I have no idea whether internet voting could be secure enough to be viable. That's an empirical question to which I'd defer to experts.

But my essential point is that a grand compromise, of some sort, seems theoretically possible (trading voter-fraud rules for greater-access rules, and better counting methodologies), if anyone was actually interested in getting something done by way of a compromise.

Was it really the judge though?

I think we need petition-signer ID laws to make sure no one else signed the judge's name.

Seriously? Millions of Americans don't have an ID? Assuming that there are millions of Americans without a valid ID the 'problem' is easily solved. Have the nationwide Community Organizer Network spring into action and get ID's to people who need them. It's not like this law would be put into effect on election day. People will have time to prepare and actually get an ID if they don't already have one. FFS this doesn't have to be that difficult. If you want to vote prove that you are who you say you are.

I'd be cool with people on government aid not being allowed to vote. I'm also cool with knowing that I'm slightly out of the mainstream on that one.

I'd be cool with people that think others shouldn't be allowed to vote for some reason not being allowed to vote.

...aw ****!

His wife was the signature gatherer. Would she still need to card him?

Probably twice, with Rush Limbaugh getting to view a sex tape of them for further verification.

I would find it very hard to believe that the figure is anywhere close to 1%.

So how many people are you comfortable with disenfranchising to ensure a handful of illegal votes aren't counted?

It's been repeatedly quoted in this thread that the number is much larger than 1%. It's up to 20% amongst poor minorities.

Seems like we are talking apples and oranges. I am referring to the people who could not go down to the DMV and obtain a free ID if a law was passed, not those currently without ID's. Maybe I over estimate the % of functioning adults in this country.

It is just as disenfranchising to read and see stories about how voter fraud taking place and the states are doing nothing to prevent the fraud from occuring.

But the laws I have seen, are not burdensome and should not prevent anyone from voting or disenfranchise them. Sure the first year after they pass a reporter could hang out at the voting stattion all day and find a 85 year old vet who no longer had a ID and confused about how the law works.

Yeah, I mean, if people want to vote, what's so bad about making them pay a tax and pass a written test? If they can't do that, then they don't qualify as functioning adults, so it's good that they don't vote.

Maybe your mistake is that you only see validity in the voting rights of those who meet your criteria for "functioning adults".

We want numbers. How many disenfranchised votes equals one instance of an improperly cast ballot?

Do you know what this word means?

Disfranchisement (also called disenfranchisement) is the revocation of the right of suffrage (the right to vote) of a person or group of people, or rendering a person's vote less effective, or ineffective. Disfranchisement may occur explicitly through law, or implicitly by intimidation or by placing unreasonable registration or identification impediments in the path of voters.

Contents [hide]

Having illegal votes counted is making legitimate votes less effective. People could lose faith in the system.

Like the numbers (millions or a handful) your side pulls out of thin air?

So you're cool with requiring ID, registration and proof that you actually voted as a requirement for govt aid? I mean this is purely about preventing fraud and faith in the system right? What would create more faith than to make sure that the people using govt services are legally IDed and participating in the process?

I'll just let the irony of you posting this definition speak for itself.

Well are asking you for a value judgment. I grant that an improper vote is bad. I think denying one person from voting is bad. I think they are equally bad. I am willing to accept denying one person from voting if it will stop two people from casting improper ballots. Where do you think the line is?

How many illegal votes are you comfortable with compared with the minor inconvenience of asking eligible voters to prove that they are who they say they are?

Every 'illegal' vote disenfranchises a legal voter. How do you feel about that?

Mojo, please go read the first 50 posts of the thread. Getting an ID is a lot more than a minor inconvenience for some people.

"Hi, I'm a middle class white dude who can afford to drive. What's the big deal?"

I'm fine. I accept the 1:1 ratio. Now give a good estimate for the number of illegal votes that have been cast that would have been prevented by showing ID at a polling place, and I'll give you one for how many people would be turned away from voting for not having ID.

Then make it simpler. It doesn't have to be hard. I would think that if a candidate (or party) thought that many of their potential voters would be disenfranchised due to a lack of ID they would make damn sure to send people out to get ID's to people that need them.

I don't like illegal votes, I think everyone here can agree with that. The huge disagreement ITT is how many of those votes are actually occurring. Voter ID proponents make it seem like it's a systemic issue whereby lots and lots of people are voting illegally. Is there evidence this is true? I haven't seen it.