an effort to do something that will make voter fraud more difficult, such as requiring photo ID in order to vote, Republicans for for it and Democrats are against it.

If there is an effor to make it easier, such as the "Motor Voter" thing in the 90s, Deomcrats are for it and Republicans are against it.

It's pretty darned obvious.

Two words for you: "Al" and "Franken."

yet mngop has never proven anything... they allude to it darkly like we somehow "stole" that election - everything was done in the light of day - and for all their grousing - they've never found any significant evidence that voter fraud occurred in any systemic way in that race.

[TwinTownBisonFan]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1212216/posts

One student voted twice in one election... oooh.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/waukesha/29229144.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A candidate votes twice in one election...

http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/elec ... quette.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

An article about an investigation... no word on the results of said investigation... on a... less than reputable site...

http://punditpress.blogspot.com/2011/04 ... oying.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

this is about a city destroying ballots - another matter entirely

http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/ ... 0/11/40240" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

an article from 11 years ago that speculates on the results of a survey... meh.[/quote]

this proves my point - this was the result of some serious googling on your part native... and this was the best you got? in 12 years? this is it? boy - this must either be the best work we Dems have ever done at keeping the lid on a massive conspiracy... or it's complete and utter bullshit made up by conks who cannot comprehend how they lose elections.

[JohnStOnge]

they've never been able to prove **** about people voting illegally or double voting in any real numbers (a few isolated incidents notwithstanding) -

Yes "they" have. For example: Back in the 2000 Presidential election Florida thing about 5,000 illegal votes were documented and about 70% of them were registered as Democrats (the remaining 30% weren't all registered as Republicans either). Also, I can recall reading an article in which people admitted to voting multiple times for Al Gore.

Unfortunately, the bookmarks I had for the articles on that don't work anymore. But it happened.

In any case, let's say illegal voting and double voting doesn't help Democrats. Fine. Then nobody should object to making rules making it more difficult.

But you just try making such rules. You know what's going to happen? Democrats will object.

[JohnStOnge]

Here you go:

http://articles.latimes.com/2000/dec/02/news/mn-60123" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Don't know if that's the same "5,000 vote" thing I mentioned. But it's an example.

Again: There is good reason to oppose making rules to prevent people form voting illegally or voting multiple times regardless.

[native]

...

this proves my point - this was the result of some serious googling on your part native... and this was the best you got? in 12 years? this is it? boy - this must either be the best work we Dems have ever done at keeping the lid on a massive conspiracy... or it's complete and utter bullshit made up by conks who cannot comprehend how they lose elections.

60 seconds is not "serious," TT. Your side cheats and you damn well know it.

[Grizalltheway]

...

this proves my point - this was the result of some serious googling on your part native... and this was the best you got? in 12 years? this is it? boy - this must either be the best work we Dems have ever done at keeping the lid on a massive conspiracy... or it's complete and utter bullshit made up by conks who cannot comprehend how they lose elections.

60 seconds is not "serious," TT. Your side cheats and you damn well know it.

And your side are a bunch of altar boys.

[TwinTownBisonFan]

...

this proves my point - this was the result of some serious googling on your part native... and this was the best you got? in 12 years? this is it? boy - this must either be the best work we Dems have ever done at keeping the lid on a massive conspiracy... or it's complete and utter bullshit made up by conks who cannot comprehend how they lose elections.

60 seconds is not "serious," TT. Your side cheats and you damn well know it.

the funny thing is... we don't.

i've been doing this for over a decade... including in one of the states conks complain the loudest about... and it simply doesn't happen here. i've said before in this thread, i'll say it again... organized voter fraud would take more work than it is worth (especially considering the risk) - we don't have the time, nor the money to do that... we're way too busy trying to turn out our voters to bother with that shit.

you hear rumors about shit - but mostly it's jokes from back in the day when stuffing the ballot box was easy, and was done by both parties (think LBJ's races for congress)

to take a moment on the "5,000 illegal votes" thing... even if accurate (which i'm skeptical of, but we'll leave it alone) - that still doesn't prove intent to defraud. many of those who are ineligible are likely to have voted not knowing they were ineligible - and even if they had to present ID at the polls, that likely would have been allowed to vote just the same - that's a problem of not properly purging voter rolls - not one of fraud.

[native]

60 seconds is not "serious," TT. Your side cheats and you damn well know it.

And your side are a bunch of altar boys.

Nope. But they don't cheat like your side, and when we catch 'em, we get rid of 'em.

[Grizalltheway]

And your side are a bunch of altar boys.

Nope. But they don't cheat like your side, and when we catch 'em, we get rid of 'em.

May wanna get an eye doc to check out that myopia.

[BDKJMU]

60 seconds is not "serious," TT. Your side cheats and you damn well know it.

the funny thing is... we don't.

i've been doing this for over a decade... including in one of the states conks complain the loudest about... and it simply doesn't happen here. i've said before in this thread, i'll say it again... organized voter fraud would take more work than it is worth (especially considering the risk) - we don't have the time, nor the money to do that... we're way too busy trying to turn out our voters to bother with that ****.

you hear rumors about **** - but mostly it's jokes from back in the day when stuffing the ballot box was easy, and was done by both parties (think LBJ's races for congress)

to take a moment on the "5,000 illegal votes" thing... even if accurate (which i'm skeptical of, but we'll leave it alone) - that still doesn't prove intent to defraud. many of those who are ineligible are likely to have voted not knowing they were ineligible - and even if they had to present ID at the polls, that likely would have been allowed to vote just the same - that's a problem of not properly purging voter rolls - not one of fraud.

Didn't you jst say recently you were still in your 20s?

[89Hen]

the funny thing is... we don't.

i've been doing this for over a decade...

The Dems have been doing it a lot longer than that.

[89Hen]

Didn't you jst say recently you were still in your 20s?

TTBF seems like a good guy, but I do get a little tired of his insistance that he is correct on all things politics because he's worked in some capacity in politics.

[GannonFan]

This issue I'll never understand - what is the downside to having voters produce ID? Most everyone carries one these days anyway and even if you don't there are plenty of places where you need to bring one so bringing one to a voter booth isn't a big deal. If fraud isn't happening then nothing will be impacted. And if we have a clear ID that's required you won't have complaints that people are being asked to produce ID when none is needed. People say that voter fraud, if it ever happened, only happened long ago (LBJ time) and that it doesn't go on anymore. What changed? Are people more trustworthy these days?

[TwinTownBisonFan]

the funny thing is... we don't.

i've been doing this for over a decade... including in one of the states conks complain the loudest about... and it simply doesn't happen here. i've said before in this thread, i'll say it again... organized voter fraud would take more work than it is worth (especially considering the risk) - we don't have the time, nor the money to do that... we're way too busy trying to turn out our voters to bother with that ****.

you hear rumors about **** - but mostly it's jokes from back in the day when stuffing the ballot box was easy, and was done by both parties (think LBJ's races for congress)

to take a moment on the "5,000 illegal votes" thing... even if accurate (which i'm skeptical of, but we'll leave it alone) - that still doesn't prove intent to defraud. many of those who are ineligible are likely to have voted not knowing they were ineligible - and even if they had to present ID at the polls, that likely would have been allowed to vote just the same - that's a problem of not properly purging voter rolls - not one of fraud.

Didn't you jst say recently you were still in your 20s?

yep - i've been staffing campaigns (paid staffer) since i was 16. (worked GOP my first cycle to boot)

I'm 29 now - still doing it.

[89Hen]

This issue I'll never understand - what is the downside to having voters produce ID?

I'm still waiting for an explanation on how it can be considered voter intimidation to show you are who you say you are for what could be considered one of the most important things you will ever do.

[TwinTownBisonFan]

the funny thing is... we don't.

i've been doing this for over a decade...

The Dems have been doing it a lot longer than that.

in the ten years I've worked dem campaigns, I've never seen it, nor been party to it, nor been involved in discussions about it. and given, especially in the last 4 years in particular, that I've been at the top of the campaign food chain calling the shots for races (congressional and gubernatorial) I think I would notice or have been a part of such shit (or have had to plan it myself)

I can't speak to what happened before my time, as I wasn't there. Historical evidence suggests that stuffing the ballot box was done extensively by both parties until the 70's at least, when the technology caught up... but what has never been proven is some kind of systematic, by-design, coordinated attempt at massive voter fraud that conks keep bleating about. they've had ample opportunity to prove it - and all we ever see are vague allusions to it whenever they lose.

[TwinTownBisonFan]

This issue I'll never understand - what is the downside to having voters produce ID? Most everyone carries one these days anyway and even if you don't there are plenty of places where you need to bring one so bringing one to a voter booth isn't a big deal. If fraud isn't happening then nothing will be impacted. And if we have a clear ID that's required you won't have complaints that people are being asked to produce ID when none is needed. People say that voter fraud, if it ever happened, only happened long ago (LBJ time) and that it doesn't go on anymore. What changed? Are people more trustworthy these days?

what changed is that 1. you now have to sign your name in the registration book 2. poll watchers from both parties staff almost all voting locations 3. precincts are monitored closely for ballot box tampering (a much easier way to commit fraud) 4. the penalties for voter fraud have increased significantly 5. computer databases enable easier cross-referencing of who votes where to monitor for fraudulent activity 6. both parties and outside groups pay careful attention to results and force investigations in to any suspicious activity

basically - it's like i've been saying throughout the thread - the risks of doing it are far too high these days

[TwinTownBisonFan]

This issue I'll never understand - what is the downside to having voters produce ID?

I'm still waiting for an explanation on how it can be considered voter intimidation to show you are who you say you are for what could be considered one of the most important things you will ever do.

It's intimidation because of how it's enforced. It's specifically designed to keep college students and more transient communities from voting. If your drivers license doesn't match your registered address for example (which happens all the time for people who move frequently, or are in college) - meaning when they head the polls, they get challenged by a poll worker as to why they don't match up... that voter will just stay home to avoid the hassle. Which is the goal of the GOPers pushing the bill. Make voting a hassle, make it difficult, especially for voting blocs that are strongly Democratic. It also makes spreading misinformation all the easier in those communities.

the misinformation that gets spread through impoverished an immigrant communities now is bad enough (with plenty of evidence to suggest it's planted by gop operatives, but nothing concrete enough to make stick - leaving that aside) shit like "if you show up to vote and you have unpaid tickets or your family member has a warrant, they'll detain you" and "if you have a tax issue, they'll make you pay on the spot" (this by the way, is shit I heard in 2010 in both the Somali and Hmong communities)

[AZGrizFan]

I'm still waiting for an explanation on how it can be considered voter intimidation to show you are who you say you are for what could be considered one of the most important things you will ever do.

It's intimidation because of how it's enforced. It's specifically designed to keep college students and more transient communities from voting. If your drivers license doesn't match your registered address for example (which happens all the time for people who move frequently, or are in college) - meaning when they head the polls, they get challenged by a poll worker as to why they don't match up... that voter will just stay home to avoid the hassle. Which is the goal of the GOPers pushing the bill. Make voting a hassle, make it difficult, especially for voting blocs that are strongly Democratic. It also makes spreading misinformation all the easier in those communities.

the misinformation that gets spread through impoverished an immigrant communities now is bad enough (with plenty of evidence to suggest it's planted by gop operatives, but nothing concrete enough to make stick - leaving that aside) shit like "if you show up to vote and you have unpaid tickets or your family member has a warrant, they'll detain you" and "if you have a tax issue, they'll make you pay on the spot" (this by the way, is shit I heard in 2010 in both the Somali and Hmong communities)

Jesus Christ, now you sound just as bad as Native. Nothing concrete enough to make it stick --- BUT YOU BRING IT UP ANYWAYS....yet when Native brings up Donk voter fraud you defend it to the hilt with statements of "no significant evidence", "no credible evidence"....you're such a party shill it's fucking laughable.


And these motherfuckers that move and don't get their ID changed aren't smart enough to be allowed to vote anyways.

[GannonFan]

I'm still waiting for an explanation on how it can be considered voter intimidation to show you are who you say you are for what could be considered one of the most important things you will ever do.

It's intimidation because of how it's enforced. It's specifically designed to keep college students and more transient communities from voting. If your drivers license doesn't match your registered address for example (which happens all the time for people who move frequently, or are in college) - meaning when they head the polls, they get challenged by a poll worker as to why they don't match up... that voter will just stay home to avoid the hassle. Which is the goal of the GOPers pushing the bill. Make voting a hassle, make it difficult, especially for voting blocs that are strongly Democratic. It also makes spreading misinformation all the easier in those communities.

the misinformation that gets spread through impoverished an immigrant communities now is bad enough (with plenty of evidence to suggest it's planted by gop operatives, but nothing concrete enough to make stick - leaving that aside) **** like "if you show up to vote and you have unpaid tickets or your family member has a warrant, they'll detain you" and "if you have a tax issue, they'll make you pay on the spot" (this by the way, is **** I heard in 2010 in both the Somali and Hmong communities)

So wait, you're willing to believe that, without evidence, that GOP "operatives" are planting misinformation, yet you don't believe, again without evidence, that Dem operatives pull in votes that aren't there (via fraud)? So with no evidence either way, is it just because it's a GOP vs Dem thing that you only accuse one side?

As for the moving - if they are able to get themselves registered to vote where they are supposed to, why can't they then also get an ID? Surely that can't be such an insurmountable obstacle that we can't find a way to surmount it?

[AZGrizFan]

GannonFan is much nicer than me.

[89Hen]

It's intimidation because of how it's enforced. It's specifically designed to keep college students and more transient communities from voting. If your drivers license doesn't match your registered address for example (which happens all the time for people who move frequently, or are in college) - meaning when they head the polls, they get challenged by a poll worker as to why they don't match up... that voter will just stay home to avoid the hassle. Which is the goal of the GOPers pushing the bill. Make voting a hassle, make it difficult, especially for voting blocs that are strongly Democratic. It also makes spreading misinformation all the easier in those communities.

the misinformation that gets spread through impoverished an immigrant communities now is bad enough (with plenty of evidence to suggest it's planted by gop operatives, but nothing concrete enough to make stick - leaving that aside) shit like "if you show up to vote and you have unpaid tickets or your family member has a warrant, they'll detain you" and "if you have a tax issue, they'll make you pay on the spot" (this by the way, is shit I heard in 2010 in both the Somali and Hmong communities)

I'm not even sure where to start with this post. First, are you ALLEGING voter intimidation after laughing at allegations of voter fraud?

Second, do you propse that a kid at the University of Maryland who is from Pennsylvania should be able to walk into a Maryland polling place and cast a ballot? Or are you talking about an in-state kid who just doesn't feel like either going home to vote or casting an absentee ballot? Either case, there are provisions for that. GMAFB.

Where should I vote?
During early voting, you can vote at any early voting center in the jurisdiction where you live. Find out where the early voting center or centers are in your jurisdiction.

On election day, you should vote where you live. If your voter registration is up-to-date, you can refer to your Voter Notification Card for your precinct number and polling place location or use the voter look-up website. However, if you moved and have not updated your voter registration information, enter your new address in the Polling Place Locator. You will be required to vote a provisional ballot at the new polling place.

[LeadBolt]

I just reviewed this thread again and I still haven't heard an argument that makes any sense as to why showing a picture id to vote has a down side. I'm sorry, but bogus rumors of consequences just don't cut it. If voters aren't informed enough to know the rules, how are they informed enough to vote?

BTW - I voted absentee when I was in college, because my parents home was my official residence. If someone is smart enough to be in college, they are smart enough to either change their drivers license or apply for an absentee ballot.

[GannonFan]

This issue I'll never understand - what is the downside to having voters produce ID? Most everyone carries one these days anyway and even if you don't there are plenty of places where you need to bring one so bringing one to a voter booth isn't a big deal. If fraud isn't happening then nothing will be impacted. And if we have a clear ID that's required you won't have complaints that people are being asked to produce ID when none is needed. People say that voter fraud, if it ever happened, only happened long ago (LBJ time) and that it doesn't go on anymore. What changed? Are people more trustworthy these days?

what changed is that 1. you now have to sign your name in the registration book 2. poll watchers from both parties staff almost all voting locations 3. precincts are monitored closely for ballot box tampering (a much easier way to commit fraud) 4. the penalties for voter fraud have increased significantly 5. computer databases enable easier cross-referencing of who votes where to monitor for fraudulent activity 6. both parties and outside groups pay careful attention to results and force investigations in to any suspicious activity

basically - it's like i've been saying throughout the thread - the risks of doing it are far too high these days

That's all fine and well, but if you think that makes the system ironclad from fraud then I think you're just being naive. I moved in October one year into a new house. My wife had her registration changed before the election while I still didn't, so I had to go back to vote at more former district (same state mind you). When I got to the precinct, I voted, and noticed that in the registration book that my wife's name was still on the rolls in the old location. Nothing you detailed about would've stopped her from casting two votes in that election, other than her sense of right and wrong. And even if she didn't cast two votes, according to you, the only thing stopping someone else from casting a vote for her in her old district was a signature. Do you honestly believe that the poll workers are skilled enough to identify a different signature? Heck, I can sign my name five times in a row, trying to replicate it every time, and I'll end up with five different looking signatures. And really, haven't the onset of machines actually, to an extent, made vote rigging even easier? You get someone to hack into an electronic machine and thousands of votes can be altered in an instant. Much faster than the ballot stuffing days of old. And investigations aren't a good tool to prevent fraud - one party is for an investigation while the other side is against it - there's no guarantee that you find out what really went on.

It's odd, in all walks of life, crime tends to find a way to circumvent laws and protections, no matter the advances in technology. That is, however according to you, in elections, where we have somehow stopped fraud for all time. Who knew.

[89Hen]

2. poll watchers from both parties staff almost all voting locations

BTW, I'm glad you included "almost", because I can tell you that I'm the only Republican at my polling place when I walk in.