You don't agree they exist or you don't agree with making them? Because the republicans are doing that too.

I'm sure IDs will fix all those problems with voting that aren't caused by not having ID laws. And thankfully, it's impossible to make a fake ID, like the ones the Bush twins had.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...est=latestnews

That story must be fake, ACORN wasn't involved.

Please explain how this guy would have been stopped by a voter ID law.

And how would requiring IDs have stopped those absentee ballots?

Why does a ID law have to stop all types of voter fraud cases to be valid? It's like saying a minor should not have to show id, because it would not catch the cases when he obtains the alcohol from an adult.

But to play your game, a lot of the voter law id acts are requiring either ID when you request the absentee ballot or a photo copy of the ID when you return the absent ballot.

So yes I think that an ID requirement could very well stop someone from grabing a couple hundred ballots filling them out and returning them. If they are required to photo copy their ID with each ballot my guess is that they would not have 200-300 id's of registered voters hanging around.

http://epic.org/privacy/voting/Wisco..._pdf_46357.pdf

maybe I'm not remembering the story right, but wasn't the guy who committed the fraud 'on the inside'?

Not sure it said, I believe the former sheriff plead guitly. A clerk was involved and it said the state kept finding absentee ballots in the mail late at night. Which is not a usual thing. also, a large number of absentee ballots over 6 times the usual were requested.

But I still say having a ID wih request or with the ballot could have stopped the clerk or sheriff from filling out 300 absentee ballots.

It's still amazing how people who pretend to support Democracy are against a simple idea that only legitimate voters should be allowed to vote, and they invite the corruption of people voting under false identities to possibly elect a candidate that is not the people's real choice.


There is no quicker way to know if a person supports true democracy or just supports the success of their own side, than the voter ID issue. Allowing fake voters and multiple voting is just so anti-Democratic.

Is the value of maybe stopping some kinds of voter fraud but not other kinds really worth the trade off of disenfranchising millions of Americans?

Like no one actually supports voter fraud, they just dont see it as a big enough problem that its worth committing over the table legalised fraud stopping millions of eligible voters from being able to vote.

And those that do not believe that millions will be disenfranchised. After all around 100 million people vote your claim is that what 2- 5% can't comply with a ID law?

Holy goalpost shift batman.

It doesn't have to stop all types of voter fraud. But if you're gonna bring up examples of voter fraud to bolster your claim that IDs re needed, you might want to at least pick one that would have been prevented by voter ID laws.

How do you propose including the ID with absentee ballots?

Let's assume it's one percent, and I'll take you at your word that 100 million people vote. If we assume these things, then a voter ID law results in a million people disenfranchised. A million votes canceled out by this disenfranchisement is greater than the sum total of all votes "canceled out" by improperly cast ballots in the history of America, and that's just one election. Why do you look at this as no big deal?

Boa, ogllallabob, lous, mikes - would you be cool with requiring people to get an ID, register and vote are a pre-requisite for any kind of govt aid? I mean that's the most democracy-supporting solution I can imagine. If they want a handout from the govt the least we can ask them to do is participate in the process.

Another case of voter fraud prevented (this time through ID laws):

http://www.readersupportednews.org/n...e-under-id-law

FREEEEEEDDDOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMM!

One of these voter ID laws making its way through the Republican dominated PA house and senate right now, should be signed into law by the April primary. One the State Supreme Court overturned the new gerrymandered state districts, they moved on to the next scheme.

This thread reminds me of a point I've meant to make before: while I think that voter fraud is a non-problem and that laws purportedly directed at such fraud are truly just efforts to limit voting by certain groups, I'd personally go along with anti-fraud legislation provided it was coupled with other measures meant to facilitate voting (and vote-counting), such as funding to ensure uniform, reliable vote-counting machines and legislation that would allow national elections to be conducted during a weekend or multiple days (or even over the internet).

As far as the measures supposedly directed at fraud, I would just insist that various safeguards to vitiate disparate impact on low-income groups. For example, if people demand some kind of ID card, then let's make sure that the ID card is virtually free, and that there are many, simple ways of giving people access to them. Seems to me that some kind of grand compromise is at least theoretically possible.

Nah, I don't support internet voting, no way, no how. I'm in favor of voter access, but digital communication is too easily broken, and the scale of the violation that can happen with a single violation is immense. The people afraid of improper ballots being cast have a legit case when voting takes place over the internet.

Another harrowing tale from the front lines of the defense from the assault on liberty.

The Wisconsin voter ID law was enjoined a couple days ago. The right has been all over the judge because he signed a recall Walker petition and Walker is one of the defendants.

Can track IP and MAC addresses.

Cannot track truckload of ballots that goes missing or electronic voting booth that registers Zero votes for the hundreds/thousands that vote on it.

Internet voting is bad!