Wisconsin Voter ID

[Ziggurat]

Do you have any evidence that non-citizens are fraudulently registering to vote?

I presented such proof in another thread. It would take me some time to dig it up, but there were noncitizens who were not only on the voter rolls, they voted too.

The government didn't catch them, and wasn't going to prosecute them either. I'll let you figure out why prosecuting a non-citizen for voting is almost impossible.

 

[mumblethrax]

I've already said multiple times in this thread that the only way to do that is audit the voter registration rolls to see if those registered are eligible to vote, and nobody has ever done that and I doubt it will ever be done for a variety of reasons.

Yes, they have. Ohio's secretary of state just released a new report a few weeks ago, in fact. They found a grand total of 145 non-citizens on the voter rolls, 27 of whom are believed to have voted illegally.

I presented such proof in another thread.

No, you didn't. A non-citizen voting illegally does not consitute fraud, which requires an element of deception.

Many of the people investigated in Ohio, for example, turned out to be permanent resident aliens who erroneously believed that their immigration status conferred the right to vote.

It bears repeating that none of this would be prevented by voter ID laws.

 

[cmikes]

True enough, it happens in one way or another on both sides when ideas clash, but do remember that Lieberman did not change parties because he was excluded by the party or threatened with the loss of committee seats. He lost a primary on the basis of delegate votes after a party endorsement, because of his pro-war position. Of course you can count that as a sort of party abandonment, but if so it was the party's voters, not its machine, that forsook him. He judged (rightly it's clear) that he had a better chance to win an election than his party's official candidate, relying on his long standing reputation for integrity and on overwhelming support from Republican voters. But he has continued to vote with the Democratic caucus and held his Democratic committee appointments even after having come out in support of McCain for president.

Specter also would have lost his primary. He was down by over thirty points in his own internal polling against his primary opponent. He was also down by around ten points, depending on the poll, against the Democrat in the race as part of a Democrat primary. So he took his chances thinking it's a lot easier to make up ten points than thirty, but he still lost in the Democrat primary.

 

[Ziggurat]

No, you didn't. A non-citizen voting illegally does not consitute fraud, which requires an element of deception.

A non-citizen cannot vote legally. Any voting they do will be illegal, automatically.

Many of the people investigated in Ohio, for example, turned out to be permanent resident aliens who erroneously believed that their immigration status conferred the right to vote.

To begin with, even if we assume that it's an honest mistake, you've still backed up the claim that illegal voting is happening. Second, well, there's no reason to believe their self-serving claims. You think they're going to admit they knew it was illegal? Of course not. And third, this merely confirms that it's essentially impossible to prosecute them for this. Given that they can do it and get away with it and not receive any punishment, why wouldn't they break the law?

 

[mumblethrax]

A non-citizen cannot vote legally. Any voting they do will be illegal, automatically.

Which doesn't constitute fraud, the thing you claimed to have 'proved'.

To begin with, even if we assume that it's an honest mistake, you've still backed up the claim that illegal voting is happening.

Except that wasn't the claim. Yes, I've backed up a totally different claim--that non-fraudulent illegal voting by non-citizens does occur (although not at a significant rate), of a nature that would not be detected by voter ID requirements. It's thoroughly irrelevant to justifying the laws that need justification.

Second, well, there's no reason to believe their self-serving claims.

Yes there is. Specifically that their cases were forwarded to the DA's office, which investigated and found their claims credible.

Given that they can do it and get away with it and not receive any punishment, why wouldn't they break the law?

Who said they weren't punished?

The most obvious reason they wouldn't do this is that voting illegally bar you from becoming a citizen.

And while the risk may be small, the benefit is non-existent. You can't sway an election with one fraudulent vote. The relevant question is why would you do this. There's nothing in it for you, apart from the risk.

 

[bruto]

Specter also would have lost his primary. He was down by over thirty points in his own internal polling against his primary opponent. He was also down by around ten points, depending on the poll, against the Democrat in the race as part of a Democrat primary. So he took his chances thinking it's a lot easier to make up ten points than thirty, but he still lost in the Democrat primary.

There is no "Democrat" primary because there is no "Democrat" party.

Malice or ignorance, take your pick. It's one or the other.

 

[AaronMic22]

I'm trying to wrap my brain around this issue. My first inclination was that the right would be against Voter IDs because it equals more government. I'm now understanding that the left is against it because it disciminates against people who for whatever reason cannot obtain a voter ID.

Setting aside motivations for and against, it seems that the argument for a voter ID is about differentiating between people. That is, the goal is to have a way of distinguishing between citizens so that nobody votes twice.

One argument against the voter ID is that people don't have a way to prove their eligibility. It was mentioned earlier in this thread that over 30% of people in Wisconsin don't have a birth certificate. How is this even possible? Isn't everyone born in the USA provided one? I suppose there's a large number of immigrants who have not completed the citizenship process and therefore have no birth certificate nor proof of citizenship. Are these the people who make up the majority of that 30%? Who else accounts for this group?

OK, so we've concluded that a lot of people don't have at the minimum a birth certificate that could be used to apply for a voter ID. And therefore it would be discriminatory to not allow these people to vote. But, why would we want non-citizens voting? Isn't the point of elections to receive votes from people who are actual US citizens? Is the left arguing that the people who have not completed their path to citizenship deserve to have a voice and that voting is one aspect of that?

I could see if voter IDs discriminated against US citizens who cannot obtain an ID. But I don't see how that's possible if all US citizens have some way of proving they are in fact citizens. If they cannot prove their citizenship, then isn't something wrong here?

edit: What about voter registration? You must have registered in order to vote, correct? Doesn't registration require ID? Why can't voters bring proof of registration with them to prove identity rather than having a separate voter ID card? And if registration requires an ID, then doesn't that prevent non-citizens from registering? Perhaps the issue is that someone can forge a registration receipt since it doesn't have a photo ID attached to it; and thus, that is where the voter ID becomes useful?

 

[wareyin]

I'm trying to wrap my brain around this issue. My first inclination was that the right would be against Voter IDs because it equals more government. I'm now understanding that the left is against it because it disciminates against people who for whatever reason cannot obtain a voter ID.

Setting aside motivations for and against, it seems that the argument for a voter ID is about differentiating between people. That is, the goal is to have a way of distinguishing between citizens so that nobody votes twice.

One argument against the voter ID is that people don't have a way to prove their eligibility. It was mentioned earlier in this thread that over 30% of people in Wisconsin don't have a birth certificate. How is this even possible? Isn't everyone born in the USA provided one? I suppose there's a large number of immigrants who have not completed the citizenship process and therefore have no birth certificate nor proof of citizenship. Are these the people who make up the majority of that 30%? Who else accounts for this group?

I think the bulk of that 30% is people who either were issued a birth certificate at birth and no longer have it, or people who were never issued one, such as citizens born overseas, not in a hospital, etc. For those who can obtain a replacement birth certificate, costs are usually about $30. Poll taxes are illegal in the US.

OK, so we've concluded that a lot of people don't have at the minimum a birth certificate that could be used to apply for a voter ID. And therefore it would be discriminatory to not allow these people to vote. But, why would we want non-citizens voting? Isn't the point of elections to receive votes from people who are actual US citizens? Is the left arguing that the people who have not completed their path to citizenship deserve to have a voice and that voting is one aspect of that?

You haven't established that those without access to their birth certificate aren't citizens.

I could see if voter IDs discriminated against US citizens who cannot obtain an ID. But I don't see how that's possible if all US citizens have some way of proving they are in fact citizens. If they cannot prove their citizenship, then isn't something wrong here?

These laws are requiring citizens to pay $30 for documentation to vote, in cases where an original birth certificate was issued but lost. Poll taxes are illegal. Of course there's something wrong, here.

edit: What about voter registration? You must have registered in order to vote, correct? Doesn't registration require ID? Why can't voters bring proof of registration with them to prove identity rather than having a separate voter ID card? And if registration requires an ID, then doesn't that prevent non-citizens from registering? Perhaps the issue is that someone can forge a registration receipt since it doesn't have a photo ID attached to it; and thus, that is where the voter ID becomes useful?

Voter ID is solely useful to provide a barrier to young people and minorities who wish to vote. It's not an insurmountable barrier, but every barrier placed means less voters. Since these groups tend to vote Democratic, Republicans are attempting to win elections by preventing people from voting. This was admitted on camera in Pennsylvania.

 

[Olowkow]

There is no "Democrat" primary because there is no "Democrat" party.

Malice or ignorance, take your pick. It's one or the other.

It's true. But I was unaware that this illiterate sounding attempt at an epithet by Republicans dates back to the election of 1940. I generally read no further when I see this in a post for the reasons you mentioned. Same with variations on "Republican".

"Democrat Party" is a political epithet used in the United States for the Democratic Party. The term has been used in negative or hostile fashion by conservative commentators and members of the Republican Party in party platforms, partisan speeches and press releases since 1940.

 

[Ziggurat]

Which doesn't constitute fraud, the thing you claimed to have 'proved'.

For the purposes of this discussion, the distinction you are making isn't really relevant. Congratulations, you found a nit. I really don't care.

 

[Ziggurat]

Is the left arguing that the people who have not completed their path to citizenship deserve to have a voice and that voting is one aspect of that?

No, they aren't arguing that. But it's what they want, because they think those people would vote for the left.

 

[mumblethrax]

For the purposes of this discussion, the distinction you are making isn't really relevant. Congratulations, you found a nit. I really don't care.

It's relevant to the discussion, because fraudulent voting is the only kind that can be detected by casual inspection of identity.

What isn't relevant is the ongoing distraction campaign--fraud/illegal voting exists! Therefore, laws that address the kind of fraud/illegal voting that doesn't exist are justified.

 

[AaronMic22]

I think the bulk of that 30% is people who either were issued a birth certificate at birth and no longer have it, or people who were never issued one, such as citizens born overseas, not in a hospital, etc. For those who can obtain a replacement birth certificate, costs are usually about $30. Poll taxes are illegal in the US.


You haven't established that those without access to their birth certificate aren't citizens.


These laws are requiring citizens to pay $30 for documentation to vote, in cases where an original birth certificate was issued but lost. Poll taxes are illegal. Of course there's something wrong, here.


Voter ID is solely useful to provide a barrier to young people and minorities who wish to vote. It's not an insurmountable barrier, but every barrier placed means less voters. Since these groups tend to vote Democratic, Republicans are attempting to win elections by preventing people from voting. This was admitted on camera in Pennsylvania.

Thank you. What I'm getting from your reply is the following:

Voter IDs inherently aren't a bad idea. However, given the current socioeconomic situation in the USA, requiring one would be a road block for some citizens who typically vote Democrat. It would be a road block because these citizens would have to go through a particular process (obtaining proof of citizenship) that would give a practical advantage to the right in a situation where there is little broken. That is, voter fraud is such an insigificant problem that immediate requirement of voter IDs in today's climate would help the right more than the left.

From that, since the right is proposing this ID, the right must provide evidence for why it is important. And when the right provides what it considers to be significant evidence, the left claims it's not significant enough to support the proposition.

 

[wareyin]

Thank you. What I'm getting from your reply is the following:

Voter IDs inherently aren't a bad idea. However, given the current socioeconomic situation in the USA, requiring one would be a road block for some citizens who typically vote Democrat. It would be a road block because these citizens would have to go through a particular process (obtaining proof of citizenship) that would give a practical advantage to the right in a situation where there is little broken. That is, voter fraud is such an insigificant problem that immediate requirement of voter IDs in today's climate would help the right more than the left.

From that, since the right is proposing this ID, the right must provide evidence for why it is important. And when the right provides what it considers to be significant evidence, the left claims it's not significant enough to support the proposition.

That seems a fair assessment. I haven't actually seen any evidence from the right as to why voter ID's are necessary, much less significant evidence. Again, having an ID is not proof of citizenship, just as not having an ID isn't proof that one is not a citizen. Voting is a right here in the US, and we aren't supposed to have to prove we are eligible for our rights.

 

[cmikes]

There is no "Democrat" primary because there is no "Democrat" party.

Malice or ignorance, take your pick. It's one or the other.

Did they switch back to Progressive? I must have missed that, sorry.

 

[cmikes]

It's true. But I was unaware that this illiterate sounding attempt at an epithet by Republicans dates back to the election of 1940. I generally read no further when I see this in a post for the reasons you mentioned. Same with variations on "Republican".

I seriously have never heard that. Is it really seen as that big a difference between Democrat and Democratic?

ETA: Is it maybe a regional thing? I'm from West Virginia and here even the local TV news says "Democrat" a lot of the time, even in interviews with local Democrats, so I don't believe it's seen as offensive. But if it is seen as offensive on this site, I can switch to Democratic, it's not a big deal. Thanks.

 

[bruto]

Did they switch back to Progressive? I must have missed that, sorry.

Are you being purposely obtuse? The name of the party is "The Democratic Party." There is an "IC" at the end of it. The name of the party is not "The Democrat Party." That is a misnomer, and there are only two reasons for using it. Either one is misinformed (which whatever you were, you certainly no longer are) or one is purposely using the wrong name, which is a cheap shot, in the eyes of many a banner of stupidity, and should be beneath anyone who wishes to debate politics in a serious way, even if his contempt for the Democratic party is real, and even if it is justified. Grow up.

 

[Olowkow]

I seriously have never heard that. Is it really seen as that big a difference between Democrat and Democratic?

ETA: Is it maybe a regional thing? I'm from West Virginia and here even the local TV news says "Democrat" a lot of the time, even in interviews with local Democrats, so I don't believe it's seen as offensive. But if it is seen as offensive on this site, I can switch to Democratic, it's not a big deal. Thanks.

Someone should inform "the Google" that West Virginia has its own dialect of political speak.
West Virginia Democrat Party

I seriously think you should continue to use "Democrat" if you only get your news from local W.Va sources.

From the link on "Democrat party" I posted:

Multiple reasons are suggested for the use of the term. A 1984 New York Times article suggested Republicans began to use the term when Democrats used their own party name to imply "they are the only true adherents of democracy."[2] Republicans "feared that 'Democratic' suggested Democrats [had] a monopoly on or are somehow the anointed custodians of the concept of democracy."[3] New Yorker commentator Hendrik Hertzberg wrote, "There’s no great mystery about the motives behind this deliberate misnaming. 'Democrat Party' is a slur, or intended to be—a handy way to express contempt. Aesthetic judgments are subjective, of course, but 'Democrat Party' is jarring verging on ugly. It fairly screams 'rat.'"[4]

It's kind of like "Republikkker" or "Republictard", but less literary.

 

[cmikes]

Someone should inform "the Google" that West Virginia has its own dialect of political speak.
West Virginia Democrat Party

I seriously think you should continue to use "Democrat" if you only get your news from local W.Va sources.

From the link on "Democrat party" I posted:



It's kind of like "Republikkker" or "Republictard", but less literary.

Thank you for the correction. Henceforth I will use Democratic, and I want to apologize to anyone I offended by misnaming their party.

 

[bruto]

Thank you for the correction. Henceforth I will use Democratic, and I want to apologize to anyone I offended by misnaming their party.

Thank you in return. I am sure you will find no paucity of material anyway. I favor the Democratic party, but it's a big target. And, of course, you could remember the maxim, whose origin I don't remember, that when Democrats get up a firing squad they form a circle, and just relax and enjoy the carnage.