interesting

[Jim in CT]

Paul, I agree that a higher % of blacks don't have driver's licenses than whites. I get that, I do. That's not remotely the issue here, because YOU DON'T NEED A DRIVER'S LICENSE TO VOTE. You can get an alternate photo id. So what I don't get, and what you haven't explained, is this - why is it harder for blacks (who don't have driver's licenses) to get an alternate photo id, than it is for whites (who don't have driver's licenses) to get that alternate photo id? The process of getting that id is the same for everybody, so why is it more problematic for blacks?

If you have 100 blacks, and 100 whites, none of whom have driver's licenses...and you have voter id laws...why is it harder for the blacks to get the alternate photo id, than it is for whites?

"Don't think I ever mentioned blacks - did I?"

You said "minorities". Are blacks a minority, or no? This is exhausting, I posed the only pertinent question above, if you cannot answer it, we all know what that means.

"0,000s of 0,000s of people don't get to vote"

Correction - they choose not to vote. It's a free country. If they can't be bothered to get to town hall to get a photo id like the rest of us, that's on them. Maybe they need a history lesson on the price we have paid to safeguard their right to vote every November. if you don't know what I mean, look at the photos of Arlington National Cemetary.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

And the idea that there is voter fraud is moronic.

Originally Posted by PaulS

Of course there is fraud - it is so small to be meaningless.

too funny....what's next?..."of course there's lots of fraud and in fact...it justified!"

[scottw]

seems to me that same folks that want anyone to be able to vote without any identification shown are the same people that are always remarking about how stupid the average voter is....interesting

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by scottw

too funny....what's next?..."of course there's lots of fraud and in fact...it justified!"

As I said, "it is so small to be meaningless". Is it a wonder I think you're snarky?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

As I said, "it is so small to be meaningless". Is it a wonder I think you're snarky?

snarky but I still love you

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

As I said, "it is so small to be meaningless".

that's just an opinion by the way

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

The fact is Repubs. will do anything they can to prevent people from voting whether by Id laws, shortening polling times, refusing to allow people to automatically be registered to vote when they get drivers licenses (and you can comment on that if you want) or any other innovative way to vote. And that is Pathetic.

You can't make that wrong.

Shortening polling times? That helps Republicans? According to your stereotypes of why blacks can't get ids, I would think that shortening poling times helps blacks (and therefore Dems), because they are mor elikely to be hoe all day, and thus can go vote. While the white conservative sare at work all day, making it harder for them to vote.

Can't have it both ways.

"refusing to allow people to automatically be registered to vote when they get drivers licenses (and you can comment on that if you want)"

Fine. Here in CT, you are saying that the GOP is preventing automatic registration? How is that, when the GOP doesn't control anything?

I would suppor that, by th eway, that automatic registration. I reject th enotion that the GOP is blocking it, at least here in CT, because the Dems have conteolled the legislature as long as I have been alive.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Paul, I agree that a higher % of blacks don't have driver's licenses than whites. I get that, I do. That's not remotely the issue here, because YOU DON'T NEED A DRIVER'S LICENSE TO VOTE. You can get an alternate photo id. So what I don't get, and what you haven't explained, is this - why is it harder for blacks (who don't have driver's licenses) to get an alternate photo id, than it is for whites (who don't have driver's licenses) to get that alternate photo id? The process of getting that id is the same for everybody, so why is it more problematic for blacks?It is harder for any poor person. I don't know all the reasons but there is a % of minorities (and yes blacks) who find it hard get the appropriate ID. Whether it is they don't make enough $, are old and don't have a birth certificate, I don't know. One of the challenges to a Texas law was some old nuns who all didn't have birth certificates, or drivers licenses.

If you have 100 blacks, and 100 whites, none of whom have driver's licenses...and you have voter id laws...why is it harder for the blacks to get the alternate photo id, than it is for whites?

"Don't think I ever mentioned blacks - did I?"

You said "minorities". Are blacks a minority, or no? This is exhausting, I posed the only pertinent question above, if you cannot answer it, we all know what that means.Certainly blacks are a minority. But I never mentioned blacks and yet the racist term has been thrown around a few times, hasn't it?

"0,000s of 0,000s of people don't get to vote"

Correction - they choose not to vote. It's a free country. If they can't be bothered to get to town hall to get a photo id like the rest of us, that's on them. Maybe they need a history lesson on the price we have paid to safeguard their right to vote every November. if you don't know what I mean, look at the photos of Arlington National Cemetary.

I've been to Arlington - thanks.

I'm still confused why the discussion went from minorities to blacks and why the discussion isn't on why Repubs seem to want to do anything they can to keep the vote count down.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Shortening polling times? That helps Republicans? According to your stereotypes of why blacks can't get ids, I would think that shortening poling times helps blacks (and therefore Dems), because they are mor elikely to be hoe all day, and thus can go vote. While the white conservative sare at work all day, making it harder for them to vote.Wow.

No, minorities (but you can use black since that seems to be your focus) work more in non traditional, non 9-5 jobs. They work 2 part time jobs. Allowing voting to be done over a few days or longer hours allows those minorities (or I guess blacks to you) to vote.

Can't have it both ways.

"refusing to allow people to automatically be registered to vote when they get drivers licenses (and you can comment on that if you want)"

Fine. Here in CT, you are saying that the GOP is preventing automatic registration? How is that, when the GOP doesn't control anything?Not in Conn. But other states. In fact, I believe that someone just proposed that in Conn.

I would suppor that, by th eway, that automatic registration. I reject th enotion that the GOP is blocking it, at least here in CT, because the Dems have conteolled the legislature as long as I have been alive.

no, not in Conn.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

I've been to Arlington - thanks.

I'm still confused why the discussion went from minorities to blacks and why the discussion isn't on why Repubs seem to want to do anything they can to keep the vote count down.

"I don't know all the reasons but there is a % of minorities (and yes blacks) who find it hard get the appropriate ID."

You're smart. if you don't know the reasons, they can't be wide-spread reasons.

Hard. Not impossible. It's "hard" for me to get up an hour earlier to go vote before work. But since I don't work near where I live, I can only vote before work. It sucks getting up early, but I choose to do it. Others don't care enough. I'm not inclined to allow people to vote on-line just to make it easier for them.

You said it - hard. Those people can choose to do what is hard, or they can choose not to do what is hard. All that matters is this - it's their choice to make. The GOP isn't making that choice for them.

"I'm still confused why the discussion went from minorities to blacks "

Fine - minorities.

"Repubs seem to want to do anything they can to keep the vote count down"

The GOP can't keep the vote down. If the vote is down, it's because people freely choose not to vote.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

no, not in Conn.

What time are most polls open? 12 hours? if you want to extend it, I guess I have no problem with that. But only one day. We all vote on the same day, that's the way it works.

Funny, Here in CT, in the last 2 gubernatorial elections, the Dems did just that - they extended voting hours! In 2010, it turns out there weren't enough ballots in the city of Hartford (I mean, who knew you needed enough ballots on election day?), so they kept the polls open later, just in Hartford, long enough for everyone to vote. I wonder which candidate that helped?

Then, in 2014, something happened in Bridgeport, and guess what? The Dems forced the polls to stay open longer, just in the city of Bridgeport. Again, I wonder who that helped?

I think I heard that the polls are already open in New Haven, for the 2018 gubernatorial election.

Whatever it takes.

Both sides use repugnant tactics. We all deserve better, you are correct there. And I'm not do dishinest that I'd deny that the GOP has an agenda when it proposes these laws. But the fact is, it only has the efefct desired by the GOP, if people choose to act the way that the GOP is banking on.

[Cool Beans]

I often wonder what this "straw man" with no I.D. does all day...

Can't drive a car
Can't rent an apartment (most require background and credit checks on top of ID)
Can't go fishing
Can't go hunting
Can't cash a check
Can't open a bank account
Can't get a credit card
Can't check out a book at the library
Can't purchase a firearm
Can't apply for Food stamps or welfare

There is not a lot in life you can do without some form of I.D.

I cannot believe there is more than a small fraction of 1 percent of the population that doesn't have some form of I.D.

This whole story is just B.S. to stir up the uninformed...... and to stir up racial issues.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Cool Beans

This whole story is just B.S. to stir up the uninformed...... and to stir up racial issues.

Largely this on both sides of the aisle... Fraud vs. no I.D.

[detbuch]

If photo ID suppresses the vote, and we are concerned about the affect on "minorities" versus "whites" (which is obviously a racial comparison--so saying that one is talking about "minorities" not race is BS), and owning a car, thereby of necessity having a valid photo ID, makes it easier to get a photo ID, then, by raw number, more whites would be affected by requiring a photo ID to vote. A 2006 study by Univ. of Cal. Berkeley showed that white households were 40.6% of those without a car. Blacks were 30.5%, Hispanic were 22%, and other were 5.7%. So, though a greater percentage of whites may have owned cars than the percentage owned by other races, the actual raw number of whites not owning cars was much higher than the numbers of any of the other races.

[wdmso]

If you never needed them(ID's) to Vote back in the day then why have the laws been changed? ( the voter fraud that dosn't exist?) and what party is driving the voter ID bus Bus


Voter ID Laws go back to 1950 when South Carolina became the first state to start requesting identification from voters at the polls. The identification document did not have to include a picture; any document with the name of the voter sufficed

it was ok then but now it's not

VOTING IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT, NOT A PRIVILEGE... and 2A guys use this argument GUN OWNERSHIP IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT, NOT A PRIVILEGE.. against gun registration

another example of supporting the constitution when convenient

and if smells like a fish swims like one its probably a fish

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

If you never needed them(ID's) to Vote back in the day then why have the laws been changed? ( the voter fraud that dosn't exist?) and what party is driving the voter ID bus Bus


Voter ID Laws go back to 1950 when South Carolina became the first state to start requesting identification from voters at the polls. The identification document did not have to include a picture; any document with the name of the voter sufficed

it was ok then but now it's not

VOTING IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT, NOT A PRIVILEGE... and 2A guys use this argument GUN OWNERSHIP IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT, NOT A PRIVILEGE.. against gun registration

another example of supporting the constitution when convenient

and if smells like a fish swims like one its probably a fish

"why have the laws been changed?"

We changed laws recently on gay marriage. We learn, things change, laws change.

"what party is driving the voter ID "

The GOP, no doubt. But voter id requirements only serve to suppress Democrat turnout, if Democrats are less likely than Republicans to go get an id. You cannot make that wrong. Maybe if the Democrat motto wasn't "gimme gimme gimme", then registered Democrats would be just as likely to get the id as Republicans.

Do yoy deny that it's no harder for a Democrat to get an id, than it is for a Republican?

"VOTING IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT, NOT A PRIVILEGE"

How do voter id laws infringe upon that right? I could argue that they safeguard that right, rather than infringe it, because if we have voter id laws, then no one can claim to be me and steal my vote.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by wdmso

If you never needed them(ID's) to Vote back in the day then why have the laws been changed? ( the voter fraud that dosn't exist?) and what party is driving the voter ID bus Bus


Voter ID Laws go back to 1950 when South Carolina became the first state to start requesting identification from voters at the polls. The identification document did not have to include a picture; any document with the name of the voter sufficed

it was ok then but now it's not

VOTING IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT, NOT A PRIVILEGE... and 2A guys use this argument GUN OWNERSHIP IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT, NOT A PRIVILEGE.. against gun registration

another example of supporting the constitution when convenient

and if smells like a fish swims like one its probably a fish

I don't believe a Constitutional Right to Vote exists (not an enumerated fundamental right)

The "right to vote" is not explicitly stated in the U.S. Constitution except in the above referenced amendments(equal protection), and only in reference to the fact that the franchise cannot be denied or abridged based solely on the aforementioned qualifications. In other words, the "right to vote" is perhaps better understood, in layman's terms, as only prohibiting certain forms of legal discrimination in establishing qualifications for suffrage. States may deny the "right to vote" for other reasons. For example, many states require eligible citizens to register to vote a set number of days prior to the election in order to vote. More controversial restrictions include those laws that prohibit convicted felons from voting, even those who have served their sentences.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by wdmso

( the voter fraud that dosn't exist?)

pretty good article explaining the model

http://www.heritage.org/research/rep...tes-in-chicago

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

pretty good article explaining the model

http://www.heritage.org/research/rep...tes-in-chicago

One event in 1982 = a model

Keep rubbing.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

If you never needed them(ID's) to Vote back in the day then why have the laws been changed? ( the voter fraud that dosn't exist?) and what party is driving the voter ID bus Bus

Back in the day, women couldn't vote, blacks couldn't vote, males under the age of 21 couldn't vote . . . and a whole lot of restrictions and requirements were imposed on those (basically free, white, male, and 21) who were allowed to vote. Hey, as Jim in Ct said, laws change. And I thought you were big on the necessity of the Constitution to change to suit the times--the living breathing thing.

And both parties drove the restrictions and requirements bus, including voter ID bus, at various times.

And voter fraud does exist. And it is not insignificant.

Voter ID Laws go back to 1950 when South Carolina became the first state to start requesting identification from voters at the polls. The identification document did not have to include a picture; any document with the name of the voter sufficed

Drivers licenses did not include a photo ID back then either. Most pocket ID's back then had only verbal descriptions. Technology made it easier to place photos on the ID's in the mid to late 1960's and 1970's.

it was ok then but now it's not

Progress has made it more feasible to include a photo on pocket ID's. Which makes them a better identification than what "was ok then". I know you are a firm believer in progress. Hey, maybe you could consider ID's as living and breathing things.

VOTING IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT, NOT A PRIVILEGE... and 2A guys use this argument GUN OWNERSHIP IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT, NOT A PRIVILEGE.. against gun registration

Gun ownership is specifically made a fundamental, unabridgeable right in the Constitution. Voting, as scottw pointed out, is not. States cannot deny voting because of race or sex but the prohibition of those specific restrictions implies that other restrictions can be imposed.

another example of supporting the constitution when convenient

Absolutely not so. As Spence would say, apples and oranges.

and if smells like a fish swims like one its probably a fish

Different fish smell and swim in different ways. The gun owning fish are not the same as the fish who vote. It may seem very fishy to you, but that's the way it is.

[scottw]

seems like a disproportionate number of democrats not only struggle to obtain something as simple as an id...a disproportionate number of democrats struggle to obtain a copy of the US Constitution for reference as well ..neither is a very high bar

not surprising that the no borders, citizens of the world, undocumented democrats crowd fight tooth and nail to ensure that everyone dead or alive, legal or illegal, registered or unregistered have the ability to cast a ballot

the slump in democrat turnout is likely a result of years of democrats registering anyone and everyone that they can shake out of the bushes, probably multiple times in multiple districts in order to swell the voter rolls......many of these folks may have found their way to the polls in recent years having been promised lots of free stuff and better lives in exchange for doing so......

this year I'm guessing they are realizing that despite dutifully electing and reelecting the givers of great things to the downtrodden....they've gotten nothing....their lives are no better....

and now they will be asked to go through the trouble of voting for one of the Democrat Walking Dead options of old white lunatics....

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

..

and now they will be asked to go through the trouble of voting for one of the Democrat Walking Dead options of old white lunatics....

Oh that's poetry, thanks!

[The Dad Fisherman]

I'm not sure because it was a while ago, but do you need to show ID when you register to vote? If you have to show it when you register.....why is it all of a sudden a burden to show it when you show up on Election Day
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[The Dad Fisherman]

Well I looked up the answer to my own question.....pretty much every state requires your drivers license or SSN to register, which serves as your voter ID number. If you do not have one of those they will issue you a unique voter ID number.

Maybe if you go that route, the state sends you a card with your voter ID number on it and you bring it to the polls when you vote.

Nobody gets to vote without a unique voter ID number anyways so this wouldn't be singling anybody out...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Nobody gets to vote without a unique voter ID number anyways so this wouldn't be singling anybody out...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Racist! Hate crime! Intolerant!

[The Dad Fisherman]

Listen here ya Crazy Cracka!!!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Well I looked up the answer to my own question.....pretty much every state requires your drivers license or SSN to register, which serves as your voter ID number. If you do not have one of those they will issue you a unique voter ID number.

Maybe if you go that route, the state sends you a card with your voter ID number on it and you bring it to the polls when you vote.

Nobody gets to vote without a unique voter ID number anyways so this wouldn't be singling anybody out...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Problem is that if there isn't a photo ID to go along with the ID number, then someone other than you can use your number. Using other people's (even dead ones) registration is one of the types of voter fraud.

[The Dad Fisherman]

I know it doesn't cure all the ills, but if you show up with a card, that has a voter ID number on it......at least your not just throwing out a name and using it to vote.

.....and maybe they should start putting your picture on your voting ID card when you register......it's still not singling people out when they register.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

.....and maybe they should start putting your picture on your voting ID card when you register......it's still not singling people out when they register.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sounds like a plan.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Problem is that if there isn't a photo ID to go along with the ID number, then someone other than you can use your number. Using other people's (even dead ones) registration is one of the types of voter fraud.

I didn't think you would fall into the Voter fraud is real camp ? you seem well informed on most topics


Exaggerated or unfounded allegations of fraud by dead voters include the following:
• In Georgia in 2000, 5,412 votes were alleged to have been cast by deceased voters over the past 20
years.91 The allegations were premised on a flawed match of voter rolls to death lists. A follow-up
report clarified that only one instance had been substantiated, and this single instance was later
found to have been an error: the example above, in which Alan J. Mandel was confused with Alan
J. Mandell.92 No other evidence of fraudulent votes was reported.
• In Michigan in 2005, 132 votes were alleged to have been cast by deceased voters.93 The allegations
were premised on a flawed match of voter rolls to death lists. A follow-up investigation
by the Secretary of State revealed that these alleged dead voters were actually absentee ballots
mailed to voters who died before Election Day; 97 of these ballots were never voted, and 27
15
were voted before the voter passed away.94 Even if the remaining eight cases all revealed substantiated
fraud, that would amount to a rate of at most 0.0027%.95
• In New Jersey in 2004, 4,755 deceased voters were alleged to have cast a ballot. The allegations
were premised on a flawed match of voter rolls to death lists. No follow-up investigation publicly
documented any substantiated cases of fraud of which we are aware, and there were no reports
that any of these allegedly deceased voters voted in 2005.96
• In New York in 2002 and 2004, 2,600 deceased voters were alleged to have cast a ballot, again
based on a match of voter rolls to death lists. Journalists following up on seven cases found clerical
errors and mistakes but no fraud, and no other evidence of fraud was reported.97

So statistically you have a better chance of getting struck by lighting than Voter fraud ... if and when it happens

Just 23 people died as a direct result from lightning strikes in 2013, according to figures from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). or voted fraudulently out of 316.5 million not all of voting age statistically speaking

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/11/up...idespread.html