Even most black Americans — people who, overwhelmingly, don’t vote Republican — currently favor new requirements for voters to have photo identification. Three-quarters of all voters — people of all races and political parties — favor such laws, according to polls.Williams offers no answer to his question. He's just expressing amazement.
The black support for photo identification of voters can only be described as amazing. For most of the twentieth century, violence, poll taxes and literacy tests were used by segregationists to deny black people the right to vote....
June 16, 2015
"Why are Democrats losing the debate over voting rights?"
Asks Juan Williams.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
155 comments:
Poll black Americans on illegal immigration.
You will have your answer.
Democrats are losing the debate because we have become a society where it's routine to show a photo id to enter a building or get on a plane. Screaming hysterically over showing a photo id to vote just looks silly.
"Why are Democrats losing the debate over voting rights."
Because their self-serving claim that legitimate voters are being kept from the polling place is bullshit.
Maybe blacks don't think it's brutally difficult to get an ID.
And as clint said, you have to show ID to do most anything (including attending rallies opposing voter ID)
Because even minorities realize voter fraud is happening, and know it is wrong.
Juan offers no answers because he can't square the circle without facing reality.
It's racist to assume blacks can't get ID, and it's even more racist to think that blacks would be against a simple, logical method to prevent voter fraud.
Maybe because no one likes the thought of their vote being diluted by voter fraud.
Maybe because of reality. Everyone, including minorities understand that the professional race grievance industry are agitating because that's what they do. A photo ID is not a hardship
Times change.
Maybe blacks are finally waking up to the Democrat strategy of using illegals to replace the black vote. In addition to voting, they will take those car wash jobs,
To perform any transaction of importance today, you need an ID. Not requiring an ID to vote implies voting is a trivial action.
Because most people are honest and sensible and they don't want the dishonest ones to vote fraudulently?
Just a thought.
Voter ID protects the voting rights of all eligible voters..people like me whose vote is cancelled out by ineligible voters.
The answer is that the fight hasn't begun. Non-professional Dems don't know that photo ID is code for voter purges and for keeping out students and the poor. They also do not know that voter fraud is a lie.
Because they already have photo ID's. Everyone does. This 400,000 disfranchised voters in WI that morons like garage and the penquin cite is bullshit.
Remember the Caro book on Lyndon Johnson. "Landslide" Lyndon won his first election to the Senate based on massive election fraud. It happened, and it changed the course of American history.
"Why are Democrats losing the debate over voting rights."
Pretty simple. Because we're not having a debate over voting rights. We're having a debate over voting procedures. Different kettle of fish.
Juan, it's because you're over 60.
The difference between historical knowledge and experiential knowledge is profound.
Maybe most black Americans don't see an i.d. requirement as the same thing as violence, poll taxes, and literary tests.
Recount until you win works better with lax procedures.
Louis, it would be nice if you made a little effort to substantiate your assertions once in a while.
Listening to Hillary decry the Republican "voter suppression strategy" in her announcement speech made me think of Althouse's stated distaste for demagogues.
Jill Lawrence recently wrote in U.S. News and World Report that “a recent study of more than 1 billion ballots cast from 2000 to 2014 found 31 credible instances of voter impersonation…31 out of over 1 billion.”
If Juan (and Democrats generally) requires empirical proof of a problem where is the empirical proof voter ID laws have prevented an eligible voter from voting?
In the last elections, there were "black" precincts where the Democrats got 110-120% of the registered voters. The people know it, and do not appreciate what the Democrat party operatives have done to their reputation as a class or group.
Their goal is to enhance the value of the declining pool of older, suburban, white and more affluent Republican voters – people with a long history of regular voting – while depressing the odds that younger people, recent immigrants, minorities and the poor can get into a voting booth.
Sad to see him so over the bend nuts. We have eligibility rules, they should be enforced. End of story.
Louis said...
The answer is that the fight hasn't begun. Non-professional Dems don't know that photo ID is code for voter purges and for keeping out students and the poor. They also do not know that voter fraud is a lie.
Memo to Juan: You need to sign up for the talking points that Louis is getting.
Hey, if it doesn't take an id to carry off the personal information of 4 million government employees why should it matter with voting. New government motto: Security, it no thang!
Maybe Juan should get out and ask?
When you fight so hard for something that should have been a right I the first place, you will do what ever you have too to protect it. Voter ID is a very easy step in protecting your vote as yours.
The issue is really illegal immigrants voting,not blacks. Blacks know they are losing getting jobs because the jobs are going to illegal immigrants.
This push of Democrats and Obama to get illegals to vote is adversely impact blacks not whites.
Generally no serious person has a problem with the proposition that "only legally eligible voters should be allowed to vote." The concept of allowing votes without any determination that the voter is a resident of the political unit, is of age, or has not already voted for that matter, is absurd.
Obviously, blacks (and many whites) have a problem with that concept just being used as a pretense to keep eligible voters from voting, as there is an ugly history there (poll taxes, literacy tests, etc.). Clinton and her race-baiting contingent hope to capitalize on that--what better way to boost your own turnout than to convince black voters that racist white Republicans are trying to keep them from voting? They don't of course answer the question of how legally eligible voters should be verified--perhaps election officials should take everyone's word for it and assume the honor system is sufficient.
But the GOP (as well as anyone who values reasonable voter verification) can overcome this tactic by ensuring that every legally eligible voter can be verified (by providing state-issued ID to those who may have a legitimate hardship in getting one) and by allowing the tallying of provisional votes by those who can later prove their eligibility. The Courts have upheld such laws when they provided for that sort of fallback.
The black support for photo identification of voters can only be described as amazing.
What's amazing about it? Most people want their vote to count, including black people, it's really not complicated. The notion that showing an ID to vote in 2015 is denying people voting rights is silly and everyone knows it, even Dems who are pushing against it.
Maybe African Americans as a class are not feeling as disenfranchised from the government as they actually were fifty years ago. So, getting and using a government-issued ID is not a big deal for them.
Libtard: is code for
Yah, I'm going to stop you right there with your "code" bullshit. Just because you you feelz something doesn't make it trump fact.
Also, go fuck yourself, you dishonest pos.
Remember, Republicans just want to make sure all the votes are legit. They would never ever try to keep groups like students, the elderly, the poor, or other minorities that tend to vote Democratic from voting. You have to show an ID to rent a Blockbuster video!
And, "according to polls", blacks love photo ID!
Not to worry Juan. The new Trans-Pacific Trade Commission will order American Law fixed.
And then no popularvotes are going to be taken. Unelected foreign rulers, bribed of course by THE single Ruler, will speak and it will simply become the Law of the earth.
Government by Plebiscite is going to solve all those sticky problems brought on us by old fashioned Representative Democratic Republics.
I think garbage mahal was grasping for mockery and ended up with a fistfull of self-parody.
It's an article of faith among leftists that vote fraud doesn't exist. Never really happened, and certainly doesn't happen today. It's a religion.
Whenever I see some study cited that "proves" there's no voter fraud, I ask myself, How do they know? If I showed up at a voting place and said I was Paddy O'Brian and I wasn't, and they let me vote, how does the study later determine that my vote was or was't fraudulent?
Although I support voter ID, I think Republicans would get a lot more political mileage out of the issue if they combined it with offers to assist any citizen who, for whatever legitimate reason, might be having difficulty in obtaining the required documentation.
I give Garage credit. The Blockbuster zing really stings. As an out-of-touch human, I tried to go to Blockbuster to rent all of my John Wayne favorites. The place was closed. Forever.
Now I don't know where I'll get my John Wayne favorites. I have an ID, though, just in case.
for whatever legitimate reason, might be having difficulty in obtaining the required documentation.
So they should pander to idiots?
"Their goal is to enhance the value of the declining pool of older, suburban, white and more affluent Republican voters – people with a long history of regular voting – while depressing the odds that younger people, recent immigrants, minorities and the poor can get into a voting booth."
More of that sweet, sweet mind reading.
Occam's Razor says "to cut down on the illegal Brown vote".
Paul DeBuhr has it right. Juan Williams wants to call himself a journalist, but he doesn't want to get out of the studio ask people questions.
But even with the facts against them, the Republicans shot back at Clinton.
What arguments do Republicans ever make with facts behind them? I can't think of a single one.
Voter ID laws disproportionately impact dead voters, felons, serial voters and students casting votes at home and at school.
Note to Louis: I'm a certified election judge. I can assure you that voter fraud exists. Much of it is caught in the act where the perpetrator just says "I guess I'm at the wrong precinct" and walks away when offered the opportunity to correct his voter registration on the spot. No crime is reported.
garage mahal said: What arguments do Republicans ever make with facts behind them? I can't think of a single one.
Well then, that settles that issue.
If it wasn't for same day voter registration at the polls, Minnesota would be a "red state."
http://tinyurl.com/ml62v62
I think this story proves voter fraud exists and isn't negligible.
"Why are Democrats losing the debate over voting rights?"
1. Because when renewing my library card at a famous blue city public library, I had to show my photo ID. So it doesn't sound crazy to require a photo ID for other important civic duties, like, say, voting.
2. Because of the 500 adult males and females I know, each and every one has found a way to get a photo ID.
3. Because if there are pockets of marginalized adult members of society who for some reason, do not have Driver's Licenses or Passports or other Government photo ID, the solution is simple - help them get a photo ID.
4. Because the Dems' only interest in this phony issue is simply to pad their votes by bussing in marginalized members of society and directing them to vote Dem. If these marginalized voters voted 50-50 for Dems & GOP, the Dems would drop the issue like a hot potato.
I had to show a photo ID the other day to buy cough medicine. The Democrats are losing this debate because they look downright silly arguing that this routine requirement for so many ordinary daily activities is all of a sudden raaaaaacist when it comes to voting.
Juan Williams does his best "What's the matter with Kansas?" imitation.
Bob Ellison:
It's an article of faith among leftists that vote fraud doesn't exist.
Juan Williams:
For most of the twentieth century, violence, poll taxes and literacy tests were used by segregationists to deny black people the right to vote.
The current state of public opinion, including among the black community, is doubly incredible because there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud anywhere in the nation.
In two sentences Williams flips from the historical to the present. Williams invokes history in regards to voting rights. He reverts to the present when talking about voter fraud.
Yet in the historical perspective minority voting rights were denied and fraud was prevalent.
In the present perspective, using a photo ID is unremarkable and fraud is scant.
Mix the historical and present and amaze yourself.
What is it with disenfranchising students? If a kid can get into college, he can get an ID. In fact I am pretty sure you can't get into college without showing one at some point in the process.
Is it about preventing students from voting twice? Is it the fact that the students would have to vote where they make their actual home? You know, where they get their driver's license? What is it?
I had to show a photo ID the other day to buy cough medicine. The Democrats are losing this debate because they look downright silly arguing that this routine requirement for so many ordinary daily activities is all of a sudden raaaaaacist when it comes to voting.
Ha! Exactly! Are we to believe black people never need sinus medicine?
Or are we to believe black people are stuck buying the stuff that doesn't work because they don't have the id to show a pharmacist?
Why are they losing the argument? Because they are wrong in their argument.
hrm0128
11/4/2014 2:35 PM EST
For those who say there is no major vote fraud by non-citizens, I have to laugh.
I have two first hand experiences to share.
In 1980, I managed a restaurant in Anaheim, CA. Six of my employees (all non-citizens, four of them undocumented) voted in the election. They were among 200
strawberry pickers (their day job) registered at the Mall of Orange by democratic registrars. They were picked up at the fields and driven in buses to the mall to register and back on election day to vote. They received $200 per person to vote illegally (a fair amount of money in 1980). I didn't believe their story until they showed their voter stubs after Election Day. When I tried to report this to Secretary of State March Fong Eu's office, I was called a racist and told to mind my own business, or legal action could be taken against me!
When working as a poll volunteer in 1996, we had an unusually large number of people who could neither read or write English, but were registered to vote in our district (the first time anything like this had happened in six elections). When I sent a report on this to the Secretary of State's office, I was told knowledge was no longer necessary for citizenship (an outright lie at the time). I later found out that there were over 900,00 similar situations in the state that year. This was reported to the Clinton administration, which buried the report. California now has 2.5 million ballots done in a foreign language. I know several who work the polls in California now, and they say the situation is more widespread than ever before.
I know someone who worked for Rep. Bob Dornan (not a personal favorite), during the infamous Dornan-Loretta Sanchez race in 1994. In that election (origninally showing a victory margin of 12,000 votes), a congressional investigation showed over 8,000 definitely illegal votes by non-citizens. There were an additional 9,500 votes that were probably illegal. The investigation was shut down by Steny Hoyer.
Here's the link. AJ Lynch pointed me there.
"for whatever legitimate reason, might be having difficulty in obtaining the required documentation."
I can see a few cases where someone lives in a rural area and a separate trip to the town hall could mean missing a day's work, which could be a legitimate hardship. But rather than drop all eligibility verification for the sake of a few cases like this, it makes more sense to offer extended election office hours, or even have the locality open a temporary mobile office to reach those voters.
Most voter ID laws that have been upheld have allowed more forms of ID to be used than the ones that have been shot down. I think if the proponents of such laws stress the extent of access they want to provide for hardship cases, it will de-fang the Leftist argument that this is some sinister "voter suppression" plan.
The dems are pushing to allow illegal immigrants to vote. Of course they are going to have problems with ID's. And there arguments about how its racist to blacks to ask for IDs (because they can't get them) is patronizing to blacks. As if they are somehow incapable of getting basic ID.
And if they don't have those ID's then that should be the true civil rights cause that should be addressed. No wonder they aren't doing well, they don' have an idea required for many social functions. Therefeore to get blacks out of their predicament the issue should be to get as many of them ID's as possible.
There is nothing legitimate in the dems arguments and the only thing they have as an alernative is playing the racial idenity politics.
At some point we will simply out-source voting to China.
I think if the proponents of such laws stress the extent of access they want to provide for hardship cases, it will de-fang the Leftist argument that this is some sinister "voter suppression" plan.
I think the evidence shows it's already de-fanged.
Or is it that it will keep thousands of students from voting multiple times, as was shown happened at Marquette?
Like this kid who bragged about it before he found out it was illegal.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=122487
Or 17% of students at Marquette?
The Marquette Tribune, reported that 174 students out of 1,000 students it surveyed said they voted more than once in the Nov. 7 election. The newspaper did not record the students' names.
Not to worry though, somebody with garage's superior grasp of statistical methods knows that the 174 students were likely all of the students that voted illegally, and had they asked 50K students, the number would still have been 174, and the behavior on the Marquette campus never happened anywhere else in Wisconsin. Besides, Gore won Wisconsin by a landslide in 2000, right?
Oh, wait: Wisconsin was won by Vice President Al Gore by a slim 0.22% margin of victory, a mere difference of 5,708 votes. - Wikipedia
Maybe most black Americans don't see an i.d. requirement as the same thing as violence, poll taxes, and literary tests.
Personally, I'd support UNIVERSALLY APPLIED literacy tests.
We don't need idiots voting.
If Juan (and Democrats generally) requires empirical proof of a problem where is the empirical proof voter ID laws have prevented an eligible voter from voting?
Also, since voter ID isn't used in most places --- how were these 31 cases found? "Sure, we never check ID or attempt to actually deal with fraud, but look at the stats at how rarely fraud occurs"
It'd be like saying "if one ignores bank account actions, financial fraud is unbelievably rare"
Remember, Republicans just want to make sure all the votes are legit.
Says the supporter of the party who tries its damnedest to disqualify military ballots cast by people stationed overseas every election...
What arguments do Republicans ever make with facts behind them? I can't think of a single one.
Here's one: Bob McDonnell is in jail for the IDENTICAL behavior the Clintons have been doing for years ... he just did it in a far, far smaller scale.
He answers his own question when he says "For most of the twentieth century, violence, poll taxes and literacy tests were used by segregationists to deny black people the right to vote....".
With an ID, no one would be able to deny them the right for any reason. Not sure why Juan doesn't see that.
I thought Dems wanted US to be just like progressive Europe?
Which to my knowledge requires voter ID (and actual entry in citizen registry in some places). Can you believe it? So oppressive.
For all the issues EUs are coping with, they just haven't quite discovered the pleasures of US race-baiting shenanigans.
They were among 200
strawberry pickers (their day job) registered at the Mall of Orange by democratic registrars. They were picked up at the fields and driven in buses to the mall to register and back on election day to vote.
Yep. I lived in Palm Beach County ("Honk if you voted for Gore, it's the big button in the middle of the steering wheel!") and saw many air conditioned coaches (usually they were transported in old school buses with the windows open) picking up "voters" on election day, 2000.
The US is the *only* western democracy that doesn't require ID to vote.
"The notion that showing an ID to vote in 2015 is denying people voting rights is silly and everyone knows it, even Dems who are pushing against it."
I don't doubt the rank-and-file believe it. My mother and sister are staunch democrats who get their "news" from places like the Huffington Post. They spout bullshit dem dogma all the time (family get-togethers can be painful because I have to listen to it all in silence), including the claim that voter ID is all a cynical Republican scheme. The professional politicians know they are demagoguing the issue, but the peons believe it.
ID, poll tax, literacy test... one of these is not like the other.
We also know that the poll taxes and literacy tests were selectively used against black voters by white registrars. Many, if not most, black people today likely vote in precincts where the registrars are mostly black.
Shorter: 2015 is not 1968.
"rather than drop all eligibility verification for the sake of a few cases"
But that's the very core of Progressive ideology: community norms must be destroyed to ensure no outlier is ever inconvenienced or upset in any way.
Original Mike, that's an important point.
1) The Democrat elite are cynical, wanting only power. They will say anything.
2) The Democrat voters are ignorant and stupid, believing whatever the elite tells them.
Rush Limbaugh has been saying this for decades, but every 25 years or so, a new generation has to learn the lesson. Most individuals never learn.
There HAS to be illegal voting in California. All you need is a social security number, and of course you have a number if you are working somewhere. Whether it is your number is a different question.
And the poll workers cannot look at your id. If the Obama analytics group was as good as they bragged about finding people who rarely vote, who is to say how they used that information? Or, how someone might use that information?
Oh- when I moved to California during the 2008 primary season, I was getting work done on my house by a bunch of Spanish-speaking men of questionable citizenship status. And you know what several of them told me? That they had heard John McCain wanted to round up immigrants and have them killed or sent to prison.
So I suspect someone was very good at spreading rumors among the "voters".
There HAS to be illegal voting in California. All you need is a social security number, and of course you have a number if you are working somewhere. Whether it is your number is a different question.
That's why the Electoral College is next. It's a firewall against California voter fraud. It must be torn down.
Nothing wrong with literacy tests and poll taxes IF they apply to EVERYONE. Why are idiots voting and why are people who don't pay a dime of tax money deciding how the money will be spent. Besides, they see the DemoRats desperately pushing illegal immigration, while fighting voter ID, and put two and two together!
That they had heard John McCain wanted to round up immigrants and have them killed or sent to prison.
My daughter attended an nearly all black school in South Florida. These same rumors were rampant about George Bush and black people. None would be allowed to work at the White House was one I remember.
Louis wrote -
"Non-professional Dems don't know that photo ID is code for voter purges and for keeping out students and the poor. They also do not know that voter fraud is a lie."
Since you know these things, how much are you being paid? I mean being professional and all that.
"That's why the Electoral College is next. It's a firewall against California voter fraud. It must be torn down."
Yep.
hey spout bullshit dem dogma all the time (family get-togethers can be painful because I have to listen to it all in silence), including the claim that voter ID is all a cynical Republican scheme.
You don't honestly believe that Republicans enacting photo ID laws are meant to prevent voter fraud, do you? Really? The laws they are enacting DOES NOT PREVENT VOTER FRAUD. That should be your first clue.
*do not
Clint pretty much nails it on the first post.
You don't honestly believe that Republicans enacting photo ID laws are meant to prevent voter fraud, do you? Really? The laws they are enacting DOES NOT PREVENT VOTER FRAUD. That should be your first clue.
Since you have the facts on your side all the time, why not fill us in on how you can know this? To some of us with some training in mathematics picked up along the way, and perhaps a little training in logic, we just can't figure out how you can *know* what you claim to know.
So why not share a simple overview of how this is known? Just as a public service for us mouth breathers. We promise we will try to follow along as best we can.
You can start by explaining how it would not prevent multiple voting by students, as was reported to have happened widely in Wisconsin. How would voter ID not have prevented that fraud?
And if your answer is that the Wisconsin university student fraud never happened, kindly share how you know that to be true.
Simple - blacks stand to lose a lot of their influence if the undocumented aliens are allowed to vote.
"I think the evidence shows it's already de-fanged."
I should hope so--not just because it could help cynical opportunists like Hillary (who is pushing this issue) but because in the process it tries to engender more distrust among black people.
Democrat lefties say this is about increasing the value of white votes. To be honest, it is about preserving the value of citizen's votes, white, black, Hispanic, American Indian, Asian, Muslim, whatever.
Preserving the value of citizen voters.
Rick said...
"Jill Lawrence recently wrote in U.S. News and World Report that “a recent study of more than 1 billion ballots cast from 2000 to 2014 found 31 credible instances of voter impersonation…31 out of over 1 billion.”
I can duplicate that result; just pick your sample from voter rolls in North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Iowa, rural Illinois, rural Indiana, rural Ohio...
Pick your voter roles from Chicago, Philadelphia, NYC, and Boston and get a different result.
"The laws they are enacting DOES NOT PREVENT VOTER FRAUD."
Please explain.
"You don't honestly believe that Republicans enacting photo ID laws are meant to prevent voter fraud, do you? Really? The laws they are enacting DOES NOT PREVENT VOTER FRAUD. That should be your first clue."
This assertion requires further explanation. Voter ID requirements ensure recordkeeping to prevent repeat voting, or busing non-residents in to pad the numbers--obviously if you have to show ID, and the pollworker checks you off a list it makes it much more difficult to pull that off. So how exactly does this not prevent fraud?
Original Mike and Brando,
But he used CAPITAL LETTERS isn't that enough to convince you. If you have the facts you argue the facts; if you have the law you argue the law; if you have neither you use the CapsLock key.
Perhaps it is because black folks realize that a fraudulent vote impacts their voting rights as much as Bull Connor standing in front of a polling place.
Things are more precious after they have been lost and later found.
Voter ID can not prevent all voter fraud. His argument will be to point to those types it can't.
because everyone knows that the Democrats rely on voter fraud to win close elections. They hardly even deny it. Their pretense that a voter ID is equivalent to poll taxes and literacy tests from the Jim Crow era is total bullshit and they know it.
Maybee, in the 2012 election a Polosh maid told my sister that she had heard that if Romney won, he already had the Air Force on standby, ready to start wwIII. Another maid told her and so on and so forth. Does make you wonder who is putting out the disinformation. Also, a cashier told my mom that woman would no longer be allowed to work if Romney won.
You can start by explaining how it would not prevent multiple voting by students, as was reported to have happened widely in Wisconsin. How would voter ID not have prevented that fraud?
No idea what story you're referring to, but photo ID wouldn't prevent people from voting more than once. When Wisconsin argued in court they could not come up with one case of voter fraud that their laws would have prevented. Not one fucking case. You might as well be arguing Elvis is still alive.
I have a librul relative who voted [absentee ballot to her mother's home] in PA elections for 7-8 years even though she was a NYC year round resident. She grew up in PA and figured her librul vote in PA carried more importance than it would have in NY state.
What a shock. Garage disagrees with all those "blackys" regarding voter ID.
Right up there with garage telling those african-american parents in DC that their "blacky" children don't need vouchers.
I am sensing a pattern.
Why won't these recalcitrant blacks get back on the voter ID & school choice policy plantation?
I work the polls and do same day registration. Had one college student come in with her "supporting documents" on her cell phone. 1 item we can use is a copy of a bank statement with your name and correct mailing address. She showed me a "bank statement" with her name, address and balance on it. I than asked her to shrink it down so I could see the issuing bank because we need to note that on her registration form. She said, I didn't know you needed that! I said yup, we need to see that, can you shrink it down so I can see? She hightailed it out of the polling place so fast my head was spinning!
Same day registration is fraught with issues but you also need people, like me, who hold folks to the exact standards. Presidential elections/ governor here in Madison are especially troublesome because there are many folks who try to work the system. I have had to call out others who are doing registration when I hear them say something that isn't true just because they want to allow someone to register. I say BS, if you are a college student you should be smart enough to figure this out. If not, tough shit, I am not going to let you cancel out someone else's vote who followed the rules.
It's like so weird, libruls believe facts as investigated and presented. They are so dumb!
On the other hand, someone called into Charlie Sykes radio show and they said they for sure saw an Illinois license plate in the parking lot at Walmart on election day. So who knows?
7 5,800
additional Election Day registrants were sent undeliverable postcards, but many of these postcards
were returned because the voters legitimately moved after the election. We are aware of no
substantiated reports of any votes cast by individuals fraudulently registered at invalid addresses.
This is how they "prove" it. First you make the evidence impossible to gather, then you say there is no evidence.
"No idea what story you're referring to, but photo ID wouldn't prevent people from voting more than once."
This makes no sense. If you try voting multiple times using different names, you are far more likely to get away with it (particularly if the names are checked off of or added to a list) if you do not have to provide ID.
Now obviously someone could procure multiple fake IDs, but this is harder to do and opens up additional criminal charges. A photo ID does not prevent every type of voter fraud, but it certainly significantly reduces the chance of such fraud.
In the grand leftist scheme of things, a vote is a vote. Doesn't matter who cast it.
If a citizen of Kenya votes for Hillary in 2016, that's great.
Follow the power.
Rightists tend to have difficulty believing that leftists are this evil and craven.
Leftists are more evil and craven than you can imagine.
"What arguments do Republicans ever make with facts behind them? I can't think of a single one." When someone says something like this, I think it's reasonable for me to never look at his words again. He is obviously never going to actually think about an issue.
If voter ID laws were meant to suppress minority voting it didn't work.
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/jul/17/jason-riley/black-voter-turnout-exceed-white-voter-turnout-eve/
http://www.jsonline.com/news/crime/shorewood-man-charged-with-13-counts-of-voter-fraud-b99297733z1-264322221.html
I guess Garbage did not see this story.
Someone ought to tell Williams that the "most of the 20th Century" when things like I.D. and poll taxes were used against blacks was 1901-1965. Yes. "most of the 20th Century," but now 50 years ago and counting.
Whereas most African-Americans are citizens and they know that the Democrats want to dilute THEIR vote with a bunch of illegals.
I have to have ID to buy Sudafed. I have to have ID to buy a beer or a bottle of whiskey(*). I have to have photo ID to go to court, or to go to the legislature, or to step into practically any government agency. I have to have a photo ID to buy a cell phone, a post office box, and even a bus pass in some cases.
The crying about "I can't vote because I don't have an ID" gets very little traction, because most citizens have no idea how a person can live without an ID card now.
(*) OK, the salt-and-pepper beard means I'm not getting carded any more. They CAN card me, though.
"there were "black" precincts where the Democrats got 110-120% of the registered voters. The people know it, and do not appreciate what the Democrat party operatives have done to their reputation as a class or group."
Surely, you jest. Democrats couldn't care less about fraud, blatant or otherwise.
Oh, and cutting down early voting hours prevent fraud too. (not because Democrats like to vote early). Don't ask me to tell you why it prevents fraud, it's just my faith.
Tim and Kelly- I wonder how many little channels there are for the activists to plant stories. The only ones that make it into the mainstream- for mockery- are things like Obama's birth certificate.
I'd imagine the people who get "walking around money" to get out the vote know how to get just the right kind of rumor started in a way that will never go mainstream.
Oh, and cutting down early voting hours prevent fraud too. (not because Democrats like to vote early). Don't ask me to tell you why it prevents fraud, it's just my faith.
Do Democrats like to vote early?
Anyway, the logical response would be the more days there are to vote, the more time there is to commit voter fraud. Say, you have a busload of people who are willing to vote for a few dollars. You bring them to one polling place one day, to another polling place the next. It's hard to do that on all one day.
I'm not saying that happens, but if there were people who voted multiple times, giving them more time to do it would be an obvious problem.
"Oh, and cutting down early voting hours prevent fraud too. (not because Democrats like to vote early). Don't ask me to tell you why it prevents fraud, it's just my faith. "
Nice straw man, but usually the arguments against expanded voting time amounts to (1) the expense of keeping polls open over a longer period, and (2) people voting too much earlier than election day means votes being encouraged to be cast before the campaigns have finished and the voter knows enough about the candidates (same reason no one extends voting so that votes can be cast several months before the election). Granted, (2) is a paternalistic argument--if someone wants to vote without being fully informed, that's their right.
"Say, you have a busload of people who are willing to vote for a few dollars. You bring them to one polling place one day, to another polling place the next. It's hard to do that on all one day."
That too--it's a common election practice for campaigns to bus voters around (particularly elderly and handicapped) to get them to the polls. Without voter ID, and multiple day voting, it's not hard to stack the decks a bit by adding a few extras on your bus and treating them to some walking around money so they cast their votes more than once.
I get the concern about making sure eligible voters aren't being prevented from voting--but this idea that "fraud doesn't ever happen" so we should take no steps to prevent it is absurd.
Juan Williams is a rare liberal journalist. He occasionally shows an ability to think for himself. This isn't one of those occasions.
Do Democrats like to vote early?
Yep. Blacks like to vote after church on Sunday, and of course, Republicans do away with that too. I'm sure it's for a very real, sound reason and not to discriminate against a Democratic voting block. Because, that would be damn evil, wouldn't it?
Yep. Blacks like to vote after church on Sunday, and of course
Blacks do, do they? They like to do that?
Yes, that is true MayBee.
I think saying "Blacks like to....." sounds kinda weird. Like if a Republican said it, it would be called racist.
"Violence, poll taxes and literacy tests were used" -- none of those things are picture ID.
Now now Maybee. If there's one thing garage knows, it's what the "blackys" like to do.
Open the polls on a Saturday and close them the following Sunday (I.e. 9 days of voting). Covers 2 weekends.
"Yep. Blacks like to vote after church on Sunday"
From a white working-class schlub like garage, this is the exact equivalent of saying Blacks like fried chicken and watermelon.
I know garage isn't racist. I just think that sounds bad.
I don't have a problem with early voting if we also have id voting. Maybe Saturday to Tuesday.
Those darkies like to smoke menthols, too, right Garage?
"I don't have a problem with early voting if we also have id voting. Maybe Saturday to Tuesday."
Hell, I'm fine with a two-week voting period with extended hours for areas likely to have long lines. It's easier for pollworkers to properly check IDs if they're not completely swamped the whole time. Plus, people who work may not all be able to get time off on a Tuesday, so why give an advantage to the non-working and those with easier schedules?
I also think if the voting rolls have a discrepency and a voter is not on the list they should be able to cast a provisional ballot so they can later come back and clear things up--I have no doubt local election officials make mistakes and could jsut as easily knock someone off a list as they can keep ineligibles on there. I'd get on board a compromise like this.
Early voting is bad. Voting should be a snapshot taken at a particular time. Remember in 2000 when news of W's old DUI came out a few days before the election? Suppose you hated drunk drivers and had cast your vote for Bush weeks earlier?
Democrat efforts to increase voter participation are intended to get those who value their votes the least to cast votes. Do they even deny this? Why in the world should the vote of a person who won't go the polls count as much as a person who will sacrifice to cast a vote?
Why do Democrats believe that greater turnout == better government?
When they talk about the absence of proof of voter fraud, Democrats -- whether they know it or not -- are citing evidence from the Brennan Center for Justice. The Brennan Center for Justice is a far-left open borders group of academics and lawyers. The definition of "voter fraud" they use originated with a political scientist, not a lawyer. The definition by its nature makes voter fraud difficult to detect or to prosecute. Knowingly casting a vote more than once or in the wrong polling place is not voter fraud, according to this definition. It has to be done in an attempt to change the results of an election. Proving this amounts to proving a state of mind.
According the Brennan Center for justice, if I gather up a dozen people, drive them to the wrong polling place, tell them who to vote for, and turn them loose, as long as I don't vote myself, and the people who are voting aren't purposely casting illegal votes, no voter fraud has taken place.
I think saying "Blacks like to....." sounds kinda weird. Like if a Republican said it, it would be called racist
It's called Souls to the Polls. Just google it.
"Early voting is bad. Voting should be a snapshot taken at a particular time. Remember in 2000 when news of W's old DUI came out a few days before the election? Suppose you hated drunk drivers and had cast your vote for Bush weeks earlier?"
I see your point on early voting, but I don't think a two-week period is inadequate as a snapshot--sure, some late-breaking story or gaffe could sway an election, but those things could also happen just after the voting is tallied as well. Arguably someone wishing to vote two weeks before election day has either learned enough about the candidates or otherwise will not be helped by having another two weeks to learn, and has decided for better or worse how they will vote (same thing with absentee ballots, usually done by mail several weeks before election day).
Ah, garage.
Thank you, I did google it.
And what did I find? Not that black people "like" to vote after church, but that their church *takes* them to vote after services on Sunday.
What if the church simply offered to give people rides on voting day?
$14 trillion dollars later, and we still have unidentified Americans? Perhaps that's why people are laughing, weeping, and hoping... for change.
CLEVELAND – African-American leaders across Ohio used the state’s only remaining Sunday of early voting to organize a major Souls to the Polls drive. But turnout was disappointing, stoking fears that the Republican-backed cuts to early voting in a crucial swing state are going to be proven effective in the midterms.
With fall rapidly turning to winter here, Cleveland, Cincinnati and Toledo, among other cities, all saw efforts to deliver worshipers to the polls en masse after services—a practice that in recent years has become an election season tradition for African-American communities across the country. But participation mostly wasn’t overwhelming.
“From what I can see, the turnout was not what we would have liked it to be,” said Rev. Jimmy Gates, the pastor of Cleveland’s Zion Hill Missionary Baptist Church, who helped coordinate around twenty local church drives.
It apparently isn't something they really like to do. It's something people like to have black people do.
That said, I think having voting on a weekend day or at off-work times is good. Our country managed for a really long time without it, but I don't have a problem with expansion.
I want id, though.
No idea what story you're referring to, but photo ID wouldn't prevent people from voting more than once.
Unless you have multiple ID with multiple names ... how could it NOT prevent it?
That's just idiotic.
Not one fucking case. You might as well be arguing Elvis is still alive.
Then why require ID to take money out of your bank account? That won't stop anybody from stealing your money, right?
Oh, and cutting down early voting hours prevent fraud too. (not because Democrats like to vote early). Don't ask me to tell you why it prevents fraud, it's just my faith.
Know who has real tight voting hours?
New York. No early voting there.
Democrats seem able to work it out.
Are Wisconsin Dems just that much dumber than NY ones?
I think saying "Blacks like to....." sounds kinda weird. Like if a Republican said it, it would be called racist.
May Bee, if anybody KNOWS what black folks like, it's somebody with a state that has a black population percentage that is about half the national average. Meanwhile, I live in a state with a black population more than double the national average. I don't know shit about black folks according to the dude who has about a quarter of my black population in his state.
I know garage isn't racist.
He seems to doubt they are capable of acquiring ID. I don't think that is a sign that he thinks too highly of them.
And what did I find? Not that black people "like" to vote after church, but that their church *takes* them to vote after services on Sunday.
I wonder how the "wall between church and state" crowd doesn't protest this more. I mean, MY church doesn't mention politics nor does it offer to drive people to the polls after church.
Brando wrote:
"I see your point on early voting, but I don't think a two-week period is inadequate as a snapshot--sure, some late-breaking story or gaffe could sway an election, but those things could also happen just after the voting is tallied as well."
I still do not know what creating a wide window of balloting is supposed to achieve. How does more votes = better government? If more representative government = better government, we should let felons vote, shouldn't we?
Any window you open up for voting will be just as arbitrary as requiring a vote on a certain day. Given the increasing popularity of absentee voting, it is certain that many people who vote early are dead by the time their vote is counted. How does this make sense?
People sometimes point to Florida in 2000 or some other very close election to emphasize the importance of every person voting. This is incorrect, both the 2000 presidential election and the 2008 Coleman-Franken race were decided by lawyers and judges, not voters.
Voting should be made far tougher, not easier. Having a government decided by mouth-breathing troglodytes is an exceptionally poor idea. Anybody who REALLY thinks a candidate intends to forbid blacks from working or wants to commit genocide against immigrants has a voice that REALLY isn't that needed in the government as is.
Screw earlier hours. Make the hours SHORTER. If it's important, you will do it. If it's not, your voice isn't missed anyways.
Someone should mention to Juan Williams that drawing a Black majority district is not exactly democracy in action. Blacks did not have a problem with disenfranchising millions in the Old South -- as long "Old South" means Reconstruction, not Jim Crow.
"I still do not know what creating a wide window of balloting is supposed to achieve. How does more votes = better government? If more representative government = better government, we should let felons vote, shouldn't we?
Any window you open up for voting will be just as arbitrary as requiring a vote on a certain day. Given the increasing popularity of absentee voting, it is certain that many people who vote early are dead by the time their vote is counted. How does this make sense?"
I'm not saying that it does make better government--I don't know whether it does or does not. But a two-week voting window would accomplish three things: (1) make it more fair for people who for various legitimate reasons (job schedules, planned trips) cannot be present on election day; (2) reduce the lines for everyone else on election day; and (3) as a result of (2), make it less likely that a pollworker overlooks an ID problem or other incident of fraud. The only real downside I see is that it would cost more to keep polls open on more than one day.
How many days do the Dems hold the polls open for their primary?
I'll remind folks: NY offers NO early voting and requires documentation to receive an absentee ballot.
I've not seen criticism of NY and its "unfair" voting laws ever.
MA has the same rules.
Ditto RI.
PA.
CT.
NH.
DE.
Seems odd that these Dem states don't get more protests...
"How many days do the Dems hold the polls open for their primary?"
Heh.
"How many days do the Dems hold the polls open for their primary?"
Excellent point--they should be set by state law, and while the Dems could plausibly argue that in say Texas the GOP legislature is not allowing them to do expanded voting, there are still a number of states where the Dems dominate and could surely expand voting for the primary as well as the general.
But then, this was never about "expanding access" now was it? Just a cheap attempt to scare blacks into thinking the GOP is trying to take away their votes. Insulting to Republicans, and shameful to those of us who think creating more racial division is despicable in and of itself.
First I can confirm that B-1 Bob did get voted out of his district by about 80,000 illegals from the Santa Ana area that were allowed to vote thanks to March Fong Yu.
Second and slightly off-topic, a story I've told here repeatedly about how the California Teachers Association would use the network connecting schools to Sacramento to create and distribute pro-Dem and anti-Repub propaganda in Spanish-only versions. It is illegal to use state property, including fax machines and teachers' aids, but they do it anyway every year. Creating very scary "they will deport your dad" letters to send home to immigrant parents. This includes, of course, they will hunt you down and deport you letters that caused the fuss Maybee saw. Every year. 100% illegal. But it goes on and on like dead people voting in Chicago, the illegals will keep voting in California.
The funny thing is, only one political party directly benefits from all this illegal activity. I wonder why!
This issue is about as close as one can get to a real life Solomon 'cut the baby in half' litmus test.
Propose strengthening the One Person, One Vote principle.
The Party that howls is the Party that cheats. It's as simple as that.
Juan Williams probably didn't know he polls were done by Fox News and Rasmussen, which both specialize in polls wired to show that voters favor Republican positions and Republican politicians.
Both organizations were employed extensively by President Romney's campaign, for instance.
OK bbkingfish, just cite one competing poll for us that shows more people want voting to be ID-free (as it is now in California)?
Howabout a special deal? Every eligible voter is required by law to show up at their designated polling place on election day. At their polling place they have a choice between a ballot and a nickel bag of either crack, methamphetimine, or weed.
Now, who could be against that?
If there is no such thing as voter fraud, then why do Democrats (in Chicago, for instance) brag about committing voter fraud?
Me: Okay, you want no-ID voting, let's have a plebiscite and vote on it!
Liberal: No!
Me: Why not?
Liberal: It wouldn't be democratic!
Me ???
If it were up to me I would get rid of motor voter and welfare office voter registration. I would limit registering to vote 30 days prior to the election. If one hasn't decided to vote 30 days before an election they aren't interested enough in the issues to vote. I would require voting in person at the precinct one is registered at and nowhere else ( other than absentee ballots)and would limit the early voting to 2 days before the election with longer hours along with a photo ID to present at the precinct. I would also forbid the disclosure of the results until the last precinct in country closed as to not sway voters from voting. As for students, they have ID's. Just not the ID's required to vote in the state they want to vote in, but they do have the ID's needed in the state they legally reside in which is where they should vote. As for others that don't have a photo ID, how many of these people actually manage to get by without some form of government photo ID? You need one for almost everything nowadays. I rather doubt that poor people getting welfare benefits don't have photo ID's. The problem with democrats is they can't win elections with genuine law abiding non-deadbeat American citizens.
"At their polling place they have a choice between a ballot and a nickel bag of either crack, methamphetimine, or weed."
Will they need ID?
Maybe it's because most black Americans, like most Americans overall, don't like voter fraud; no honest person does, and I think that honesty and a dislike of fraud is something that cuts across all cultural lines. Note that I didn't say that it cuts across ideological lines, because my own observation is that one major political party is far more in favor of dishonesty and fraud than the other. You know who they are.
"I'll remind folks: NY offers NO early voting and requires documentation to receive an absentee ballot.
I've not seen criticism of NY and its "unfair" voting laws ever.
MA has the same rules.
Ditto RI.
PA.
CT.
NH.
DE.
Seems odd that these Dem states don't get more protests..."
They don't need to cheat to win in blue states. But they need more lax rules in purple states in order to steal elections.
Williams is unable to explain black acceptance of voter ID because he is an idiot commie stooge. opposing voter ID is a tactic to enable massive voter fraud. states with ID laws have had increases in minority voting. the party, however, still wants to stuff the ballot boxes with bogus voters.
"But the GOP (as well as anyone who values reasonable voter verification) can overcome this tactic by ensuring that every legally eligible voter can be verified (by providing state-issued ID to those who may have a legitimate hardship in getting one) and by allowing the tallying of provisional votes by those who can later prove their eligibility. The Courts have upheld such laws when they provided for that sort of fallback."
The republicans are so fucking stupid, as are all right-leaning women's groups. The tactic should be the truth, shouted from every corner, by every woman "YOU NEED A FUCKING ID BECAUSE WE WOMEN OF EVERY COLOR DIDN'T get the franchise until after black men did, and we fought hard for if, so we are giving no quarter to anyone to potentially steal our hard-fought for and much-late won right, so suck it up and get a fucking ID to prove you are a true permanent American citizen. Then threaten to have at least 10 menopausal women at each precinct to monitor that the rules are being followed.
Sheesh the repubs need more women on their PR team. They totally suck at getting any message right, and suck at getting even a lame one out there.
Post a Comment