Because there's no reason for it to become a problem in the future if it isn't already a problem, and because it disenfranchises people.

What is funny about that piece is that it comes from the NY Times in an attempt to water down the charge surfacing at that time. And this was for a 5 year span, rather than 10.

Please, then, ignore the Jew York Times and find a nice, palatable Faux News article. Quickly! Go!

well please correct me if im wrong on this question. if 100 votes are fraudulent and those 100 are spread over 4 key states and it sways those 4 states then the electoral impact could be huge.

So given you acknowledge all these cases of voter fraud through absentee ballots, can we agree there should be more effort of verification in this regard -- or is this acceptable too?

wish you guys would say that about global warming.

First find me the 4 states that have had national elections which were swayed by 25 votes.

What do you propose? Absentee voters send in their IDs, and get them back after verification?

Wow. That was good.

Even in that article, the majority of the cases don't look like they would have been prevented by an ID law. Like, the judges and sheriffs buying votes would not in any way be stopped by an ID law. Many were people ineligibly filling out voter registration cards, not ballots, something that's not covered by an ID law. A disenfranchised felon wouldn't necessarily be stopped by an ID law either, if the precinct didn't properly purge his record from their books. And confused legal immigrants who can get drivers licenses wouldn't necessarily be stopped by ID laws, either. The number of these 120 that would actually be stopped by an ID law is much smaller than 120.

Ah yes, because there's no evidence of the global temperature rising...

Yeah, but, like, it rose much less than 120 degrees Celsius, so, y'know, something something.

Man, this thread is epic. Great on so many levels.

This, and many other global warming fallacies debunked here:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/41...rming-1134599/

If that person can get themselves to the polls they can get an ID just as easily.

pretty much THIS

Why do you love big government so much?

You are amazing. Simply amazing.

I still can't believe that intelligent posters are proposing that only 9 instances of voter fraud have happened in the last x years...

Do you think it solves the problem to just have the voter give SS# if they do not have an ID and verify this person exists later? Certainly they know who is alive and dead by SS# right? If someone is paying or receiving SS benefits, that pretty much proves they exist because otherwise its fraud.

no regret often the ss people dont know when ppl die and the checks keep coming. happens often

Feel free to inform us as to how much has happened with a reputable citation. But again, no one has denied that there are instances of ballot box stuffing, or voter registration fraud, or precincts that haven't done a good job of purging their books of dead or otherwise ineligible voters, or clueless immigrants and disenfranchised felons trying and sometimes succeeding in voting when they were ineligible. None of those cases would necessarily be solved by an ID law. What has been denied is that the cases of vote fraud that could have been prevented by a voter ID law are common, or at least, common compared to eligible voters who lack ID.

If you want to propose a law forcing an audit of voter registration books to purge the dead and ineligible and the people who've moved away, well, as long as good effort is spent to ensure that the the people who are removed from the books are contacted about this removal so that they can contest it if necessary, then that's a different issue that few people would contest. That's a solution for a known problem. The ID laws don't address this.

If Republicans truly believed that Photo ID laws prevent fraud then why did they not require a Photo ID to be shown in the Iowa primary. Iowa also allows Election Day voter registration.

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=9016

UPDATE: As Eric W. Dolan at RAW STORY points out, in picking up on our story, earlier this year, Iowa state Republicans in their statehouse passed a Photo ID restriction law, as sponsored by Republican Sec. of State Matt Schultz. The measure, thankfully, died in a Senate committee. And yet, when state Republicans had the chance to set any rules they wanted for voting in their own caucuses for President next week, they declined to require Photo ID of their voters. So what does that tell ya?

This is a much more serious threat than any Photo Id law.

http://youtu.be/aZws98jw67g

.over the past twenty years, we have let corporations into our polling places, locations so sacred to democracy that in many states even international election monitors and reporters are banned. With the implementation of "black box voting" (the use of electronic voting machines), these corporations are recording our votes, compiling and tabulating them, and then telling us the total numbers - and doing it all using "proprietary" hardware and software that we cannot observe, cannot audit, and cannot control. If the vote-counting corporation says candidate X or candidate Y won the vote, we have no means of rebutting that, and they have no way of proving it. We're asked simply to trust them.

From Thom Hartman's book a href="http://www.thomhartmann.com/2009/07/26/about-threshold-the-crisis-of-western-culture/"Threshold/a pg 210

Obviously only Democrats commit voter fraud.

I KNOW because why would Megyn Kelly complain about it so much if it wasn't the biggest problem facing American today?

Also, ACORN.

I know... it is annoying to have to take this line but logic and honesty trumps rhetoric in my world.

here's the thing I don't really have a dog in this fight, but IDs are super easy to get. I emphatically don't agree with rules that make IDs hard to get or expensive.