But voters in this country still overwhelmingly support voter ID laws and don’t think they discriminate.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 72% of Likely U.S. Voters believe voters should be required to show photo identification such as a driver’s license before being allowed to vote.
१५ मार्च, २०१२
"The Obama administration has blocked Texas’ new law requiring voters to show photo identification at the polls..."
"... saying it would suppress Hispanic voter turnout, and the United Nations is now investigating the fairness of such laws in Texas and other states."
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१८० टिप्पण्या:
I love that we're being investigated by the United Nations.
Overall, I can't think of a better way to discredit that organization than for it to "investigate" a law that Americans overwhelmingly support. :)
Before the involved UN members even begin any such investigation, their own electoral practices should be closely scrutinized. ALternatively, we could simply pick one of them (KSA, for instance) and declare we will adopt their laws. How can they complain?
Below is what I found on Wikipedia for voting Mexico :
"In Mexico, there is a general electoral census. Any citizen of age 18 or greater must go to an electoral office in order be registered into the electoral census. Citizens receive a voting card (credencial de elector con fotografía), issued by the Federal Electoral Institute (IFE) that must be shown to vote in any election. The voting card also serves as a national identity document."
So it seems our neighbor, Mexico, requires every citizen show their Voter ID which also serves a s national identity document.
This cannot end well for the Obama Administration.
Ain't that cute! The United Nations Human rights council is "investigating" US voting laws? What the Flip ... that's the same outfit that said Gaddafi was a due an award, again.
Never mind their own membership has some restrictions on who can vote, such as women being prohibited.
Amazing. It must be comedy. Right?
Obama swore to uphold the US Constitution, not the UN one.
Who cares about popular opinion? It was popular opinion that fed into legalizing slavery, Jim Crow laws, and putting Americans of Japanese descent into concentration camps.
It was popular opinion that fed into outlawing slavery, Jim Crow laws, and putting Americans of Japanese descent into concentration camps.
FTFY, Splurge
We now see the contours of the desperate "divide and conquer" Obama reelection strategy, all being run through administration policy.
This is the race component, following the sex component.
The UN is governing us. Surprise, surprise.
I believe the UN declared that they have authority over us, and put that into writing. Since we are "Members," Case closed.
That is the drum beat of the counter-rebellion by the Roman Emperors of the Old World against the people of the New World. From 1776 to today has only been a brief wait to soon be erased by Obama I as he overnight erases the US military hegemony.
And one of the members of the council investigating this is Saudi Arabia, which still denies women the vote?
Wow.
Democrats think their best shot is playing gender and race cards 5 months out?
The Democrats are *really* running scared. Terrified, in fact.
As Airdog said...
"Ain't that cute!"
"This is the race component, following the sex component."
Yup. Obama knows damn well he cannot win this one. He just wants to stir the boiling cauldron of race and sex. Divider not uniter.
I saw someone make the case that because the democrats have maxxed out the black vote, they are now going to go full out to make hispanics the new victim group (that they will protect). That at least makes more sense than claiming voter ID will supress voting.
Elections Canada
To vote, you must prove your identity and address. You have three options:
Option 1
Show one original piece of identification with your photo, name and address. It must be issued by a government agency.
Option 2
Show two original pieces of authorized identification. Both pieces must have your name and one must also have your address.
Option 3
Take an oath and have an elector who knows you vouch for you (both of you will be required to make a sworn statement). This person must have authorized identification and their name must appear on the list of electors in the same polling division as you. This person can only vouch for one person and the person who is vouched for cannot vouch for another elector.
Examples: a neighbour, your roommate.
"The Democrats are *really* running scared. Terrified, in fact."
Well, Obama has done nothing in the way of amnesty. He preferred to spend his political capital on the Obamacare mess. Now he has to step and do something to show he cares. I'm betting the vast majority of Mexican-Americans in this country legally could give two figs about whether illegals can vote. We'll see.
Guess Obama is writtin-off Texas?
The assumption being that people of Hispanic decent are too stupid to bring ID to vote, but everyone else isn't
Liberals are so phony and have so mucked up everything in their pursuit of power its getting bizarre.
I think O's written off the whole country except for Hawaii, Massachusetts, DC, and New York.
I'm voting as Blago and myself and my retarded brother and some random dead people in 2012.
I have such deep feelings about the election, I have pre-marked ballots in my trunk.
This is -finally- the Al Franken decade.
Whoever counts to eleventy billion trillion fiorst is El Presidente.
By all means, the UN needs to protect the voting rights of Speedy Gonzales, the Cisco Kid, and the Frito Bandido, the main Hispanics that interest the Administration.
The Surge said...
Who cares about popular opinion? It was popular opinion that fed into legalizing slavery
Except that slavery was never legalized. It had existed as a matter of course since the beginning of history.
Obama swore to uphold the US Constitution, not the UN one.
Yeah, but Panetta pretty much admitted the UN is the important thing these days.
"So it seems our neighbor, Mexico, requires every citizen show their Voter ID which also serves a s national identity document."
Clearly, this is an overt attempt to target Hispanic voters!
Which nations are on the UN Human Rights Council? Let me guess: Cuba, Saudi Arabia and Angola, to name just three paragons of virtue.
That's above and beyond the Obama Administration's totally predictable assault on American sovereignty.
Salt in the wound, so to speak.
The kid from Texas that flew to give testimony about not having ID.... had to make it through the TSA checkpoint in Austin to get to Geneva.
Are we not supposed to notice that?
OF COURSE its going to suppress ILLEGAL hispanic voter turnout, and THAT IS THE POINT.
As far as the UN is concerned, that academic debating society matters not.
Nobody whines about needing ID to buy alcohol, even among the poor.
Relatively speaking, the act of voting is more important than buying a 40 oz.
But the dems keep the false 'disenfranchised voter' meme going anyways. It allows the dead and the illegals to provide them with the extra votes they need to remain competitive. Without them, they lose, big time.
"Which nations are on the UN Human Rights Council? Let me guess: Cuba, Saudi Arabia and Angola"
Talk about your death panels.
Who cares about popular opinion?
Anyone interested in seeing their political views reflected in the law. So, me, for example.
I'm not saying popular opinion makes voter ID requirements constitutional -- they're obviously constitutional regardless of WHAT people think about 'em. I'm just observing that if the UN opts to take a stand against the American people, it will become less popular with Americans.
Given what a repugnant institution it is, that's a good thing.
The election/voting laws are really screwed up. Try getting into a Federal Building without ID, on and airplane, or many other ordinary tasks.
Why is the residency requirements for Little League Baseball stiffer than for the US Congress?
Now Obama wants us to bow down before another god of the left, the U.N. The New World Order, complete totalitarianism. It must be the theme of the day.
Fantastic, it's about time the UN investigated the US. Why should we be exempt from inspections?
Anyone interested in seeing their political views reflected in the law. So, me, for example
I'd be more than happy to put public policies up for a popular vote. I don't think I'd get many takers on the conservative side though.
Still hilarious to read so many here deludING themselves into thinking that photo ID is all about 'PROTECTING THE VOTE!'
Our Dumb Governor equates a right enshrined in our state constitution to meth heads buying cold medicine.
How can an eligible voter lack ID? How can you go through life--pay taxes, get credit, buy a plane ticket--without one?
garage mahal is the online equivalent of a OWS protester. He flings virtual poo at us hoping we will join in the poo-flinging exercise.
Garage, it goes without saying how much of a brain-dead liberal you demonstrate yourself to be.
If you had had one molecule of self-awareness, you would never say the stupid things you say here.
Being the class clown was fashionable in high school. Grow up already.
Their protecting the voter fraud we all know exists. Plain and simple. They need the votes from the ineligible to vote.
Revenant, I'm not so sure that UN opposition to Voter ID would lead to American opposition. It may even be the reverse.
garage mahal is the online equivalent of a OWS protester. He flings virtual poo at us hoping we will join in the poo-flinging exercise.
Well, you wouldn't want to fling poo like calling someone a fascist with absolutely no back up, would you?
DT2012 - garage gets off on the red meat that Media Matters and Obama provide on a daily basis. It's a combination of circle-jerk and marching orders. Garage is a dutiful "soldier" for the cause. Too bad he doesn't possess his own brain.
Garage doesn't care about election integrity, as long as his side wins.
You're not trying if you ain't cheatin', right.
Didn't I just read that on this blog somewhere? More Alynsky? If so sorry, but that shoe really fits him well.
Scott - that's different, I have evidence to back up my claims unlike garage monkey.
It really is moronic to posit that we should not provide some sort of ID to vote.
Skyler - in my state I can vote by mail without showing photo ID, so????
Scott - that's different, I have evidence to back up my claims unlike garage monkey.
If you think so, provide it the next time the topic rolls around.
The UN?
Who cares?
(Why haven't we kicked them out of the country, again?
Or disbanded the entire thing?
Or at least shut it down by using our Security Council veto on everything, and having our ambassador make a speech every day ending in [and perhaps consisting only of] "The United Nations Must Be Dissolved"?
Seriously, it outlived its usefulness in 1991 when the USSR collapsed.)
(Contra Surge, when "popular opinion" ceases to matter at all we've got despotism.
Popular opinion can be wrong, definitely - but you need a lot more than "it was wrong before" to explain why we should just do What The Self-Appointed Experts demand at all times.
The idea, after all, is that this is government "for, by, and of the people".)
Ah yes, the UN, that bastion of liberal democracy.
I wonder what % of Ivy League students are pro-UN.
Garage doesn't care about election integrity, as long as his side wins
Yah, we Alinskyites just went into vote fraud hibernation mode in 2010, and now we're ready to SPRING into action again with all our voter fraud in 2012! (We just skipped a year to make it look like we didn't cheat every election). I forget what Alinsky Rule this is.
"... So it seems our neighbor, Mexico, requires every citizen show their Voter ID which also serves a s national identity document..."
But that's different.
The thing that should scare you, Garage, is that the 2010 results were after you boosted your vote totals by 10% via cheating.
The liberal MSM, in trying to suppress conservative enthusiasm, ended up cocooning your vote cheaters so they didn't know how many votes to gin up.
I can understand the theoretical reasoning behind disenfranchisement through an ID. But, when applied to the real world and the myriad things any adult needs a picture ID for that theory quickly collapses. So, you don't drive. Ok, fine. Have you ever bought alcohol, cigarettes, fireworks, used a credit card, received welfare, entered a state or federal building? You need an ID to do all those things and if it's the cost factor that is disenfranchising the very poor then I have a perfect solution. When a statewide voter ID law is passed, waive whatever fee an ID costs for the very poor AND to quell the cries of he/she works three jobs so can't take the time to get an ID (which if they were doing, means they actually should be able to pay the ten dollar fee for an non-drivers ID...or have a drivers license to get to work, but that's neither here nor there) have an ID station at the polls. You can't vote in that election, but if you take the time it would have taken to vote to fill out the ID form and have your picture taken and an ID will be sent to the address you provide a month later so you can vote in the next election.
I am beginning to think that Obama and his handlers have decided to use a scorched earth policy:
If they are going to be thrown out, they are going to leave things so messed up and chaotic that they can start screaming from day 1 that the GOP hasn't made everything better yet, so everybody had better vote Democrat in 2014 and 2016.
It's preposterous that my bank will not let me withdraw money from my own account without ID.
If Obama gets 57,004,183 votes this Presidential election, and the Republican challenger gets 2,897,341,254 votes, then, and only then, will the Democrats demand voter ID.
In any transaction that involves exchanges of things that have value we don't bat an eye at someone requiring ID. I suppose this tells us that the Democrat party doesn't believe a vote has any real value. Maybe that should read "my vote" doesn't have value.
Hoosier - it's a bigger fundamental right to vote in Democrats then to get access to your bank account.
"... In any transaction that involves exchanges of things that have value we don't bat an eye at someone requiring ID. I suppose this tells us that the Democrat party doesn't believe a vote has any real value..."
It's not that insomuch as it is one more hurdle they need to overcome to commit voter fraud.
ID is required for the most basic transactions and no one bats an eye. Require it to prove you're the person on the voter rolls and Democrats go apeshit.
I have to show ID to the TSA to board an airplane. They want to verify that the person holding the ticket is the person that will be flying on the airplane.
I'm beginning to think there's more voter fraud than I would have guessed.
Voter ID must scare the hell out of Democrats!
I'd be more than happy to put public policies up for a popular vote.
You favor overturning Roe vs. Wade? Dang, garage, you've gone all right-wing on us.
Patrick,
Revenant, I'm not so sure that UN opposition to Voter ID would lead to American opposition. It may even be the reverse.
I think you missed my point.
Americans already overwhelmingly favor voter ID requirements. If the UN decides to use that to attack us for "racism" or some similar lame-brained complaint, my expectation is that this will increase American opposition to the United Nations, not American opposition to voter ID.
Polls have found over 70% of Americans favor laws that require a Photo ID to vote.
You guys are making such a big deal about Mexico requiring Mexican nationals to have a photo ID in order to vote in Mexican elections.
Do Mexicans need a photo ID to buy AK 47s from the USDOJ? How about to shoot American law enforcement officers with said?
That's what I thought.
Kewl!! AllanS has returned.
ID is required for the most basic transactions and no one bats an eye
I use credit and debit cards to buy stuff all the time. I never get asked for ID. Farm & Fleet is the only store I can think of that asked for ID, but they don't anymore for some reason.
Democrats will support anything that increases their vote tally including:
- Getting felons the vote
- Letting illegal aliens vote
- supporting voter fraud
- Crying "racism" whenever anyone wants the voter laws enforced.
Democrats motto: Vote early and often. And spread the graft around.
garage - so we'll just pick & choose when ID is required right?
Democrats will support anything that increases their vote tally including:
It must so frustrating not being able to ever prove it. I mean really, it's a handful of people nationwide. It sounds Truther-ish.
"Planes can't melt steel!"
"Democrats have millions of illegal stealth voters!"
Don't argue with Garage! He schooled me that the Wi constitution reads that ID isn't required. Funny, the judge ruled that ID would be legal, just not with this law. And when I read your constitution, it mentioned being a resident, but it said nothing about not needing to prove your a resident.
So garage KNOWS, better than the judge, and better than my own 2 eyes, that voter ID is just racist suppression.
Kudo's Garage, your knowledge is truly staggering.
"... I use credit and debit cards to buy stuff all the time. I never get asked for ID. Farm & Fleet is the only store I can think of that asked for ID, but they don't anymore for some reason..."
Board a plane, buy alcohol, enter a Federal building, cash a check, drive a car, withdraw cash from a bank, check into a hotel.
Those are basic transactions or activities that require an ID. To say an ID is a burden to vote is pure bullshit.
I love that we're being investigated by the United Nations.
*shrug* It doesn't bother me at all. Why wouldn't we want to improve the fairness of our laws? I don't fear the opinion of the UN.
Overall, I can't think of a better way to discredit that organization than for it to "investigate" a law that Americans overwhelmingly support.
Human rights and fairness aren't a matter to be decided by majority vote. Your position is equivalent to saying that a third party opinion has no value if it disagrees with your opinion.
Board a plane, buy alcohol, enter a Federal building, cash a check, drive a car, withdraw cash from a bank, check into a hotel.
Those are basic transactions or activities that require an ID.
I don't see the connection between those activities and voting, probably because there isn't any connection.
Incidentally, you're not making a distinction between having an ID and producing an ID. For example, I don't need to show anyone my ID before I drive.
"... Your position is equivalent to saying that a third party opinion has no value if it disagrees with your opinion..."
Well the third party in question is made up of a bunch of nations who don't even allow elections, so no, their opinion has no value.
"... I don't see the connection between those activities and voting, probably because there isn't any connection..."
The connection being you need to prove you are who you claim to be.
"... For example, I don't need to show anyone my ID before I drive..."
Let me know how that works if you buy or rent a car.
It must so frustrating not being able to ever prove it.
On this issue particularly, liberals have won, so far, by repeating a massive non sequiter every time the issue is raised
75 percent of Americans: "We'd like to ensure the integrity of the ballot box by requiring people to show IDs before they vote to prove they are who they say they are."
Garage, and other liberals: "There is scant evidence of voter fraud!"
So what? It's still a perfectly reasonable precaution that has the beauty of protecting both sides equally. It's not a partisan measure.
What the 75 percent need to start replying is: "Thank God there is such scant evidence. But we'd like to take the precaution anyway, and unless you can prove there is a constitutional problem with it, we'd like to implement it. Indeed the fact that you are fighting it so fiercely and with constant resort to non sequiter arguments, makes us want voter ID even more."
Hopefully when a Romney appointee runs DOJ, this silliness will end.
Well the third party in question is made up of a bunch of nations who don't even allow elections, so no, their opinion has no value.
False premise. The UN does NOT consist of nations that don't allow elections. Very, very poor. :(
The connection being you need to prove you are who you claim to be.
Sorry, you're wrong. For example, I don't need to prove who I claim to be to drive.
Let me know how that works if you buy or rent a car.
Buying or renting a car is not a Constitutional right.
Board a plane, buy alcohol, enter a Federal building, cash a check, drive a car, withdraw cash from a bank, check into a hotel.
Yes and no. Technically you don't need a photo ID to board a plane. You need one to get through security. ID's can be falsified though, they don't verify who you are. I buy alcohol, and sadly, I never have to show ID. Federal building, yes. Again, ID's can be falsified, they don't verify who you are. You don't technically need an ID to drive a car either. Irrelevant though, none of these are considered a right in the constitution.
".. False premise. The UN is NOT composed of nations that don't allow elections..."
I said a bunch, not all. Better reading skills Willard.
It's much like when the Sudan was chairing the UN Human rights commission. Really don't value the UNs opinion. Or the UN for that matter.
Assad is butchering his people, Sudan is engaged in ethnic cleansing and the UN is questioning the fairness of us applying a voter ID law.
Heh.
Ok garage since IDs can be falsified then why bother with registering at all? Easier to falsify an address then an I'D.
Let's just let anyone vote.
Human rights and fairness aren't a matter to be decided by majority vote.
No, they're not. Isn't that why we still have sovereign nations and jurisdictions? The UN is subject to the prevailing whims of an increasingly anti-US base. No treaty lasts forever. The UN body no longer represents the body politic of the world.
Your position is also equivalent to saying I like this and I don't like that. But, then that's just you.
Buying or renting a car is not a Constitutional right.
Gun ownership is a Constitutional right and you need a photo ID (plus a whole lot else) to exercise that right.
It's not a partisan measure.
It may not be partisan in principle but it may be partisan in effect.
This is a pointless argument anyway, the kind of argument we Americans let distract us from serious issues.
If the concern is voter fraud, there are much more important steps to take to ensure transparently fair elections. If the concern is encouraging greater participation in elections, the entire process should be re-evaluated.
Ok, back to the squabble now... o_O
". Buying or renting a car is not a Constitutional right."
Indeed. Yet the right to vote has restrictions not outlined in the Constitution.
Producing an ID to prove you are the eligible voter on the rolls isn't some insurmountable chore. It takes more effort to get registered.
Get a better argument than blacks and poor hardest hit.
Technically you don't need a photo ID to board a plane. You need one to get through security.
So how do you get on the plane if you can't get through security?
The point is, just because something hasn't happened to YOU, doesn't mean you don't prepare against it. Do you wait to buy locks for your house until after you've been robbed? Of course not, because you know that other houses have been robbed. Democracy is fragile and one of the ways it is fragile is that elections can be, and have been, stolen. That's a historical fact for which there is much more than "scant evidence."
Have there been stolen elections? Yes. Have there been stolen elections in the United States? Yes. Is there anyone out there with a motive, means and opportunity to steal an election? Yes. Will requiring Voter ID make it harder for such people to steal an election? Yes.
What else needs to be said?
Don't get diverted into silly arguments about where you have to show an ID, and the sophistry of some liberal claiming, "well technically you don't need an ID to board a plane."
That doesn't matter. What matters is protecting the franchise, which deserves and needs protection.
@I ♥ Willard:
You can try (as is your right) but I don't think you can spin a UN-enforced blocking of the will of Texans regarding potential voter fraud.
But keep pushing harder because it helps your choosen leader.
So how do you get on the plane if you can't get through security?
Just saying the dude that checks your boarding pass against your ID doesn't really verify who you are.
This is a pointless argument anyway, the kind of argument we Americans let distract us from serious issues.
The sanctity and integrity of the vote is an important issue.
I said a bunch, not all. Better reading skills Willard.
This is what you said:
Well the third party in question is made up of a bunch of nations who don't even allow elections
It sure looks to me like it's your writing skills that need improvement. You probably should have written "is made up in part of a bunch of nations..."
Anyway, the important thing is that you've learned something. :)
Really don't value the UNs opinion. Or the UN for that matter.
In that case, you don't need to worry about what they say, and obviously your opinion won't be changed by whatever they find. Under the circumstances, I can't believe you wasted your time commenting on it.
"... Just saying the dude that checks your boarding pass against your ID doesn't really verify who you are..."
Jesus Christ.
If your boarding pass has a different name than what is on your ID, guess what, you don't get on the plane.
Your position is also equivalent to saying I like this and I don't like that. But, then that's just you.
Mr. Little,
I'm disappointed that your comment contains so little intellectual value.
The UN has no authority in this matter. We are talking about their opinion, whatever it may be. My position is that there is no reason to fear their opinion; in fact, it will be interesting to hear what the international community thinks.
There is nothing to fear, Chicken Little. :)
"... Under the circumstances,I can't believe you wasted your time commenting on it..."
I guess I couldn't pass up pointing out the idiocy of your position.
Sometimes I like low hanging fruit.
Gun ownership is a Constitutional right and you need a photo ID (plus a whole lot else) to exercise that right.
No, this is incorrect. Try again, please.
It takes more effort to get registered.
Yes, I agree, we need to make voter registration easier.
Willard said: The UN has no authority in this matter.
Absolutely none. I'm glad you agree. :)
The point is, just because something hasn't happened to YOU, doesn't mean you don't prepare against it.
So tell me, how have you prepared for the possibility of a meteor landing on your house?
Revenant,
I absolutely missed your point. I don't think I could have been further off. I must have been distracted by the Badger game.
At any rate, my post remains for all of posterity to laugh at. My apologies.
I ♥ Willard said...
Yes, I agree, we need to make voter registration easier.
Why not abolish it completely? Why not just let anyone who shows up vote once? Where do you stand on that?
You can try (as is your right) but I don't think you can spin a UN-enforced blocking of the will of Texans regarding potential voter fraud.
A UN-enforced blocking of Texas law?
Hahahahahaha! Oh Mr. Little, your fantasies are so strange!
But keep pushing harder because it helps your choosen leader.
Oh, ok! I'll do anything to help Willard get elected. I'm thinking about having a vanilla cupcake party for Willard supporters next week. :)
No, this is incorrect. Try again, please.
If being incorrect means you need to try again, then you need to rewrite every single comment you've ever made at Althouse.
Do you ever get tired of repeating nonsense Democrat talking points over and over and over?
Hahahahahaha! Oh Mr. Little, your fantasies are so strange!
When you propose your logical absurdities, Willard, it's of value to push the limits of how they are perceived.
The sanctity and integrity of the vote is an important issue.
Uh huh. That's why you're so worried about electoral fraud relating to electronic voting machines.
If you're really concerned about the "sanctity and integrity of the vote," you should be concerned about a LOT MORE than voter ID. In terms of the "sanctity and integrity of the vote," voter ID is small potatoes.
I guess I couldn't pass up pointing out the idiocy of your position.
But instead you exposed your own idiocy. :(
Have a super day. :)
Absolutely none. I'm glad you agree.
But that doesn't mean that it wouldn't be interesting and perhaps useful to hear their opinion. There's no need to fear a UN opinion.
Jesus Christ.
If your boarding pass has a different name than what is on your ID, guess what, you don't get on the plane.
Guess what, photo ID's can falsified! How the hell does that dude at security know who you *really* are? We live in a free and open society, anyone with a will can game the system if they are really determined.
The fraud happens after the votes are cast. But funny Republicans are never really worried about that. Wonder why. I'm looking at YOU Kathy Nickolaus!
Garage. Actually the TSA does not require photo id to pass through security, just two pieces of id with one from a govt agency. Airlines are stickier,howver,and i doubt you will get the boarding pass without photo. That said i would expect one in two hundred tsa agents know the rule and you would likely have a hell of a time getting through. Tsa agents take themselves very seriously and confronting them with a change in procedure will cost you a lot of time speaking with unbearably obstinate people. They like to pretend to look at you then look at the photo and then back at you. I dont think it matters if you are in the picture or no because it is all an act anyway.
Why not abolish it completely? Why not just let anyone who shows up vote once? Where do you stand on that?
I'm in favor of the idea in principle, but as always, the most important thing is getting the practical details right.
Generally speaking, we should make it easier to vote and harder to commit fraud. Voter registration contributes nothing indispensable to either goal.
"... But instead you exposed your own idiocy.:("
Yeah my 14 year old thinks I'm an idiot too. Then she, like you will grow up someday.
Nathan Alexander,
A person does not need an ID to own a gun.
I'm sorry you're so dreadfully misinformed about this, and seemingly about almost everything else too.
Apparently not paying attention in school has some drawbacks. :(
When you propose your logical absurdities, Willard, it's of value to push the limits of how they are perceived.
Mr. Little,
I'm quite flattered that I figure so prominently in your fantasies. :)
"... Guess what, photo ID's can falsified! How the hell does that dude at security know who you *really* are?."
I fucking give up. It's like talking to a five year old.
Willard said: I'm quite flattered that I figure so prominently in your fantasies. :)
You do?
Yeah my 14 year old thinks I'm an idiot too.
Dear Hoosier Daddy,
Congratulations on being a father! Obviously you have a very bright and insightful daughter. :)
Then she, like you will grow up someday.
Well, I'm a little surprised to find that I'm the one that has to tell you this, but all of us grow older and some of us grow wiser too. Are you exempting yourself from this process?
While I respect my elders, I find it harder to respect a person who isn't an active learner throughout his life; age is not a substitute for wisdom.
Thank you anyway for you condescension. Best wishes to you and your daughter.
Willard: I'm in favor of the idea in principle, but as always, the most important thing is getting the practical details right.
If you would at least grant me that no one should be allowed to vote twice, how can we prevent even that from happening?
You answer seems to to be "it doesn't happen and if it does it's not important." Fair?
BTW, if we can't even agree on what fraud is, then this exchange is pointless.
Mr. Little,
You seem to be quite sensible when you aren't talking about politics. It would be interesting to discover which part of your brain is malfunctioning.
The fraud happens after the votes are cast. But funny Republicans are never really worried about that. Wonder why. I'm looking at YOU Kathy Nickolaus!
Alleging vote fraud at Kathy Nickolaus, heh?
Of course, you dont have any facts to back up your accusations.
As far as voter ID goes...you cant function in society without one. If you only intend on voting once, and live here legally, there's nothing to worry about. And for those (like garage) who think voter fraud doesnt exist, simply look at James O'Keefe latest video posting at Breitbart.com where he poses as dead people and gets a ballot without even showing an ID...in a state that has a voter ID law.
Its hilarious how Democrats rip this voter ID law out of one side of their mouth, and then out of the other side of their mouth rip the state for not releasing the names of people with concealed carry permits.
The only reason to be against voter ID is because you want to be able to make it possible to fraudulently vote.
You seem to be quite sensible when you aren't talking about politics.
I'd probably say the same about you except I can't.
Guess what, photo ID's can falsified!
Hm.
My California driver's license is a plastic card with:
1. Photo of me.
2. Miniature photo of me
3. raised-text ID number
4. different, smaller raised-text ID number.
5. magnetic strip
6. bar code
7. PDF417 stacked barcode
5 or 7 (not sure which) also contains fingerprint information
You COULD forge one, but honestly it would be easier just to break into the lockbox and stuff the ballot box with phony ballots. The normal means of obtaining a phony DL that can pass inspection is through identity theft -- you apply for one under a real person's name.
If you would at least grant me that no one should be allowed to vote twice, how can we prevent even that from happening?
No one should be allowed to vote twice. The best evidence we have suggests that Voter ID laws do essentially nothing to prevent that type of voter fraud.
You answer seems to to be "it doesn't happen and if it does it's not important." Fair?
The type of voter fraud that Voter ID laws aim to prevent is incredibly rare, based on the best evidence. On the other hand, Voter ID laws apparently lead to lower levels of voter participation. That leads me to wonder if Voter ID laws do more harm than good.
So, to be clear, all voter fraud is wrong, but we need to find a solution to the problem that doesn't have unwanted consequences. (Since you're a scientist, you understand this principle.)
BTW, if we can't even agree on what fraud is, then this exchange is pointless.
There is no disagreement about what constitutes fraud. But the Voter ID law is the equivalent of a crackdown on crime that targets kids who steal candy from the 7-11. Our time and resources should be put to use where they can be most effective.
simply look at James O'Keefe latest video posting at Breitbart.com where he poses as dead people and gets a ballot without even showing an ID...in a state that has a voter ID law.
Oh noes! How will he continue his fine work when he's in prison? :(
I'd probably say the same about you except I can't.
:(
My California driver's license is a plastic card with:
2. Miniature photo of me
Or is it a photo of Mini-Me? o_O
So, to be clear, all voter fraud is wrong, but we need to find a solution to the problem that doesn't have unwanted consequences. (Since you're a scientist, you understand this principle.)
That's politican-speak for "lets do nothing".
Just because voter ID is "rare" doesnt mean it shouldnt be taken seriously. Murder is rare in most parts, but you dont see those areas where its rare not have a murder law on the books.
Its just mind-boggling that a political party that whines and cries about "counting every vote" wont support a law that helps make sure every vote is counted, and counted correctly.
A person does not need an ID to own a gun.
If someone else buys the gun for you, and you are lucky enough to live in a city and state that does not require guns to be licensed then, yes, you can own a gun without ID.
If you want to purchase a new gun, on the other hand, photo ID is required.
"There is no disagreement about what constitutes fraud. But the Voter ID law is the equivalent of a crackdown on crime that targets kids who steal candy from the 7-11."
And this passes for intelligence in the liberal community?
It is funny and instructive to watch and listen to liberals gasp and wheeze to promote this silly meme that voters don't need to show identification in order to vote.
And some of the whoppers and nonsense are worthy of our approval, in the fictional realm, of course.
Tell us , I heart Willard, more of your brilliant reasons why democrats need not show ID for voting. Maybe you'd like to extend this stream of consciousness to minors so they don't have to prove they are old enough to buy alcohol.
You can't make this stuff up. But if you wait for it, some dumb liberal will supply the comedy.
That's politican-speak for "lets do nothing".
Actually it's not. It's the equivalent of suggesting that you use a hammer instead of your head to pound nails.
Just because voter ID is "rare" doesnt mean it shouldnt be taken seriously.
Priority should be given to eliminating the most prevalent and most risk prone sources of fraud. Or is that idea too sensible for you?
Its just mind-boggling that a political party that whines and cries about "counting every vote" wont support a law that helps make sure every vote is counted, and counted correctly.
It's mind-boggling that you are happy to ignore the likely unpleasant and unintended consequences of Voter ID laws in order to try to solve one of the most insignificant sources of voter fraud.
If Voter ID laws are the first and best solution that you can imagine to address the realm of electoral fraud issues, then the American educational system has seriously failed us.
but we need to find a solution to the problem that doesn't have unwanted consequences
We already did: the ID requirement.
Nobody believes the story that it disenfranchises people or places an undue burden on them. Unless you're a criminal, you use photo ID as part of your everyday life.
Everyone here has it; everybody here knows how easy it is to get it. Trying to tell us it is hard to obtain flies in the face of what we all know from first-hand experience. :)
It's mind-boggling that you are happy to ignore the likely unpleasant and unintended consequences of Voter ID laws in order to try to solve one of the most insignificant sources of voter fraud.
What are these "unpleasant" and "unintended" consequences of Voter ID laws?
Im sorry, but if taking out your driver's license or state ID is too "unpleasant" for you, you shouldnt be allowed to vote.
If someone else buys the gun for you
Inheriting a firearm isn't exactly the same as having the gun purchased for you but also qualifies as a way to acquire a gun without the necessity of having an ID.
If you want to purchase a new gun, on the other hand, photo ID is required.
I'll leave it to you to explain the difference between gun ownership and gun purchases to Nathan Alexander.
By the way, some gun purchases require a photo ID, others don't. Either way, you don't need to maintain a photo ID to continue gun ownership.
If Voter ID laws are the first and best solution that you can imagine to address the realm of electoral fraud issues, then the American educational system has seriously failed us.
Well...the only party in America trying to do anything about any kind of electoral fraud issues is the Republican Party. So, I guess, the "American education system has seriously failed" the left in this country.
If a Democrat wants to step forward and make a serious proposal to help stop election fraud, Im all ears. But I will be waiting a long, long time.
Willard loves all the attention you're giving him.
He's in troll heaven.
30 posts and the fish are still biting.
Tell us , I heart Willard, more of your brilliant reasons why democrats need not show ID for voting.
Oh boy, a straw man argument! Yipee!
Maybe you'd like to extend this stream of consciousness to minors so they don't have to prove they are old enough to buy alcohol.
Fortunately the ID requirement for alcohol purchases has eliminated underage drinking!
These straw man arguments are so much fun! So tell me, Don't Tread, why do you insist that only rich white people be allowed to vote? o_O
rcocean is right. Engaging an idiot in front of dispassionate observers just might wrongly subject you to the idiot tag.
Never get into a pissing contest with a skunk, and never try to reason with a liberal. Most frustrating. The only thing denser is a black hole.
We already did: the ID requirement.
Epic fail. :(
Nobody believes the story that it disenfranchises people or places an undue burden on them.
Nobody? Wow, denial is strong in some people. :(
What are these "unpleasant" and "unintended" consequences of Voter ID laws?
Evidence suggests that Voter ID laws lead to fewer people voting. :(
"So tell me, Don't Tread, why do you insist that only rich white people be allowed to vote?"
Comedy gold.
Gore was right about the differences, only he was wrong about which one had the extra chromosome.
Well...the only party in America trying to do anything about any kind of electoral fraud issues is the Republican Party.
Wrong.
Ignorance is not an excuse. :(
Gore was right about the differences, only he was wrong about which one had the extra chromosome.
I'm sorry I can't respond to you, Don't Tread. I've been advised not to reply to idiots:
Engaging an idiot in front of dispassionate observers just might wrongly subject you to the idiot tag.
Sorry. :(
As a comment directed to others, I think it's shameful that Don't Tread wants only white people to be able to vote.
It's almost certain that they are going to protest the coming November election, too, and block its legality, arguing that the Republican party is illegal.
I love that we're being investigated by the United Nations.
I love it as well. Nice to see dictatorships decide to lecture us on election law.
And does this do a good enough job of tossing NAACP's credibility into the gutter?
Obama swore to uphold the US Constitution, not the UN one.
Keep in mind, they believe they need international permission to use military force, but not Congressional support. Their desire to obide by the Constitution is low.
And one of the members of the council investigating this is Saudi Arabia, which still denies women the vote?
That's the LEAST restrictive part of the policy women face there.
Here's my prediction. As the result of the DOJ's ludicrous attack on the Voter ID laws of Texas and South Carolina, the US Supreme Court will toss out Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act and all states covered by that section will be allowed to go forward with the same liberty and equal protection enjoyed by all the other states in the union.
Section 5 (sorry for the non-HTML friendly link):
http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/vot/sec_5/about.php
The Supremes already signed off on Indiana's voter ID law. The Justice Dept has sway over states subject to the VRA until the Supremes throw that out too. The statute of limitations runs out at some point over what happened 50 years ago.
Inheriting a firearm isn't exactly the same as having the gun purchased for you
Semantics again? Zzz.
I'll leave it to you to explain the difference between gun ownership and gun purchases to Nathan Alexander.
I shall not bother, since it doesn't actually affect his point. Photo ID is required for the exercise of most second amendment rights; that is what matters.
Evidence suggests that Voter ID laws lead to fewer people voting. :(
A law that makes it harder to vote fraudulently resulted in fewer votes being cast?
Huh. Weird.
Seriously, though "fewer votes" is what one would expect when it becomes harder to vote illegally. That is neither an unpleasant consequence nor an unintended one.
Now, if legitimate voters were disenfranchised -- by which I mean "were incapable of obtaining ID and then barred from voting", not "didn't feel like getting an ID" -- then that would be unfortunate. But thus far none of the lawsuits against these laws have been able to identify any such plaintiff. Probably because no such people exist in America. Homeless dudes living under bridges can easily get ID, for pity's sake.
Nobody believes the story that it disenfranchises people or places an undue burden on them
Actually everyone agrees it does. It's net result can only prevent people from voting. It's the way you like it, and you should just come to terms with it. You believe a big government solution to a non-existent problem is the right thing to do.
I Heart Willard said:
"Evidence suggests that Voter ID laws lead to fewer people voting.
:("
Did you ever think, that if there are people voting who shouldn't be before voter ID is adopted, maybe it works?
Not surprising that Americans overwhelmingly support protecting the voting process by showing voter ID. Those opposed to showing voter ID when voting reveal themselves to be cynical, corrupt dem hacktivists. Of course the dems oppose voter ID because they have thrived at cheating in elections. Cheating is a huge edge to have in a close election.
John Fund wrote an excellent book about voter fraud in the USA:
"Stealing Elections: How Voter Fraud Threatens Our Democracy".
Here is the introductory chapter from that book:
old.nationalreview.com/comment/fund200409130633.asp
Here is an article by Fund about Wisconsin and the Voter Fraud Agenda:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704671904575193930226978178.html
Actually everyone agrees it does. It's net result can only prevent people from voting.
I take it you're unfamiliar with the meaning of the word "undue"?
Preventing people who aren't supposed to vote from voting is, of course, the purpose of the law. But that's not an undue burden. It is a due burden. They're not supposed to be voting.
If, on the other hand, you're trying to argue that obtaining an ID is, itself, burdensome -- well, everyone here knows you're lying, because everyone here has had to get ID.
Remember, "Let every vote count" Pelosi?
And Gore with is 'voter's intent' inspecting the chives?
But now they don't care if the votes are CORRUPTED by illegal voting.
And get this, many BLUE states have voter ID laws, but Dems are only worried about REPUBLICAN states. And we all know why.
But a warning... what goes around comes around and in November expect the Republicans to have both houses AND the White House. Turn about will be FAIR PLAY.
Preventing people who aren't supposed to vote from voting is, of course, the purpose of the law
"people who aren't supposed to vote"
Hah. That's why everybody laughs hard at libertarians. Such phonies. I wish it weren't true.
We have a lawless attorney general.
That's why everybody laughs hard at libertarians.
So non-libertarians think that people who aren't supposed to vote ARE supposed to vote?
Heck, garage -- I admit to thinking sometimes that libertarians are more logical than the rest of the public, but I wouldn't go so far as saying we're the only folks in America who believe in the law of identity. :)
A thought experiment..
Who do you think AG Holder would rather have a beer with... a southern border elected governor.. or a Guantanamo detainee?
AG Holders official actions say that the Guantanamo detainee would have to pass on the invitation citing a religious conflict.
"People who aren't supposed to vote" seems to confuse Garage.
1. People who aren't citizens.
2. People who aren't residents of that particular ward.
3. People who have already voted.
4. Felons.
Hope that helps!
Put it another way..
To take my freedom away the government has to correctly identify me by compulsion of many many laws.. but to renew that power through the ballot box I'm not required to identify myself as eligible to grant it?
Maybe my read of the oath of office is askew..
I've decided to encourage Garage to keep denying potential cheating and voter fraud while supporting efforts to shutdown voter ID laws. If there is enough integrity left in the system, denier's like him will encourage Republican voters to over react and to counter "imagined" corruption. Since there is no corresponding history of such fraud on the right, garage's cause will lead to a partisan effect in favor of Republicans.
kind of like whats happening with Rush.. or something.
All that focus on the slut slur has switched the unwelcome spot light on Maher and the wonderful things he has said about Sarah Palin.
Spot on Chikenlit.. if I understand you correctly.
BTW, they have a name for people like that.. useful idiots.. garage is not a useful idiot.. he is a priceless idiot ;)
So non-libertarians think that people who aren't supposed to vote ARE supposed to vote?
Everybody gets to vote. Besides felons, right? The libertarian position should be; even felons should be allowed that right. Why do I have to explain that?
Evidence suggests that Voter ID laws lead to fewer people voting. :(
I am not sure if it actually leads to fewer people voting, or fewer votes. Much more likely the later, which is not unintended. It turns out that people who can be identified who turn out to have been actually deprived of voting through voter ID laws and the like are actually many fewer than the number of fraudulent votes found over the years. Actually, almost non-existent. And, for those few, it usually turns out that they were given the opportunity to vote provisionally, which is available in many, if not most, states these days.
So, what I think that we have here is a misuse, or mischaracterization, of statistics. Surprise. Surprise.
Oh, and Patrick, you forgot to include:
5. People who are not alive, are not at least 18 years of age, or do not otherwise exist, and
6. Non-humans. This mostly applies to household pets, but there is nothing to keep it from also applying to barnyard animals and the like, should the need for votes be great enough.
I suspect I missed some other categories of traditional voters who aren't actually technically qualified to vote, but have in the past.
Why do I have to explain that?
You don't have to. I agree--most "crimes" are merely acts of protest a racist & elitist system. All felons should be allowed a retributive voice in politics. It's only fair.
Everybody gets to vote. Besides felons, right? The libertarian position should be; even felons should be allowed that right. Why do I have to explain that?
Obviously, do not understand libertarianism very well, do you?
Loss of voting rights is one of the traditional costs of being convicted of a felony. You do the crime, you pay the price.
Oh Christ. I'm out of here.
The band is never getting back together.
What bothers me here is AG Holder's strategy here. The only states where this would work are also states where the Democrats are not going to win, regardless of how many fraudulent votes they can manufacture - with the possible exception of LA. We are talking deep south here. The feds have this right because 50 years ago, the Democrats running those states were actively excluding blacks from voting. (And, you could ask the question why the Democrats are the party that has cheated at voting for almost 150 years now - first with disenfranchisement, and now with over-voting?)
So, what is Holder's game here? Why is he doing it? is it just because he can? Or, is he playing a deeper game?
At my apartment there is a sign on the front door to the office that says, "Photo ID required to view apartments" and something about Fair Housing, and that hit me like a hammer made out of ABC gum, pencil, and eraser.
garage,
I know you're not actually serious, but I'll respond because other people might be curious.
Libertarians are concerned, first and foremost, with individual liberty and the freedom to form voluntary associations with others. This means keeping the government absolutely minimal; at the extreme end of the spectrum, some libertarians argue that the government should be funded entirely with voluntary payments.
Democracy and voting is a system by which people determine what the government will do. I.e., it is a means to an end -- legitimate only inasmuch as the voters are asking the government to exercise legitimate powers in defense of the liberty and natural rights of the governed. So the answer to the question "who should vote" is ultimately a pragmatic one, not an absolute one; the group of people who should vote is the group of people who will use the government's power appropriately. A dictatorship that allows freedom of speech and bans slavery would be preferable to a democracy that allows slavery and censors all dissident views.
Realistically, though, the safest path is to let everyone vote UNLESS:
1. They can't understand the rights of others (e.g., no kids)
2. They have shown a willingness to violate the rights of others (e.g. no thieves, murderers, or rapists)
3. They aren't among the governed (e.g. no non-residents).
4. They've already voted.
If you can think of a way to prove a would-be voter is an adult non-criminal voting for the first time *WITHOUT* identifying who the person is, you be sure and let me know. Until then I will continue viewing the ID requirement as the (much) lesser of two evils. :)
They have shown a willingness to violate the rights of others (e.g. no thieves, murderers, or rapists)
Well maybe I think you've shown the willingness to violate the rights of me. In the meantime while we figure this out, you can't vote!
That can't be the libertarian position.
It's hard for me to believe that all the "poor and disfranchised" Obama and Co worry about can be admitted to government social security offices, or whatever offices that deal with destribution of government benefits, without some form of photo ID.
I might be wrong, since I was never in need of the goverment benefits, but in my experience of dealing with goverment agencies, one can't even enter government building without showing photo ID
There is no "right" to vote for President. That right is given by the states, and after it is, the privileges and immunities of the US Citizen must be upheld by the state (88 US 162). NON US Citizens have no rights other than those afforded "people" within the jurisdiction of the US with respect to equal protection of the laws. There is NO LAW that says aliens can vote. Illegal aliens have no rights, other than to be put on a plane and sent back to their home country. Allowing those that are not US Citizens to vote violates the sovereignty of US Citizens. I thought this was a "law blog".
"chickenlittle said...
Obama swore to uphold the US Constitution, not the UN one."
He swore no such thing. The proper oath was never done in public. Why do you think they did it again in private, with no press watching.? If the first was legal, then why the second? Obviously the "Constitutional scholar", and the Chief Justice deemed it insufficient. I, on the other hand, swear an oath to protect and defend the Constitution when I register to vote. I am doing just that by, contesting the nomination of Obama as D party POTUS nominee of Fla., in Leon Co. Circuit Court. He is not a natural born Citizen as required by A2S1C5, US Constitution, since he was born British of a British subject father.
Roberts KNEW he was ineligible-- that's why they flubbed the oath. The "law prof" watches the constitution she supposedly teaches burn from her ivory tower in the sham of a "law school". She should be ashamed that she did nothing.
C'mon. Everyone know American are fat (Michelle says so), happy (their constitution says so) and ignorant (their elite says so). SO they need to be ignored if not re-educated,
Actually everyone agrees it does. It's net result can only prevent people from voting. It's the way you like it, and you should just come to terms with it. You believe a big government solution to a non-existent problem is the right thing to do.
Yes. "Proving your identity" is now a "big government solution".
Odd, since those who love big government the most are most consistently opposed to it.
It must so frustrating not being able to ever prove it. I mean really, it's a handful of people nationwide. It sounds Truther-ish.
Hey Garage, Google "Harris County Voter Fraud" and learn how that genius of public policy, Congresswoman Jackson-Lee gets elected.
Jackson-Lee is best known for asking during a visit to NASA if the Mars Rovers had photographed the flags left by the astronauts.
Even Texas Democrats wouldn't elect this idiot if her district had honest elections.
Well maybe I think you've shown the willingness to violate the rights of me.
You're mistaken.
In the meantime while we figure this out, you can't vote!
And you'll be stopping me from voting... how? :)
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा