fish82;729555 wrote:You already asked for proof that it happens at all, and were flogged about the head and neck with numerous examples. So you really meant to say "widespread" the first time, huh? :rolleyes:

That said, I doubt anyone would actively work to have you banned...free entertainment is hard to come by.

Typical. He's moving the goal post because he had has butt handed to him in the earlier debate. Why he opposes a change that places minimal burden on people but increases the security of our voting system makes me wonder if he (and others like him) don't have an ulterior motive.

It's generally accepted as fact that the easier it is to get people to vote, the more likely the extra votes will go toward Democrat candidates. We saw it with the Obama campaign where they were bringing in busloads of homeless folks, some of whom didn't have a clue who was even on the ballot. Of course, some of those stories included allegations that those doing the busing were "guiding" the new voters to cast ballots for Obama.

Historically, we've seen the dead rise and vote in Chicago to help elect a Democrat president (Kennedy) so this tactic is not new.

fan_from_texas;729694 wrote:I don't know if I'd say it's widespread--I'd say it's easy to do, but because it's relatively ineffectual, I don't know how frequently it happens. I.e., you could spend all day going from one polling place to another and voting, and you may be able to cast 15-20 votes. That's not going to have an impact on a statewide election. The costs of being caught tend to outweigh the benefits of casting a few extra votes.

My point isn't so much that it's widespread as much as it's really easy to do and could be an issue if anyone ever gets serious about stealing an election.

He's basically asking for something illogical, so don't worry too much about it.

The reason it's so easy to do is the very same reason no empirical data on potential fraud can be evaluated.

Basically, what you're describing in Wisconsin amounts to me opening a store in the mall from which it is illegal to steal, but I've got no cameras, no anti-theft devices, no personnel in the showroom, and no inventory numbers.

I'd be putting customers on the honor system.

We're putting voters on the honor system currently. It's idiotic, really.

Why should I worry that I post on a ultra conservative forum a different view and some people think I am getting my ass kicked? None of you have the guts to go to a progressive site and present a different view. I am sure everyone there would think they are kicking your ass. I am done with this topic. You are all fiscal chicken hawks. Talk the talk but don't walk the walk.

The federal justice department investigated voter ID fraud. Here is what they found. A cost benefit analysis on Ohio's requirements is what I am talking about. It will pass, it will be law, and we will have spent tax dollars on legislation that fixes a problem that dose not exist. So much for budget neutral pledges. At the end of the day I can still vote absentee for someone else without proof of who I am. You people crack me up.




http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/washington/12fraud.html?_r=3&pagewanted=1

Bigdogg;729781 wrote:Why should I worry that I post on a ultra conservative forum

This forum does not take a stance. Just because there are many conservative posters here does not make this forum such. What, you want me to ban conservative posters until there is a 50-50 mix?

"Why should I worry that I post on a ultra conservative forum a different view and some people think I am getting my ass kicked? None of you have the guts to go to a progressive site and present a different view. "

What view? Is there something so wrong about making sure voters are who they say they are? What is progressive or non-progressive about that? Politics has nothing to do with it, it is common sense. Since you are done with this topic I don't expect a response.

LJ;729791you want me to ban conservative posters until there is a 50-50 mix?[/QUOTE wrote:
Where did he say that?

Abe Vigoda;729803 wrote:Where did he say that?

I dunno, where did I say that he said that?

" At the end of the day I can still vote absentee for someone else without proof of who I am."

In what jurisdiction, I plan on voting absentee for the next five years, there is an application and I have to provide proof of identity, namely my SSN and my registration in the previous district. Are you just making stuff up now?

Bigdogg;729781 wrote:... a problem that dose not exist.

Prove it.

A fiscal conservative doesn't mean a fiscal anarchist. Spending money to protect the integrity of our democratic process = good. If done correctly, this can ensure that the voting process ... a pillar of our rights as citizens ... is effectual in the election of representatives. Such a plan protects the rights of voters to have their votes equally count in an election.

As for an intellectually incestuous site, I regularly look to discuss matters with people who have come to adopt different views than my own. In effect, the mere fact that you have continued to post on this topic is the only reason I have continued to do so. If it had been nothing but agreement, I wouldn't have followed the discussion. I appreciate when someone has a different view than my own, and I've even had my own views change on certain subjects based on discussion I've had on a message board with someone who has disagreed with me.

It has been suggested that you've looked bad in this thread because, well, you have. Thus far, your arguments haven't been constructed with anything more than what amounts to "pics or it didn't happen." The crux of this issue is that so little is required in order to vote, that it becomes an impossible task to prevent, or even EVALUATE, fraud with any level of success other than the occasional blind luck.

In and of oneself, it is unlikely that a person would try to vote more than once, but if a crooked politician running for office offered to pay several people to vote as many times as they could, THAT could have real implications, and can be a very realistic possibility.

Requiring a photo ID is simply to prevent that, and to ensure that the true vote of the constituency is as untainted as possible. I fail to see how that is a bad thing, and I'm willing to bet that the vast majority of tax-payers (most of whom already have a photo ID, I'd wager) will approve of such an action, as infrastructure is a primary purpose of taxes, and this very easily falls within that spectrum.

Manhattan Buckeye;729810 wrote:" At the end of the day I can still vote absentee for someone else without proof of who I am."

In what jurisdiction, I plan on voting absentee for the next five years, there is an application and I have to provide proof of identity, namely my SSN and my registration in the previous district. Are you just making stuff up now?

Actually, It is possible to vote absentee in Ohio and still turn up and post at your regular precinct.

It doesn't mean that this s a problem though. ( please don't bite my head off! )

Bigdogg;729781 wrote:Why should I worry that I post on a ultra conservative forum a different view and some people think I am getting my ass kicked?

I can kick your ass in my yard or yours, figuratively or literally. Venue means nothing.

Ohio Legal Rights Services raises issues with Photo ID bill

House Bill (H.B.) 159 was recently introduced in the Ohio House of Representatives. If enacted, the bill will require anyone voting at Ohio polls to present a photo identification (ID) before casting a ballot. H.B. 159 would eliminate currently acceptable forms of ID, including out of state licenses, voter registration cards, notices from the election authority, utility bills, bank statements or other government documents that can effectively verify identity.

As proposed, H.B. 159 may violate the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Help America Vote Act (HAVA). This would have a detrimental and likely unlawful discriminatory impact on Ohioans with disabilities since many people with disabilities live below the federal poverty level, and studies show that at least 15% of voting-age citizens who are poor do not have a current government-issued photo ID. Many residents of facilities, such as nursing homes and intermediate care facilities for people with developmental disabilities, do not have photo IDs. These individuals face insurmountable barriers to securing a birth certificate or other document needed for photo identification. These barriers can result from the disability, and/or transportation and economic limitations. With the passage of this bill, people with disabilities undoubtedly will be unable to secure additional documentation, such as a birth certificate or other document needed to obtain a photo ID and this in turn will deny them of their fundamental right to cast a ballot.

A recent federal court decision demonstrates the need for state and local governmental entities to accommodate people with disabilities when developing policies or procedures that impact voting. H.B. 159 fails to include any of the potential costs that would be required to comply with the ADA and HAVA. There would be costs of providing reasonable accommodations to assist people with disabilities to obtain the necessary documentation. These costs would revert to a public entity such as the Secretary of State, boards of elections, or bureaus of motor vehicles.

LRS also questions whether requiring photo identification at polling places is a solution to guarding against voter fraud given that more effective efforts are already underway to address the issue of voter fraud. Currently, the Ohio Secretary of State is seeking authority to develop a Statewide Voter Database to cross check voter information files against the Bureau of Motor Vehicles, the Ohio Department of Health, Social Security death files, and the departments of Job and Family Services and Rehabilitation and Corrections.

http://www.olrs.ohio.gov/newsletter-march-2011#voterid

These barriers can result from the disability, and/or transportation and economic limitations.

Tear down the barriers. Photo ID's are a good idea.

Why are you still carrying this sword? Are you afraid that if you vote and show your photo ID that the Bigdog is really a Lil Girl?

Thread Bomber;733527 wrote:Why are you still carrying this sword? Are you afraid that if you vote and show your photo ID that the Bigdog is really a Lil Girl?

Bigdogg;733506 wrote:As proposed, H.B. 159 may violate the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Help America Vote Act (HAVA).

"As proposed" would imply that they believe the bill would be acceptable with modifications, providing more evidence that the concept is perfectly legal, it's merely a matter of quibbling over some details. Good news for the common-sense side.

Thanks for posting something that goes against your feelings on this issue.

Bigdogg;733506 wrote:Ohio Legal Rights Services raises issues with Photo ID bill

As proposed, H.B. 159 may violate the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)

With the passage of this bill, people with disabilities undoubtedly will be unable to secure additional documentation, such as a birth certificate or other document needed to obtain a photo ID and this in turn will deny them of their fundamental right to cast a ballot.

I am sure if these people are resourceful enough to v get a check or two every month from the State or Federal Government, That they will have no problem finding a way to LEGALLY vote.

I was never one for simple argument regurgitation.

Bigdogg;733506 wrote:H.B. 159 would eliminate currently acceptable forms of ID, including out of state licenses, voter registration cards, notices from the election authority, utility bills, bank statements or other government documents that can effectively verify identity.

Already, we've got leading. Many of those things canNOT effectively verify identity with any real accuracy, because many of them are ridiculously easy to get a hold of from others and have no photo on them, which means if I wanted to, I could as many times as I could find a bank statement or utility bill for in someone else's trash. In a local election, if one of the candidates pays me $20 per vote I cast, I might take him up on it.

So already, this article is flawed.

Bigdogg;733506 wrote:As proposed, H.B. 159 may violate the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Help America Vote Act (HAVA). This would have a detrimental and likely unlawful discriminatory impact on Ohioans with disabilities since many people with disabilities live below the federal poverty level ...

The suggested IDs would cost them $0.00 ... no discrimination against people below the poverty level.

Bigdogg;733506 wrote:... and studies show that at least 15% of voting-age citizens who are poor do not have a current government-issued photo ID.

"do not" != "cannot"

Just because they do not have state-issued photo IDs doesn't mean they should not or cannot. If I do not have a driver's licence, does that mean I should not be required to have one in order to drive?

Bigdogg;733506 wrote:Many residents of facilities, such as nursing homes and intermediate care facilities for people with developmental disabilities, do not have photo IDs.

See above.

Bigdogg;733506 wrote:These individuals face insurmountable barriers to securing a birth certificate or other document needed for photo identification.

Define "insurmountable." It is not difficult to gain access to these things. Annoying? Perhaps. A slow process? Of course it is; it's a government-run process.

There is no person who is unable to gain access to these things because of age or disability. There may be some who cannot gain access because of the documentational history of their life, but that is NOT a result of their age or disability.

Bigdogg;733506 wrote:These barriers can result from the disability ...

Logically false.

Bigdogg;733506 wrote:... and/or transportation and economic limitations.

If transportation is the issue, then they will not be able to get to the polls to vote. In reality, they can get the transportation if they need it.

Once again ... it's free to those who cannot afford it, so economic limitations are not a factor in getting a state ID.

Bigdogg;733506 wrote:With the passage of this bill, people with disabilities undoubtedly will be unable to secure additional documentation, such as a birth certificate or other document needed to obtain a photo ID and this in turn will deny them of their fundamental right to cast a ballot.

Incorrect, because of the word "unable." So long as there exist examples of people with any disability being able to do it, there will be no credibility for an argument suggesting they will be "unable."

Bigdogg;733506 wrote:There would be costs of providing reasonable accommodations to assist people with disabilities to obtain the necessary documentation. These costs would revert to a public entity such as the Secretary of State, boards of elections, or bureaus of motor vehicles.

I'm open to hearing this fleshed out.

Bigdogg;733506 wrote:LRS also questions whether requiring photo identification at polling places is a solution to guarding against voter fraud given that more effective efforts are already underway to address the issue of voter fraud. Currently, the Ohio Secretary of State is seeking authority to develop a Statewide Voter Database to cross check voter information files against the Bureau of Motor Vehicles, the Ohio Department of Health, Social Security death files, and the departments of Job and Family Services and Rehabilitation and Corrections.

Doesn't fix the problem, as someone can easily vote as you by using your water bill, which they dug out of your trash, if they beat you to the polls.

Just voted. Showed my driver's license, got my ballot, filled it out and was on my way. No problem, no hassle.

stlouiedipalma;733654 wrote:Just voted. Showed my driver's license, got my ballot, filled it out and was on my way. No problem, no hassle.

#simplicitywin

And my alderman candidate won by 8 votes. I guess you could say my vote really counted!

stlouiedipalma;734494 wrote:And my alderman candidate won by 8 votes. I guess you could say my vote really counted!

Especially if you raided the trash cans on trash day and were able to vote 9 times.

Republican Secretary of State Jon Husted is proposing election reforms as an alternative to the GOP-backed House Bill 159, which would require that anyone voting at the polls bring a driver’s license, passport or other government-issued identification card that shows the person’s current address and contains a photo.

“I believe that if you have a government-issued check, a utility bill in your name with your address on it, that no one made that up,” Husted said to reporters following a speech to the League of Women Voters of Ohio.

“They didn’t call AEP and establish utilities in their name to commit voter fraud. Let’s be clear about this. There are some other forms that are legitimate.

“What if I lose my ID on Election Day? Should there be no other alternative I can use to cast my ballot? I think that there should be.”

“I am sensitive to the voices who believe that (House Bill 159) serves as an impediment to voters gaining access to the polls,” said Husted, who insisted he wasn’t opposed to the previous bill but was hopeful that legislators agree with his proposals. “I’m also sensitive to the fact that people are concerned about voter fraud.”

Yesterday, legislation was introduced in the House by Republican state Reps. Bob Mecklenborg and Lou Blessing, both of Cincinnati, that includes many of Husted’s proposals. State Sen. Mark Wagoner, R-Toledo, said he will soon introduce a bill in the Senate that he collaborated on with Husted.

In both versions, the photo ID requirement from House Bill 159 is not included.

http://election2010.illumen.org/latest-news/husted-opposes-photo-id-mandate

Now I rest my case.

Thread Bomber;733527 wrote:Why are you still carrying this sword? Are you afraid that if you vote and show your photo ID that the Bigdog is really a Lil Girl?

Winning still?

Bigdogg;736097 wrote:http://election2010.illumen.org/latest-news/husted-opposes-photo-id-mandate

Now I rest my case.

Umm ... you just listed a subjective opinion blurb from one Congressman. There is 0% evidence in that post. If I were you, I'd be resting, too, as it appears you haven't a leg to stand on.