Wisconsin Voter ID

[bruto]

Maybe.
Do you believe if high voter turnout was good for Republican candidates the Democrat party would do everything possible to make sure that voting was as easy and painless as possible?

There is no such thing as the DEMOCRAT party. What kind of illiterate fool cannot say the correct name of one of only two major parties that have existed in this country for all his life?

 

[thaiboxerken]

There is no such thing as the DEMOCRAT party. What kind of illiterate fool cannot say the correct name of one of only two major parties that have existed in this country for all his life?

And the argument is rather silly too. It's basically saying "you guys would do it too if your policies weren't popular with most of the nation."

 

[bruto]

I would happily agree with you if there were any actual Republicans left - those people who are conservative but not beholden to religious nuts (dundies) and the incompetent tool teabaggers - there were a quite reasonable number of them before the 80's - since then not enough to worry about counting - and those have no influence with the crazies. I miss Republicans.

Here in Vermont we used to have a pretty nice one, Senator Jeffords, a good old fashioned Vermont Republican. The left wing opposition referred to him as "Gentleman Jim." The party froze him out because he would not follow the party line 100 percent. The current spate of teabaggers would probably call Calvin Coolidge a dangerous leftist.

 

[Olowkow]

I just did earlier in the thread. There are multiple studies that have found that voter ID laws suppress votes.



So? How is that evidence of voter fraud?

There are plenty of cases suggesting that there is something going on that has nothing to do with fraud.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/pennsylvania-voter-id-law-dead-and-buried

A state judge ruled in January that the law, passed in 2012, violated the state constitution by imposing an unreasonable burden on the right to vote. The court found no evidence the law was necessary either to prevent fraud or to keep public confidence in the fairness of the election process.

“During the trial we heard the stories of numerous voters throughout the state who, despite their best efforts, were unable to get the identification that the now-invalidated voter ID law required of them to vote,” Marian Schneider, a senior attorney with the Advancement Project, a civil rights group that challenged the law, said in a statement. “This is not how a democracy should work. Today’s decision is a victory for keeping Pennsylvania elections free, fair and accessible for all voters.”

Several years ago I spoke with a former republican governor, and asked him what he thought about voter ID. I asked him if he was troubled by voter suppression. He became very defensive and nervous, and said there was a lot of fraud. I implied I didn't believe him then, and I don't believe Walker now.

 

[tyr_13]

Are you suggesting we require voter training (perhaps a civics exam), a licensing fee ($150 should cover it for 3 years), and a waiting period (say one election cycle) before they are allowed to vote?

No. You are suggesting that you either don't know what I meant, or you're not arguing in good faith. Nothing I said suggests that.

Because I don't want people who have no vested interest in my district, ward, and precinct voting on issues and candidates that affect me.

Oh, so you do want the vote to be more representative.

Maybe there was no advantage for a 32 day period, and it's just extra money for no benefit.

Maybe, but didn't someone say more people did end up voting?

Do you have any evidence that 28 days is not enough time?

Do you have evidence of voter fraud that would be addressed by these proposed voter ID laws?

Neither you nor anyone else here has shown that shortening the voting period from 32 days to 28 or requiring voter ID suppressed any votes.

You have to show that more stringent voter ID methods are necessary. It is not the burden for other to show that they will not suppress votes.

I don't know what evidence you'd accept for the voting period or other voting methods. I suspect none would suffice.

EDIT: Totally forgot to hit the post button and this has been sitting here for quite some time.

 

[bonzombiekitty]

Here in Vermont we used to have a pretty nice one, Senator Jeffords, a good old fashioned Vermont Republican. The left wing opposition referred to him as "Gentleman Jim." The party froze him out because he would not follow the party line 100 percent. The current spate of teabaggers would probably call Calvin Coolidge a dangerous leftist.

IIRC, Arlen Spector from PA had the same sort of issue. He eventually changed parties after 42 years of being a Republican. Though he did start his career as a Democrat.

 

[Aridas]

Republicans are for freedom and liberty and against unnecessary laws.

Unless it's related to voting.

Or women's bodies. Or marriage. Or... anyways. Personally, I am not at all against Ohio or any other state having fewer early voting days, on one condition. The supporters of such need to present a real and solid case that doing so would provide a net benefit to society as a whole, when taking into account the pros and cons, rather than trying to use dishonest and inflammatory rhetoric to get it through with little critical examination. Come to think of it, that applies to any law, though.

 

[eeyore1954]

And the argument is rather silly too. It's basically saying "you guys would do it too if your policies weren't popular with most of the nation."

I made no argument I only asked a question.

 

[eeyore1954]

There is no such thing as the DEMOCRAT party. What kind of illiterate fool cannot say the correct name of one of only two major parties that have existed in this country for all his life?

Kind of harsh there. I suspect you think I called it the democrat party as an insult. I did not. It was a simple mistake of originally I was going to say the democrats instead of referring to the party then I changed it to the party and did not correct it properly.

 

[Shalamar]

I don't mind voting ID's being a requirement. As long as it's done properly.

Pass the law requiring ID. Give it 5 - 10 years to take effect. A couple voting cycles to get people used to the idea.
An extensive education campaign to make sure everyone knows about the new requirements.
IDs should be free to acquire. No 'paying to vote' crap.
IDs should be easy to get. Multiple locations to acquire one. You acquire one, you're automatically registered to vote.
Several types of IDs should be acceptable, as long as they have photographic proof of who you are, and are government issued. (ie: Drivers license, military ID, etc etc)
Make them nationwide.

 

[bruto]

Kind of harsh there. I suspect you think I called it the democrat party as an insult. I did not. It was a simple mistake of originally I was going to say the democrats instead of referring to the party then I changed it to the party and did not correct it properly.

You may well not have meant the insult, and if it was a mere oversight I'm sorry to sound so harsh, but the misnomer has always been used by conservative opponents who ought to know better. I believe in this forum, for example, purposely mis-stating another poster's name is actionable, and I think that sort of thing is a cheap shot made by people who cannot find an argument good enough to stand on its own.

 

[tyr_13]

They don't, so long as they're free and immediate. Same deal with ID checks, so long as they're free (i.e. no poll tax) and immediate, who cares? I don't see why we should reject the idea of the laws outright without considering the specific details of a law that implements it.

Sorry missed this last night. If you read back what I've posted, you'll see that's one of the points I was making.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I made no argument I only asked a question.

Puhlease, your question is an argument.

 

[mgidm86]

Wouldn't the problem with voter fraud lie with registration rather than with the actual act of voting?

I'm not asked for ID when I vote, but they do search for my name on a list of registered voters. If my name is not on that list then I assume I would be turned away.

If, for example, an illegal alien manages to register to vote then his name is on the list at the polling station. That is all that is required, at least in my experience.

These laws would also do nothing to stop fraudulent mail-in ballots. Stopping voter fraud needs to be done at the registration level, not at the polls.

 

[bruto]

Wouldn't the problem with voter fraud lie with registration rather than with the actual act of voting?

I'm not asked for ID when I vote, but they do search for my name on a list of registered voters. If my name is not on that list then I assume I would be turned away.

If, for example, an illegal alien manages to register to vote then his name is on the list at the polling station. That is all that is required, at least in my experience.

These laws would also do nothing to stop fraudulent mail-in ballots. Stopping voter fraud needs to be done at the registration level, not at the polls.

ssssh, be vewwy vewwy quiet....

 

[WildCat]

The Brennan Center for Justice at the New York School of Law is a moonbat site?

Got a link? Not searching through a wall of links.

 

[WildCat]

No. You are suggesting that you either don't know what I meant, or you're not arguing in good faith. Nothing I said suggests that.

I am arguing in good faith. There are tens of thousands of restrictions on the right to firearms, an ID being just one of them.

Oh, so you do want the vote to be more representative.

Representative of those who want to vote and are eligible, yes.

Maybe, but didn't someone say more people did end up voting?

Who is this someone? Ended up voting where, and over what baseline?

Do you have evidence of voter fraud that would be addressed by these proposed voter ID laws?

Unless you do an audit of registered voters we'll never know. And nobody is doing such an audit.

You have to show that more stringent voter ID methods are necessary. It is not the burden for other to show that they will not suppress votes.

There is great potential for fraud, as there are no controls in place to ensure ineligible people are not voting. It's kind of like demanding evidence of embezzlement before a financial accounting process is put in place.

I don't know what evidence you'd accept for the voting period or other voting methods. I suspect none would suffice.

I'd like to see evidence that there are people who are eligible to vote and want to vote but cannot because the voting period went from 32 days to 28 days. Or the same for people who don't have an ID.

 

[WildCat]

Wouldn't the problem with voter fraud lie with registration rather than with the actual act of voting?

That would work too. Either at the polls or during registration, either/or. But I'm not a big fan of the honor system currently in place.

 

[wareyin]

I'd like to see evidence that there are people who are eligible to vote and want to vote but cannot because the voting period went from 32 days to 28 days. Or the same for people who don't have an ID.

How, exactly, does having a driver's license prove one is eligible to vote?

 

[WildCat]

How, exactly, does having a driver's license prove one is eligible to vote?

Doesn't have to be a driver's license, just a government-issued ID that has a photo and address on it and indicates the holder is a US citizen.