Voter Fraud

[PaulS]

So show me the massive voter fraud? Got any links?

I hear about the constitution a lot here - why pick and choose? Comparing a mortgage or a bank acct. with the right to vote is comical.

I will say the constitution does leave a lot up to the states on voting though. And I've said that I don't have a problem with requiring an id but the lengths that Repubs. go to is sad. Absense any massive voter fraud, the only reason they do so is to prevent people from voting.

[fishbones]

Originally Posted by PaulS

So show me the massive voter fraud? Got any links?

I hear about the constitution a lot here - why pick and choose? Comparing a mortgage or a bank acct. with the right to vote is comical.

I will say the constitution does leave a lot up to the states on voting though. And I've said that I don't have a problem with requiring an id but the lengths that Repubs. go to is sad. Absense any massive voter fraud, the only reason they do so is to prevent people from voting.

I'm not doing work for you so you can be lazy. Look up Minnesota 2008 voter fraud arrests.

When have I ever brough up the Constitution? Show me one time.

So you think being able to vote is not as important as being able to open a bank account or have a mortgage? Isn't it one of our inaliable rights as citizens of the United States? Your argument is getting weaker and weaker.

Please explain how requiring an ID keeps people from voting. This should be really good.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by fishbones

I'm not doing work for you so you can be lazy. Look up Minnesota 2008 voter fraud arrests.weak answer - so there is no massive voter fraud

When have I ever brough up the Constitution? Show me one time.Did I say you did - your getting paranoid now.

So you think being able to vote is not as important as being able to open a bank account or have a mortgage? Isn't it one of our inaliable rights as citizens of the United States? Your argument is getting weaker and weaker. One thing has nothing to do with another.

Please explain how requiring an ID keeps people from voting. This should be really good.

If you don't have an id, you can't vote. Wasn't that simple? So explain why the Repubs do everything they can to prevent people from voting (limit the amount of time you can vote early, require IDsl, etc). Sad commentary on a political party.

Is the Repub. party so afraid of blacks that 4 years later they're still crying about the actions of 2 of them

[fishbones]

Originally Posted by PaulS

If you don't have an id, you can't vote. Wasn't that simple? So explain why the Repubs do everything they can to prevent people from voting (limit the amount of time you can vote early, require IDsl, etc). Sad commentary on a political party.

Is the Repub. party so afraid of blacks that 4 years later they're still crying about the actions of 2 of them

You don't pay attention very well, Paul. I never said "massive voter fraud", you did. You also said "almost zero voter fraud". There were hundreds of arrests for voter fraud resulting from the 2008 elections. That's far from almost zero. And that's just arrests, not instances of fraud or voter intimidation, which is considered fraud.

You still can't come up with an argument about the ID issue. Why is making it a requirement to show an ID for one thing ok but not for something else? The only reason someone wouldn't want to show one is if they aren't who they say they are.
By the way, do you realize that polls show that 75% of voters agrre that an ID should be required? I don't think Eric Holder was one of the respondents to the poll, though.

And how does limiting the time to vote early prevent people from voting? What would be an acceptable time limit for you? If someone wants to vote, there are ways to do it. Men and women serving overseas for our military seem to get their ballots in on time. Well, they get them in when the MOVE act isn't violated.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

If you don't have an id, you can't vote. Wasn't that simple?

The opposite is if you don't have an ID you CAN vote even if your actual "qualifications" aren't those required to "allow" you to vote. Same as any criminal activity CAN be done by circumventing rules that would legally prevent such activity. States can require you to be who you say you are, and they can ask for verification. They can do so in order to protect the integrity of the voting system and to secure the rights of those who are legally qualified to vote. If you personally choose to acribe other motivations to those requirements, that's up to you, but you have no proof, just your conjecture, about the motivations.

So explain why the Repubs do everything they can to prevent people from voting (limit the amount of time you can vote early, require IDsl, etc). Sad commentary on a political party.

"everything they can" would be far more than just a time period for early voting and requiring IDs. I don't know what the etc. is. Time periods don't seem unfair or unduly limiting, certainly not a prevention, nor do IDs. Why do you paint reasonable requirements as preventing people from voting? Why do you see protecting the right to vote from being disenfranchised by illegal votes as a prevention against voting. Isn't it more a protection of votes by those qualified to vote. Protection of the franchise is not a commentary. Your opinion is the commentary. And it does seem to be a sad one.

Is the Repub. party so afraid of blacks that 4 years later they're still crying about the actions of 2 of them

You call whatever you're referring to as crying. Actions to correct fraud is not crying.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by detbuch

You call whatever you're referring to as crying. Actions to correct fraud is not crying.

Only 2 black guys and it is still being brought up 4 years later? That seems to me to be crying.

Since the fraud is very limited, it doesn't seem to warrant the massive amount of time or effort spent stopping it.

In response to the amount of early voters last election (and who the majority voted Dem.) the Repubs. have done all they can to limit early voting. In Fl, GA, Ohio, etc. Since so many people voted early last election, why change the rules? Why not allow the buses of people to vote after church on the Sunday b/f the election - like last time? The majority of people who voted early in some states where African American. Again, this seems like another Repub. move against African Americans. My take is that I know of no other motive other than racism.

[fishbones]

Voter fraud is real

And voter ID laws are really needed; they are not racist

December 18, 2011 12:00 am



By Jack Kelly / Pittsburgh Post-Gazette


The state chairman of Indiana's Democratic Party resigned Monday as a probe of election fraud in the 2008 Democratic presidential primary widened.

State law requires a presidential candidate to gather 500 valid signatures in each county to qualify for the ballot. Barack Obama may not have met it. Investigators think 150 of the 534 signatures the Obama campaign turned in for St. Joseph County may have been forged.

Yet Democrats say that measures to guard against vote fraud are racist Republican plots to disenfranchise minority voters.

Republicans "want to literally drag us back to Jim Crow laws," said Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, D-Fla, chair of the Democratic National Committee.

The NAACP has asked the United Nations to intervene to block state voter ID laws. It may have an ulterior motive for opposing ballot security measures. An NAACP official was convicted on 10 counts of absentee voter fraud in Tunica County, Miss., in July.

Former Democratic Rep. Artur Davis, who is black, said vote fraud is rampant in African-American districts like his in Alabama.

"The most aggressive contemporary voter suppression in the African-American community is the wholesale manufacture of ballots at the polls and absentee, in parts of the Black Belt," Mr. Davis said. "Voting the names of the dead, and the nonexistent, and the too mentally impaired to function cancels out the votes of citizens who are exercising their rights."
Laws requiring photo IDs suppress minority voting, Democrats charge. The facts say otherwise. In Georgia, black voter turnout for the midterm election in 2006 was 42.9 percent. After Georgia passed photo ID, black turnout in the 2010 midterm rose to 50.4 percent. Black turnout also rose in Indiana and Mississippi after photo IDs were required.

"Concerns about voter identification laws affecting turnout are much ado about nothing," concluded researchers at the universities of Delaware and Nebraska after examining election data from 2000 through 2006.

You need a photo ID to get on an airplane or an Amtrak train; to open a bank account, withdraw money from it, or cash a check; to pick up movie and concert tickets; to go into a federal building; to buy alcohol and to apply for food stamps.

Most Americans don't think it's a hardship to ask voters to produce one. A Rasmussen poll in June indicated 75 percent of respondents support photo ID requirements. Huge majorities of Hispanics support voter ID laws, according to a Resurgent Republic poll in September.

This year there have been investigations, indictments or convictions for vote fraud in California, Texas, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, Georgia, North Carolina and Maryland. In all but one case, the alleged fraudsters were Democrats.

In none would the fraud alleged have altered a major election, Democrats note. But in the Illinois gubernatorial election in 1982, 100,000 votes cast in Chicago -- 10 percent of the total -- were fraudulent, the U.S. attorney there estimated.

Fraud of the magnitude which swings elections typically combines absentee ballot fraud and voter registration fraud. At least 55 employees or associates of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now have been convicted of registration fraud in 11 states, says Matthew Vadum of the Capital Research Center, who's written a book about ACORN.

Of 1.3 million new registrations ACORN turned in in 2008, election officials rejected 400,000.

"There is no question about the legitimacy or importance of a state's interest in counting only eligible voters' votes," wrote liberal Justice John Paul Stevens for a 6-3 majority in the Supreme Court's 2008 decision upholding Indiana's ID law, the toughest in the nation.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by PaulS

If you don't have an id, you can't vote. Wasn't that simple? So explain why the Repubs do everything they can to prevent people from voting (limit the amount of time you can vote early, require IDsl, etc). Sad commentary on a political party.

Two things...
1) I'll be out of town Tuesday so I filled out an absentee ballot at my town hall, filled out the ballot and handed it it. That was almost a month ago. How much time do people need?

2) How exactly does the require of IDs prevent a person from voting? If people on welfare don't mind having their ID ready to buy cigarettes, alcohol and scratch tickets, then why's it such a problem to do the same before casting their vote?