So there is no fraud now, but there might be, sometime, somewhere, in the future. So we need to do this proactively.
And statistics on the claim that fraud is virtually non-existent can be misleading because there's severe under enforcement and under reporting by the same election boards that provide the data to support it.
New York's Moreland Commission on Public Corruption for example found that election fraud complaints were hardly investigated, languishing for years without any action.
Further, as one other member pointed out, what motivation is there to a congressman who benefits from this kind of thing to ameliorate it?
it's not a secret the only reason they support voter ID laws is to disenfranchise voters. There are plenty of Republican politicians that have been caught on tape saying so.
Maybe instead of asserting that all of the voter ID law concepts are racist and motivated to disenfranchise voters you can actually substantiate it? I'm open to giving leeway that there are a some politicians that would want it to do just that, but where's your proof that this is a disease to the whole argument?
This University survey of voters in the states of Maryland, Indiana, and Mississippi found that fewer the 0.5 percent of respondents had neither photo ID nor citizenship documentation. Given that proper ID is required for such everyday errands as buying alcohol, cigarettes, entering certain commercial buildings and registering a vehicle one's anecdotal evidence would back up the findings.
I just signed up for health insurance (there's no policy called "Obamacare") and I didn't have to provide ID. I did it over the phone. Do you support voting by phone, since the two are the same in your mind?
This "Obamacare" for which you need an ID to sign up must only be available in the same "California" where you need an ID to vote.
You already have an ID card for your health insurance. It's called an insurance ID card. You know, the one you get a membership card from your health insurance that stipulates what coverage you have. Most doctors offices with an insurance network already require that you have this if you want to use it to apply your coverage to the treatments rendered. I assume you both must know this or otherwise you wouldn't be benefiting from whatever coverage you purchased when you visit them.
Further, the ACA marketplace requires you to verify your identity using a social security number and your place of address before you can select an insurance option. You also have to verify your identity which was done through a series of questions that confirm you know certain things that are public record, like your license plate number (which ties to you through your vehicle registration), or what high school you attended (which is in transcripts).
Further still, the IRS also already has records from the above that you've registered or otherwise you get slapped with a tax penalty.
So in effect, you already meet ID requirements the moment you signed up for it. Do you think having to provide these identifying informational details as a form of ID would disenfranchise the poor and/or non-insured from signing up? Apparently not if the success rates for Obama-care are categorically positive as you all cite in those ACA threads, especially if the signups are meeting or exceeding the Obama admin's estimates.
Apparently so. Why do you suppose there's so much misinformation and ignorance about this stuff? For instance, I've signed up people in Oregon to vote. It's interesting that the Oregon GOP never does voter registration drives. It's always Democrats. But when I hand out registration forms, all you have to do is provide your name, address, and one of the following.
You say it as if democrats have no ulterior motive to do the voter drives. There's a very heavily legitimate component to them so I'm not attributing all kinds of malice to the idea, but the key is that they also benefit by getting the vote out because more turnout overall means that they can count on at least some of that being more turnout for them and by consequence they have better success at the polls. It's an undeniable fact that if republicans don't get the vote out that they need they're making a huge mistake because just how do they expect to win elections if they can't even give their voting
base sufficient drive to turnout at the polls? Seems obvious to me that the party
would take advantage of the republicans' lack of an organized get out the vote campaign. It benefits them naturally which provides the motivation to do it.
