US Voting Rules & ID Requirements

VonZan · 28-01-2018 10:58pm #1

By ‘voter supression’ are you referring to the ID laws in certain states?

eire4 · 29-01-2018 12:09am

VonZan wrote: »

By ‘voter supression’ are you referring to the ID laws in certain states?

That would be one of the common methods used in voter suppression efforts yes. But there are other methods used as well such as purging the voter roles, cutting opening hours, cutting early voting days, changing voting locations and poll watchers indulging in some good old fashioned intimidation as some examples of voter suppression currently par for the course in the US.

Overheal · 29-01-2018 3:14am

VonZan wrote: »

By ‘voter supression’ are you referring to the ID laws in certain states?

Voter suppression wears several hats: voter ID is one, restricting early voting and mail-in ballots, closing polling places, are others. My personal favorite is voter registration roll purges which seem to only happen in the election year, rather than immediately following an election which would give voters a much more reasonable period of time to re-register.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/7/13545718/voter-suppression-early-voting-2016

29-01-2018 7:01am

I'm yet to hear a compelling argument about why voter ID laws benefit the Republicans.

"Making people require ID stops them from voting." Well if you can't organise an ID card, you probably don't deserve a vote. If you're saying your party's demographic can't organise ID in general, that's just insulting. My brother was illegal over there and had a driving license, so surely a citizen can get one.

For reference: Texas requirements.
Texas driver license
Texas Election Identification Certificate
Texas personal identification card
Texas license to carry a handgun
United States military identification card
United States citizenship certificate
United States passport

As far as I'm aware, that was deemed discriminatory against black / Latino voters, so you can vote by signing a declaration and showing a utility bill.

Could someone please explain why that is discriminatory against those two races in particular?

And why would you not support the removal of the ID requirement in Ireland, while supporting it over there?

Really Interested · 29-01-2018 8:38am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I'm yet to hear a compelling argument about why voter ID laws benefit the Republicans.

"Making people require ID stops them from voting." Well if you can't organise an ID card, you probably don't deserve a vote. If you're saying your party's demographic can't organise ID in general, that's just insulting. My brother was illegal over there and had a driving license, so surely a citizen can get one.

For reference: Texas requirements.
Texas driver license
Texas Election Identification Certificate
Texas personal identification card
Texas license to carry a handgun
United States military identification card
United States citizenship certificate
United States passport

As far as I'm aware, that was deemed discriminatory against black / Latino voters, so you can vote by signing a declaration and showing a utility bill.

Could someone please explain why that is discriminatory against those two races in particular?

And why would you not support the removal of the ID requirement in Ireland, while supporting it over there?

Because historically those two groups have lower numbers who have for example driving licences. It’s not the requirement to have photo ID it’s that in some cases the ID required is often not held by a certain group.

http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2012/jul/11/eric-holder/eric-holder-says-recent-studies-show-25-percent-af/

That’s a lot of black voters excluded 25%. In most cases their is a cost to get the ID. Would you be in favour of a charge to register to vote or a charge to get a voting card. Also there is often only a certain number of offices in a state that issue the cards, meaning a person who does not drive has to travel some distance and pay money to get a ID card for one purpose only that being to vote.

If it was shown that ID law in Ireland excluded a group then I would oppose the law, in any event there is a free photo ID card in Ireland that is easy to get.

29-01-2018 9:04am

These same people seemingly can't buy alcohol or go on a flight, because they haven't paid the $25 fee to get a driving license in Texas.

A voting system's integrity being thrown away because 25% of black men and women don't bother with IDs is farcical in my opinion. And if only 50% of people vote, I find it unlikely that the people who live life without ID were gonna vote.

It's 2018. Not 1968. They can get ID if they want it.

Why would you only get rid of ID in Ireland if it stopped someone voting? Why not just get rid of it now? There are people here with no ID so let's let them vote.

Really Interested · 29-01-2018 9:17am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

These same people seemingly can't buy alcohol or go on a flight, because they haven't paid the $25 fee to get a driving license in Texas.

A voting system's integrity being thrown away because 25% of black men and women don't bother with IDs is farcical in my opinion. And if only 50% of people vote, I find it unlikely that the people who live life without ID were gonna vote.

It's 2018. Not 1968. They can get ID if they want it.

Why would you only get rid of ID in Ireland if it stopped someone voting? Why not just get rid of it now? There are people here with no ID so let's let them vote.

Why require photo ID can you point at widespread voter fraud in Ireland or USA. I am registered to vote in Ireland and have never required Photo ID to vote in any Seanad or Dail presidential or referendum vote.

The SC in the US has upheld voter ID laws and struck down some the issue usually comes down to is it shown that the laws suppress certain groups.

1% being stopped can flip an election. If that is done by fraud or voter suppression it is wrong.

In the last 3 presidential elections more people voted Democratic yet through issues with districts the Republicans control most state legislators and the federal house.

strandroad · 29-01-2018 9:33am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

These same people seemingly can't buy alcohol or go on a flight, because they haven't paid the $25 fee to get a driving license in Texas.

A voting system's integrity being thrown away because 25% of black men and women don't bother with IDs is farcical in my opinion. And if only 50% of people vote, I find it unlikely that the people who live life without ID were gonna vote.

It's 2018. Not 1968. They can get ID if they want it.

Why would you only get rid of ID in Ireland if it stopped someone voting? Why not just get rid of it now? There are people here with no ID so let's let them vote.

Suprisingly many people don't fly or indeed leave their locality. Car ownership is much lower in certain demographics (also relevant to so called food deserts). To get a driving license just to vote they need to sit a test and pay, and the process is made even harder if office locations are closed and hours restricted, meaning that the person needs to take time off work to travel to another location, forgoing a days pay if they can take it off at all. There is no annual leave as we know it in minimum wage jobs.
There are activist driven initiatives set up specifically to give people lifts to office locations and help them navigate the obstacles so that they do not need to take multiple days off to get it sorted. But even with help to get an ID means to spend money while losing pay, and many people can't afford it.

Really Interested · 29-01-2018 9:37am

strandroad wrote: »

Suprisingly many people don't fly or indeed leave their locality. Car ownership is much lower in certain demographics (also relevant to so called food deserts). To get a driving license just to vote they need to sit a test and pay, and the process is made even harder if office locations are closed and hours restricted, meaning that the person needs to take time off work to travel to another location, forgoing a days pay if they can take it off at all. There is no annual leave as we know it in minimum wage jobs.
There are activist driven initiatives set up specifically to give people lifts to office locations and help them navigate the obstacles so that they do not need to take multiple days off to get it sorted. But even with help to get a driving ID means to spend money while losing pay, and many people can't afford it.

According to some people including it would seem Adds By Google poor people should not be allowed to vote because of some voter fraud funny all studies seem to say that does not exist

https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/debunking-voter-fraud-myth

Leroy42 · 29-01-2018 9:38am

Really Interested wrote: »

Why require photo ID can you point at widespread voter fraud in Ireland or USA. I am registered to vote in Ireland and have never required Photo ID to vote in any Seanad or Dail presidential or referendum vote.

The SC in the US has upheld voter ID laws and struck down some the issue usually comes down to is it shown that the laws suppress certain groups.

1% being stopped can flip an election. If that is done by fraud or voter suppression it is wrong.

In the last 3 presidential elections more people voted Democratic yet through issues with districts the Republicans control most state legislators and the federal house.

On the flip side, voting in an election is a serious business and should be taken seriously by both the institutions of the state and the citizens.

Whilst I have never been asked, or at least can't recall being asked, for any more ID than the voting card at a polling station, the requirements are clearly laid out and I bring ID with me each time and would not feel hard done by or persecuted if I was asked. It is about maintaining the credibility of the poll.

In terms of citizens responsibilities, surely it is the least that one should ask of any citizen that they partake in the system. If that means applying for some of of ID then so be it. I mean, I bet they have FB accounts, and Amazon accounts and loads of other things that they willing give mountains of personal data away for free, as well as devoting large amounts of time to, but they seemingly can't organise themselves to get ID.

In regards to the offices being in another town, its not an everyday trip. Once every 5/10 years. Hardly too much too ask for people who state they love freedom and the sacrifices of the military.

I mentioned it before, but the DNC should be concentrating all their efforts into getting the 50% odd of people that currently do not vote in POTUS elections to register and to vote. Given the demographics of those people it would likely lead to a landslide, at least in the short term, for them.

In saying all the above, I do appreciate that voter suppression in the US is more hostile than here and that far more barriers, and far more targeted. But these people need to fight back rather than simply accept it.

Stop moaning about it and organise bus trips to the state office to get ID. Get the Vote out type orgs in the town and villages most affected. Explain the possible effects that their combined voice could have.

In at bottom of it is that the DNC are really that interested in changing it either. Mobilising such a large volume would likely see the current 2 party system destroyed as I get the feeling that the DNC is only supported due to it being the least worst option.

Really Interested · 29-01-2018 9:43am

Leroy42 wrote: »

On the flip side, voting in an election is a serious business and should be taken seriously by both the institutions of the state and the citizens.

Whilst I have never been asked, or at least can't recall being asked, for any more ID than the voting card at a polling station, the requirements are clearly laid out and I bring ID with me each time and would not feel hard done by or persecuted if I was asked. It is about maintaining the credibility of the poll.

In terms of citizens responsibilities, surely it is the least that one should ask of any citizen that they partake in the system. If that means applying for some of of ID then so be it. I mean, I bet they have FB accounts, and Amazon accounts and loads of other things that they willing give mountains of personal data away for free, as well as devoting large amounts of time to, but they seemingly can't organise themselves to get ID.

In regards to the offices being in another town, its not an everyday trip. Once every 5/10 years. Hardly too much too ask for people who state they love freedom and the sacrifices of the military.

I mentioned it before, but the DNC should be concentrating all their efforts into getting the 50% odd of people that currently do not vote in POTUS elections to register and to vote. Given the demographics of those people it would likely lead to a landslide, at least in the short term, for them.

In saying all the above, I do appreciate that voter suppression in the US is more hostile than here and that far more barriers, and far more targeted. But these people need to fight back rather than simply accept it.

Stop moaning about it and organise bus trips to the state office to get ID. Get the Vote out type orgs in the town and villages most affected. Explain the possible effects that their combined voice could have.

In at bottom of it is that the DNC are really that interested in changing it either. Mobilising such a large volume would likely see the current 2 party system destroyed as I get the feeling that the DNC is only supported due to it being the least worst option.

https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/debunking-voter-fraud-myth

Can you show any instance of serious voter fraud?

I have no issue with ID what I have is when the ID picked means that a % of one group are disenfranchised.

The issue of the two party system is a totally different issue and many of the founding fathers argued against any political party I for one agree with them.

29-01-2018 9:49am

Really Interested wrote: »

https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/debunking-voter-fraud-myth

Can you show any instance of serious voter fraud?

I have no issue with ID what I have is when the ID picked means that a % of one group are disenfranchised.

The issue of the two party system is a totally different issue and many of the founding fathers argued against any political party I for one agree with them.

I'm not sure how there could ever be a good example for that question. Wouldn't it require thousands of people getting caught on the same day?

It's a bit silly to know about all of the identities borrowed and used to send the FCC comments, and then argue for a system that makes it trivial to commit similar voter fraud.

Leroy42 · 29-01-2018 9:51am

Really Interested wrote: »

https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/debunking-voter-fraud-myth

Can you show any instance of serious voter fraud?

I have no issue with ID what I have is when the ID picked means that a % of one group are disenfranchised.

The issue of the two party system is a totally different issue and many of the founding fathers argued against any political party I for one agree with them.

By why should it only be about voter fraud? I see it as a responsibility on behalf of the citizen to do what is needed to partake. millions of Americans (and plenty more across other democracies) seemingly think that voting is just too much hassle.

Why wouldn't the GOP look to curtail their input when it seems they are so willing to simply accept it. If driving licences are the issue then why aren't they marching to get something else in place?

My view is the democracy is a responsibility, not simply a right. Along with having to educate yourself on the issues you need to invest time to get your voice heard.

It is the same with students in Ireland complaining about voting on Thursday. Either make the effort to arrange to get home in time to vote or change your voting district. It just takes a bit of effort.

Really Interested · 29-01-2018 10:01am

Leroy42 wrote: »

By why should it only be about voter fraud? I see it as a responsibility on behalf of the citizen to do what is needed to partake. millions of Americans (and plenty more across other democracies) seemingly think that voting is just too much hassle.

Why wouldn't the GOP look to curtail their input when it seems they are so willing to simply accept it. If driving licences are the issue then why aren't they marching to get something else in place?

My view is the democracy is a responsibility, not simply a right. Along with having to educate yourself on the issues you need to invest time to get your voice heard.

It is the same with students in Ireland complaining about voting on Thursday. Either make the effort to arrange to get home in time to vote or change your voting district. It just takes a bit of effort.

Until recently phot ID did not exist, I have no problem with ID laws if they are legal and required but like the Courts in the USA I have issue with any law which is in effect voter suppression https://www.google.ie/amp/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN1571YS

“The justices let stand a July 2016 decision by a lower court that found that the 2011 Texas statute ran afoul of a federal law that bars racial discrimination in elections and directed a lower court to find a way to fix the law's discriminatory effects against minorities.”

Do you agree with that decision or not?

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/526713/

“The Supreme Court declined to review the law that lower courts found to be discriminatory, but made no judgment on the merits of the policy.”

To be clear I have no issue with any law a country or state want to bring in for voting, what I and it would seem Courts have a problem with is when the law in effect breaches the constitution or other laws.

Do you think it’s ok for a State to ignore the rulings of the Supreme Court?

Would you be in favour of a free easy to get national voting card?

Leroy42 · 29-01-2018 10:24am

Really Interested wrote: »

Until recently phot ID did not exist, I have no problem with ID laws if they are legal and required but like the Courts in the USA I have issue with any law which is in effect voter suppression https://www.google.ie/amp/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN1571YS

“The justices let stand a July 2016 decision by a lower court that found that the 2011 Texas statute ran afoul of a federal law that bars racial discrimination in elections and directed a lower court to find a way to fix the law's discriminatory effects against minorities.”

Do you agree with that decision or not?

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/526713/

“The Supreme Court declined to review the law that lower courts found to be discriminatory, but made no judgment on the merits of the policy.”

To be clear I have no issue with any law a country or state want to bring in for voting, what I and it would seem Courts have a problem with is when the law in effect breaches the constitution or other laws.

Do you think it’s ok for a State to ignore the rulings of the Supreme Court?

They are two separate, but closely linked, things. One is voter ID, the other is voter suppression.

No, of course I don't agree with ignoring the courts, the constitution or the law in general. Any voter ID system should be applicable to everyone and available to everyone on an equal basis. That doesn't mean that it has to be free (in terms of money) of involve no investment in terms of time or travel by some people.

The way it is painted, there would appears to be millions of Americans who don't drive, own guns, drink, every travel outside their home town. I don't believe that such a large number of them exist.

It goes back to Ads by Google original point (or at least what I took to be the point) that it is not suppression simply because people find it difficult. It is fairly easy, in many cases, to overcome the attempted suppression so it can only be assumed that people simple don't care enough to ensure they are the necessary.

For example, I find it staggering to see the lines of voters outside the polling stations in the US and how long people are prepared to que. But sometimes that is the price to pay for being a citizen.

Quin_Dub · 29-01-2018 10:40am

Leroy42 wrote: »

They are two separate, but closely linked, things. One is voter ID, the other is voter suppression.

No, of course I don't agree with ignoring the courts, the constitution or the law in general. Any voter ID system should be applicable to everyone and available to everyone on an equal basis. That doesn't mean that it has to be free (in terms of money) of involve no investment in terms of time or travel by some people.

The way it is painted, there would appears to be millions of Americans who don't drive, own guns, drink, every travel outside their home town. I don't believe that such a large number of them exist.

It goes back to Ads by Google original point (or at least what I took to be the point) that it is not suppression simply because people find it difficult. It is fairly easy, in many cases, to overcome the attempted suppression so it can only be assumed that people simple don't care enough to ensure they are the necessary.

For example, I find it staggering to see the lines of voters outside the polling stations in the US and how long people are prepared to que. But sometimes that is the price to pay for being a citizen.

I've often wondered about that myself.

Why do they have such extensive queues?

Is it limited number of polling booths , limited opening hours?

I don't think I've ever seen a queue outside the building in Ireland and I personally have never had to wait more than a minute or two for a booth to free up to vote.

Given the generally low turn-out in US elections , what causes these queues?

Really Interested · 29-01-2018 10:43am

Leroy42 wrote: »

They are two separate, but closely linked, things. One is voter ID, the other is voter suppression.

No, of course I don't agree with ignoring the courts, the constitution or the law in general. Any voter ID system should be applicable to everyone and available to everyone on an equal basis. That doesn't mean that it has to be free (in terms of money) of involve no investment in terms of time or travel by some people.

The way it is painted, there would appears to be millions of Americans who don't drive, own guns, drink, every travel outside their home town. I don't believe that such a large number of them exist.

It goes back to Ads by Google original point (or at least what I took to be the point) that it is not suppression simply because people find it difficult. It is fairly easy, in many cases, to overcome the attempted suppression so it can only be assumed that people simple don't care enough to ensure they are the necessary.

For example, I find it staggering to see the lines of voters outside the polling stations in the US and how long people are prepared to que. But sometimes that is the price to pay for being a citizen.

The Supreme has upheld some voter ID laws and struck down those that target a group or groups of people.

I do not think there should be any charge to vote. In relation to going to a office I have no issue as long as no group are disadvantaged. For example only having one office in a large state say where 90% of the Hispanic population live while the white population and Black population live say min 3 hours drive away.

Voter suppression can be linked with ID laws when it is it should be stamped out.

I have made it clear I have no issue with voter ID laws as long as such laws do not disadvantage a particular group. Of course any law may make it difficult to vote (not having a voting station at every home) but having voting stations does not disenfranchise a particular group it just means every person must go to the station and at times wait in a line.

What I can not understand is what is both your view and that of Adds by google to the decision of courts that some voter ID laws did amount to voter suppression?

Leroy42 · 29-01-2018 10:44am

Quin_Dub wrote: »

I've often wondered about that myself.

Why do they have such extensive queues?

Is it limited number of polling booths , limited opening hours?

I don't think I've ever seen a queue outside the building in Ireland and I personally have never had to wait more than a minute or two for a booth to free up to vote.

Given the generally low turn-out in US elections , what causes these queues?

Now this I do believe is voter suppression. It would appear that they simply do not provide enough stations, or maybe time, to make the voting a simple and efficient process.

And it must have a negative impact of voters that are weighing up voting, when faced with an 1+ que will simply opt out.

Really Interested · 29-01-2018 10:50am

Quin_Dub wrote: »

I've often wondered about that myself.

Why do they have such extensive queues?

Is it limited number of polling booths , limited opening hours?

I don't think I've ever seen a queue outside the building in Ireland and I personally have never had to wait more than a minute or two for a booth to free up to vote.

Given the generally low turn-out in US elections , what causes these queues?

https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/long-voting-lines-explained

There are many reasons for long lines, but it must be remembered US elections are not just pick the president and go, there can be many ballots for federal, state local level with many elections at each level. Add that each state or county looks after the voting.

Nody · 29-01-2018 10:52am

Leroy42 wrote: »

It goes back to Ads by Google original point (or at least what I took to be the point) that it is not suppression simply because people find it difficult. It is fairly easy, in many cases, to overcome the attempted suppression so it can only be assumed that people simple don't care enough to ensure they are the necessary.

For example, I find it staggering to see the lines of voters outside the polling stations in the US and how long people are prepared to que. But sometimes that is the price to pay for being a citizen.

When you implement the law of requiring photo ID and shut down all offices bar one single location in middle of no where to be open 2h a month only to issue them you are actively trying to suppress voters.

Leroy42 · 29-01-2018 10:52am

Really Interested wrote: »

What I can not understand is what is both your view and that of Adds by google to the decision of courts that some voter ID laws did amount to voter suppression?

I can't speak for AbG, but from my POV, we are both agreeing and disagreeing at the same time.

I too am against voter suppression, and it is clear from the link that the courts agree as well. And it is clearly a case of utilising the laws to target certain groups.

My point is that why are they accepting that. There is no way for the groups to be stopped from meeting the requirements. That they currently don't is being utilised to keep them from voting but it is, relatively, easy to overcome.

No charge to vote, but there is a cost to being a citizen. Be that social responsibility, adherence to accepted norms and customs etc, it seems that certain people think they carry no responsibility to play an active role. For example, it take time to review the options out their and decide which option best supports your view. It is too easy to simply say "I always vote GOP/DNC". That is not taking your democratic responsibility seriously.

Are the laws fair for everyone? I agree that many of them place more burdens on certain sections than others. But the way to correct that is to put in place those people who will even it out, and you achieve that by taking part.

Lets see how many of those that feel they were suppressed at the 2016 election will take action to ensure they have a voice in 2020.

Leroy42 · 29-01-2018 10:57am

Nody wrote: »

When you implement the law of requiring photo ID and shut down all offices bar one single location in middle of no where to be open 2h a month only to issue them you are actively trying to suppress voters.

So how do their voters get registered, surely that means that are no voters at all?

I agree that it is attempting to suppress, but it is still open to everyone to try to register.

I am not saying it is not happening, and not trying to suggest that it is anything other that a deliberate attempt to rig the vote, but rather that it is in the hands of the people to overcome it.

Demand more offices, hold rallies, marches, demand action from the local rep. Demand the DNC to take the issue seriously. Start of campaign. Hell, you think the likes of ML King didn't face far worse than having to travel to register?

Really Interested · 29-01-2018 11:04am

Leroy42 wrote: »

I can't speak for AbG, but from my POV, we are both agreeing and disagreeing and the same time.

I too am against voter suppression, and it is clear from the link that the courts agree as well. But that is clearly a case of utilising the laws to target certain groups.

My point is that why are they accepting that. There is no way for the groups to be stopped from meeting the requirements. That they currently don't is being utilised to keep them from voting but it is, relatively, easy to overcome.

No charge to vote, but there is a cost to being a citizen. Be that social responsibility, adherence to accepted norms and customs etc, it seems that certain people think they carry no responsibility to play an active role. For example, it take time to review the options out their and decide which option best supports your view. It is too easy to simply say "I always vote GOP/DNC". That is not taking your democratic responsibility seriously.

Are the laws fair for everyone? I agree that many of them place more burdens on certain sections than others. But the way to correct that is to put in place those people who will even it out, and you achieve that by taking part.

Lets see how many of those that feel they were suppressed at the 2016 election will take action to ensure they have a voice in 2020.

There have been active measures in some parts of the USA to stop non white voting. Not allowing people to vote unless they had a grand parent who entitled to vote pre 1860’s having impossible tests for African Americans only.

The test now is simple any impediment to voting which I accept exist in any system must be fair. Say for example putting more machines per head in rich areas or Spanish speaking areas are on the face unfair. On first glance ID laws may be fair but when looked into they may put a greater burden on people who are poor or different race or religion if that is proven then the law is unfair for some more than others.

Nody · 29-01-2018 11:08am

Leroy42 wrote: »

So how do their voters get registered, surely that means that are no voters at all?

Not to register; to get a valid photo ID if you don't have a driver license or passport. Something which every statistic shows that the groups least likely to have one happen to be colored, poor and/or elderly.

I am not saying it is not happening, and not trying to suggest that it is anything other that a deliberate attempt to rig the vote, but rather that it is in the hands of the people to overcome it.

The appeals court noted that the North Carolina Legislature "requested data on the use, by race, of a number of voting practices"—then, data in hand, "enacted legislation that restricted voting and registration in five different ways, all of which disproportionately affected African Americans." The changes to the voting process "target African Americans with almost surgical precision," and "impose cures for problems that did not exist."

That's an excerpt from the 4th Circuit court on one such ruling; want to take a wild guess at which party tried to implement it?

Or how about Texas law (also slapped down) which allowed:

"Part of that has to do with the type of photo IDs the Legislature designated as legitimate. For example, military IDs and concealed handgun carry permits — they're lawful to vote. But state employee photo IDs and university photo IDs are not.

"So in federal court, the plaintiff's lawyers have argued successfully that the Legislature approved ID cards that were more likely to be held by white Republican voters and excluded IDs that were more likely to be held by minority Democrats."

So even with photo IDs available one party got favoured over the other by limiting what was suddenly acceptable.

Demand more offices, hold rallies, marches, demand action from the local rep. Demand the DNC to take the issue seriously. Start of campaign. Hell, you think the likes of ML King didn't face far worse than having to travel to register?

Your local rep is only worth something if he can be voted into power in the first place; removing a significant group of voters for one party tends to skew that far better than any gerrymandering can do. Voter ID is a great idea if you give everyone a free ID from an local location they can reasonably be expected to get to under their circumstances. Putting it hours away by car and only open for 2 hours a month to ensure poor people can't get an ID is not; and that's in essence what 99% of all voter ID laws come down to in practice. A way to restrict those more likely to vote Democrat by adding hurdles for no other reason than to stop them from voting (because if the actual claim of voter fraud was true there would be specific state issued IDs to everyone for free instead).

Really Interested · 29-01-2018 11:11am

Leroy42 wrote: »

So how do their voters get registered, surely that means that are no voters at all?

I agree that it is attempting to suppress, but it is still open to everyone to try to register.

I am not saying it is not happening, and not trying to suggest that it is anything other that a deliberate attempt to rig the vote, but rather that it is in the hands of the people to overcome it.

Demand more offices, hold rallies, marches, demand action from the local rep. Demand the DNC to take the issue seriously. Start of campaign. Hell, you think the likes of ML King didn't face far worse than having to travel to register?

Every thing you advice doing has been done. But some times those in power can only be ordered to change the system by the courts.

https://www.google.ie/amp/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKCN11M0WY

It’s not that it’s difficult to vote but that some people are making it more difficult for certain people to vote. Imagine in certain states it was shown that day 30,000 did not vote because it was made more difficult for them.

strandroad · 29-01-2018 11:21am

Leroy42 wrote: »

So how do their voters get registered, surely that means that are no voters at all?

I agree that it is attempting to suppress, but it is still open to everyone to try to register.

I am not saying it is not happening, and not trying to suggest that it is anything other that a deliberate attempt to rig the vote, but rather that it is in the hands of the people to overcome it.

Demand more offices, hold rallies, marches, demand action from the local rep. Demand the DNC to take the issue seriously. Start of campaign. Hell, you think the likes of ML King didn't face far worse than having to travel to register?

It's easy to register if you own a car (driving license) or travel abroad (passport), and not easy otherwise. Note how the two factors above are powerful social strata filters in themselves. If you're in, you don't care and you have trouble understanding why others are complaining.

In terms of initiatives, there are plenty. I was trying to find links to articles I saw on the subject, basically shadowing volunteer helpers - they are growing their networks and there are definitely kept busy. What they note is not just how difficult it is to access the office or that posting or uploading paperwork is often not allowed, but also how the requirements are often changing on the fly - you help someone to the office to get their state ID, and suddenly it turns out that the selection of documents required is no longer sufficient or appropriate, and the officer waves them away and requires another visit. Sometimes it's due to frequent legislation updates too, as this area is politically very active in republican states especially. These problems are compounded for people living in a different state that they were born in. All keeping in mind that often we are talking about very disadvantaged population whose parents did not exactly line up their birth certificates for them, or who are obese or infirm. No annual leave, no childcare etc.

Most of it can be overcome of course, but it's no wonder that in certain demographics the process is much longer and more likely to make people drop out if financial or personal costs become prohibitive. Or not attempt it at all if they hear about the experience of others in the same boat.

29-01-2018 11:29am

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm yet to hear a compelling argument about why voter ID laws benefit the Republicans.

Really? If you want to argue about intent then go right ahead but you really haven't heard an compelling argument about how making it harder for poor people and minorites to vote benefits Republicans?

29-01-2018 11:30am

Anyway there's a few issues. Some states won't accept state college IDs, out of state drivers licences etc. It's a ****show really.

29-01-2018 11:43am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Really? If you want to argue about intent then go right ahead but you really haven't heard an compelling argument about how making it harder for poor people and minorites to vote benefits Republicans?

I've heard of the voting booth location stuff and that I agree with as being a bad thing. It's like this sort of stuff should be taken care of my a separate impartial agency.

As for the voter ID stuff specifically, I'm not yet convinced and don't think I ever will be. Election campaigns can last for like two years and I think there is a more than reasonable amount of time for someone to get ID. If 25% of black people don't have one, that means 75% do, so it is possible.

The other big voter suppression thing, though I'm not sure how intentional it was, is NY requiring you to declare your party 193 days before the primaries. That impacted Sanders in a very big way there.

Really Interested · 29-01-2018 11:50am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I've heard of the voting booth location stuff and that I agree with as being a bad thing. It's like this sort of stuff should be taken care of my a separate impartial agency.

As for the voter ID stuff specifically, I'm not yet convinced and don't think I ever will be. Election campaigns can last for like two years and I think there is a more than reasonable amount of time for someone to get ID. If 25% of black people don't have one, that means 75% do, so it is possible.

The other big voter suppression thing, though I'm not sure how intentional it was, is NY requiring you to declare your party 193 days before the primaries. That impacted Sanders in a very big way there.

So you think the US Supreme Court in its Ruling not to hear the Texas case are wrong?

29-01-2018 11:53am

Deleted User wrote: »

I've heard of the voting booth location stuff and that I agree with as being a bad thing. It's like this sort of stuff should be taken care of my a separate impartial agency.

As for the voter ID stuff specifically, I'm not yet convinced and don't think I ever will be. Election campaigns can last for like two years and I think there is a more than reasonable amount of time for someone to get ID. If 25% of black people don't have one, that means 75% do, so it is possible.

The other big voter suppression thing, though I'm not sure how intentional it was, is NY requiring you to declare your party 193 days before the primaries. That impacted Sanders in a very big way there.

You're still going around the issue.

Do you honestly not think that for the set of people "suppressed" that them not voting doesn't directly benefit the Republicans? Forget about intent or implied laziness or anything else, of all those laws do you genuinely need to see a "compelling argument" that it benefits the Republicans over the Democrats?

29-01-2018 1:13pm

Really Interested wrote: »

So you think the US Supreme Court in its Ruling not to hear the Texas case are wrong?

I'm not an American lawyer. I used Texas because it was quiet famous for this.

Deleted User wrote: »

You're still going around the issue.

Do you honestly not think that for the set of people "suppressed" that them not voting doesn't directly benefit the Republicans? Forget about intent or implied laziness or anything else, of all those laws do you genuinely need to see a "compelling argument" that it benefits the Republicans over the Democrats?

I'm not skirting the issue. I'm questioning it's very existence and arguing that even if it does exist, it's an pretty easy hurdle to get over. $25 fees are within reach of anyone.

Telling me that 25% of black people don't have ID isn't a compelling argument, or one at all. It's just a percentage. If Republicans benefit from black people not bothering to get an ID, then the answer to that shouldn't be to compromise the security of the voting system in the hopes that a few of them with make it to a polling booth.

Pew Research estimated that 1.6 million illegal immigrants lived in Texas in 2014. Considering that the state's total votes was just over 8 million, that's a disproportionately high number of aliens vs. total votes.

To compare to Ireland, that would be like having 400,000 illegal immigrants here, most of whom would vote for a certain party, and then saying that because a percentage of a percentage of our population don't have IDs, we should just do away with the requirement. That's ignoring other basic scams like citizens voting multiple times for family members or dead people in other polling stations, if you know they won't vote.

The common thread of thought I see everywhere when I'm looking up the reasons for this lack of IDs, is that they don't have much use for them. But voting is a use for them, so go get one. Nothing is really stopping them.

demfad · 29-01-2018 1:21pm

Not sure if this was reported already:

Dutch intelligence hacked into the Russian hacking group Cosy bear in 2014:

Over the course of a few months, they saw how the Russians penetrated several U.S. institutions, including the State Department, the White House, and the DNC. On all these occasions, the Dutch alerted the U.S. intelligence services, Dutch tv programme Nieuwsuur and de Volkskrant, a prominent newspaper in The Netherlands, jointly report on Thursday. This account is based on interviews with a dozen political, diplomatic and intelligence sources in The Netherlands and the U.S. with direct knowledge of the matter. None of them wanted to speak on the record, given the classified details of the matter.

So it was not crowdstrike who spotted that Russian Intel it was Dutch Intelligence. US Intel could not say this as it would compromise the Dutch operation. These is verification, outside the US that the Russians hacked the DNC server.

Unfortunately their cover was blown in 2017:

As of now, the AIVD hackers do not seem to have access to Cozy Bear any longer. Sources suggest that the openness of US intelligence sources, who in 2017 praised the help of a Western ally in news stories, may have ruined their operation. The openness caused great anger in The Hague and Zoetermeer. In the television programme College Tour, this month, AIVD director Bertholee stated that he is extra careful when it comes to sharing intelligence with the U.S., now that Donald Trump is President.

The Dutch here are de facto saying that Trump is a Russian asset who blew their cover.

The reason all of this is not bigger news is that the Trump/Mercer/Putin/Wikileaks/Fox news disinformation and propaganda amplification machine (in conjunction with gullible MSM) has succeeded in drowning out real news.

Really Interested · 29-01-2018 1:23pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I'm not an American lawyer. I used Texas because it was quiet famous for this.

I'm not skirting the issue. I'm questioning it's very existence and arguing that even if it does exist, it's an pretty easy hurdle to get over. $25 fees are within reach of anyone.

Telling me that 25% of black people don't have ID isn't a compelling argument, or one at all. It's just a percentage. If Republicans benefit from black people not bothering to get an ID, then the answer to that shouldn't be to compromise the security of the voting system in the hopes that a few of them with make it to a polling booth.

Pew Research estimated that 1.6 million illegal immigrants lived in Texas in 2014. Considering that the state's total votes was just over 8 million, that's a disproportionately high number of aliens vs. total votes.

To compare to Ireland, that would be like having 400,000 illegal immigrants here, most of whom would vote for a certain party, and then saying that because a percentage of a percentage of our population don't have IDs, we should just do away with the requirement. That's ignoring other basic scams like citizens voting multiple times for family members or dead people in other polling stations, if you know they won't vote.

The common thread of thought I see everywhere when I'm looking up the reasons for this lack of IDs, is that they don't have much use for them. But voting is a use for them, so go get one. Nothing is really stopping them.

You are ignoring the real issue. No one is saying you can’t introdce ID requirement or any rule you want the courts have said so what can’t be done is introduce a rule that’s effect is to stop a particular group from voting. It does not matter that the person can get the ID what matters is the effect.

So again the Texas District Court decided the law in Texas was for that effect the Federal Circuit court agreed so rightly a law was struck down. Do you think that decision was correct simple yes or no answer if you think it was right then you agree with me if you think it was wrong then you agree that a law can as it’s can disenfranchise a particular group more than another, so why do you think that’s ok?

Leroy42 · 29-01-2018 1:26pm

But now AbG, you are mixing up illegal immigrants with voting ID. No one is claiming that anybody should just be able to walk in and cast a vote. They still need to be on the register and need to be legal to do that.

What is being discussed is whether the GOP are using the same type of argument that you have, ie we need to ensure no illegals vote, as a excuse to make registering and voting increasingly difficult which is markedly more difficult for certain sections of society.

Where I do agree with you is that claiming 25% can't vote menas 75% can and therefore we need to look at how the white voters are getting registered and the 75% of black of getting registered but not he 25%.

Is it solely down to suppression (links have been posted to show that there is evidence of this) or does it also involve a lack of engagement on their part (my theory). My view is that each citizen has a responsibility to make sure they have a vote (or that is the law) and should be prepared to invest (be that time or money) to ensure they exercise that right..

You can bet that, except in the most extreme cases, these people spend money on beer, cigarettes, football, guns, cars, or whatever. Making a choice to forgo some of these things to ensure you have a voice is not exactly a major sacrifice.

That brings me to the next point, that even if they do register, they feel it is pointless as things won't change and in that respect, despite what the DNC might claim, they aren't really interested in changing the system. It is just that the GOP are far more ruthless in driving through the advantage.

29-01-2018 2:18pm

Really Interested wrote: »

You are ignoring the real issue. No one is saying you can’t introdce ID requirement or any rule you want the courts have said so what can’t be done is introduce a rule that’s effect is to stop a particular group from voting. It does not matter that the person can get the ID what matters is the effect.

So again the Texas District Court decided the law in Texas was for that effect the Federal Circuit court agreed so rightly a law was struck down. Do you think that decision was correct simple yes or no answer if you think it was right then you agree with me if you think it was wrong then you agree that a law can as it’s can disenfranchise a particular group more than another, so why do you think that’s ok?

So my two options are agreeing with you or making a statement that I'm a bad person?

My third option where I think protecting the legitimacy of the vote, in a system where everyone can get an ID the same as the next person, just disappeared.

Leroy42 wrote: »

But now AbG, you are mixing up illegal immigrants with voting ID. No one is claiming that anybody should just be able to walk in and cast a vote. They still need to be on the register and need to be legal to do that.

What is being discussed is whether the GOP are using the same type of argument that you have, ie we need to ensure no illegals vote, as a excuse to make registering and voting increasingly difficult which is markedly more difficult for certain sections of society.

Where I do agree with you is that claiming 25% can't vote menas 75% can and therefore we need to look at how the white voters are getting registered and the 75% of black of getting registered but not he 25%.

Is it solely down to suppression (links have been posted to show that there is evidence of this) or does it also involve a lack of engagement on their part (my theory). My view is that each citizen has a responsibility to make sure they have a vote (or that is the law) and should be prepared to invest (be that time or money) to ensure they exercise that right..

You can bet that, except in the most extreme cases, these people spend money on beer, cigarettes, football, guns, cars, or whatever. Making a choice to forgo some of these things to ensure you have a voice is not exactly a major sacrifice.

That brings me to the next point, that even if they do register, they feel it is pointless as things won't change and in that respect, despite what the DNC might claim, they aren't really interested in changing the system. It is just that the GOP are far more ruthless in driving through the advantage.

I'm not mixing anything up.. I mentioned fraud from citizens which is widespread enough that it should be stopped.

And I'm not some conspiracy loon for knowing what people said in those Project Veritas videos where voter fraud is being discussed. While the editing sucks, they did say those things.

The first 25 seconds of this video is uncut and describes voter fraud. You can hate O'Keefe and you can call him a hack, but you cannot tell me that those 25 seconds should be ignored because of who made it or who it was trying to aid / attack.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUDTcxIqqM0

If you have an issue with those 25 seconds, or think they're nonsense, please explain why.

That video as an important official saying people get bussed around from polling station to polling station. I just find it frankly ridiculous to argue against ID because a segment of the population doesn't bother getting one. Fraud exists and allowing it a willful affront to democracy.

29-01-2018 2:23pm

The first thing you said was:

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm yet to hear a compelling argument about why voter ID laws benefit the Republicans.

So while those impacted by the voter ID laws all skew Democrat you still need a "compelling argument" that the Republicans benefit by making it harder for those groups to vote.

Simple question, if you take the people affected by the voter ID laws and break them down into whether they're likely to vote Democrat or Republican, what would you think?

You made a laughable point right at the start and are now changing it completely. Republicans benefit at the poll from the voter ID laws. It's clear and obvious. If you wish to talk about the principle of the laws or anything else that's a separate issue.

29-01-2018 2:26pm

Deleted User wrote: »

The first thing you said was:

So while those impacted by the voter ID laws all skew Democrat you still need a "compelling argument" that the Republicans benefit by making it harder for those groups to vote.

Simple question, if you take the people affected by the voter ID laws and break them down into whether they're likely to vote Democrat or Republican, what would you think?

You made a laughable point right at the start and are now changing it completely. Republicans benefit at the poll from the voter ID laws. It's clear and obvious. If you wish to talk about the principle of the laws or anything else that's a separate issue.

Fine, I'll change my opener.

I'm yet to hear a compelling reason for why Republicans shouldn't benefit from Democrats' laziness. If your voters aren't going out and getting the required IDs, that's not the other party's fault.

GLaDOS · 29-01-2018 2:27pm

ID should be mandatory for voting. I'd like to see it enforced more rigorously in Ireland.

If the type of ID is too restrictive, or if it's too expensive/inconvenient to get the ID, then they are the issues that should be addressed, not the need for ID in itself.

29-01-2018 2:28pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Fine, I'll change my opener.

I'm yet to hear a compelling reason for why Republicans shouldn't benefit from Democrats' laziness. If your voters aren't going out and getting the required IDs, that's not the other party's fault.

And if they have that ID then you should change it to one more difficult to get.

Really Interested · 29-01-2018 2:31pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

So my two options are agreeing with you or making a statement that I'm a bad person?

My third option where I think protecting the legitimacy of the vote, in a system where everyone can get an ID the same as the next person, just disappeared.

I'm not mixing anything up.. I mentioned fraud from citizens which is widespread enough that it should be stopped.

And I'm not some conspiracy loon for knowing what people said in those Project Veritas videos where voter fraud is being discussed. While the editing sucks, they did say those things.

The first 25 seconds of this video is uncut and describes voter fraud. You can hate O'Keefe and you can call him a hack, but you cannot tell me that those 25 seconds should be ignored because of who made it or who it was trying to aid / attack.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUDTcxIqqM0

If you have an issue with those 25 seconds, or think they're nonsense, please explain why.

That video as an important official saying people get bussed around from polling station to polling station. I just find it frankly ridiculous to argue against ID because a segment of the population doesn't bother getting one. Fraud exists and allowing it a willful affront to democracy.

Your claimed third option is in reality the first option.

Do you think a law that’s intention is to reduce certain groups from voting is a good thing.

You are just ignoring the courts their finding and coming up with your own claims.

Have I argued against ID? Have the Courts you are deliberately mixing up two different issues. It’s really simple any state can introduce any laws once’s those voting laws are not in breach of the constitution. Because the US constitution and federal laws are different to say Ireland a law that in Ireland would be ok would not be so in USA.

And yes if you want to introduce laws which have a race bias in the law as drafted then yup you are a bad person in my opinion. If you want a law that is fair then that is good.

29-01-2018 2:32pm

Deleted User wrote: »

And if they have that ID then you should change it to one more difficult to get.

I posted Texas's accepted IDs a few pages back. Looked perfectly reasonable to me.

Certainly reasonable enough that a signed declaration and a utility bill shouldn't be an alternative. My brothers have zero interest in politics. I shouldn't be able to register them and use their vote. I'd have 4 votes instead of 1 in Ireland if we got rid of the ID requirement.

29-01-2018 2:34pm

Really Interested wrote: »

Your claimed third option is in reality the first option.

Do you think a law that’s intention is to reduce certain groups from voting is a good thing.

You are just ignoring the courts their finding and coming up with your own claims.

Have I argued against ID? Have the Courts you are deliberately mixing up two different issues. It’s really simple any state can introduce any laws once’s those voting laws are not in breach of the constitution. Because the US constitution and federal laws are different to say Ireland a law that in Ireland would be ok would not be so in USA.

And yes if you want to introduce laws which have a race bias in the law as drafted then yup you are a bad person in my opinion. If you want a law that is fair then that is good.

I am arguing the requirement for IDs in general. What some court decided is irrelevant to the larger debate.

Really Interested · 29-01-2018 2:35pm

GLaDOS wrote: »

ID should be mandatory for voting. I'd like to see it enforced more rigorously in Ireland.

If the type of ID is too restrictive, or if it's too expensive/inconvenient to get the ID, then they are the issues that should be addressed, not the need for ID in itself.

No problem with that, but say the USA only accepted ID that say 90% of adult men carried and only 10% of women would that be ok. That the problem with for example gun permits allowed (more Republicans) but not College ID (maybe in some states more Dems) why should a person who has state college ID be forced to get a driving licence or gun permit?

Really Interested · 29-01-2018 2:38pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I am arguing the requirement for IDs in general. What some court decided is irrelevant to the larger debate.

Did I say that I am against ID? I’ll make it easy I did not. All I said is I am against any law that has a built in bias.

By all means make it mandatory to produce ID but accept all ID and do not have arbitrary rules that change.

“I'm yet to hear a compelling argument about why voter ID laws benefit the Republicans.”

Your very first statement I provided a link to a case where that was actually proved at Dostrict Court and Circuit Court level. So either you never heard of the cases or you ignored them.

So is you first statement still what you believe.

Nody · 29-01-2018 2:39pm

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm not mixing anything up.. I mentioned fraud from citizens which is widespread enough that it should be stopped,

In Iowa, lawmakers passed a strict voter ID law with the potential to disenfranchise 260,000 voters. Out of 1.6 million votes cast in Iowa in 2016, there were only 10 allegations of voter fraud; none were cases of impersonation that a voter ID law could have prevented. Only one person, a Republican voter, was convicted. Iowa Secretary of State Paul Pate, the architect of the bill, admitted, "We've not experienced widespread voter fraud in Iowa."

In Wisconsin, a federal judge found that the state's restrictive voter ID law led to "real incidents of disenfranchisement, which undermine rather than enhance confidence in elections, particularly in minority communities"; and, given that there was no evidence of widespread voter impersonation in Wisconsin, found that the law was "a cure worse than the disease." In addition to imposing strict voter ID requirements, the law cut back on early voting, required people to live in a ward for at least 28 days before voting, and prohibited emailing absentee ballots to voters.[78] A study by Priorities USA, a progressive advocacy group, estimates that strict ID laws in Wisconsin led to a significant decrease in voter turnout in 2016, with a disproportionate effect on African-American and Democratic-leaning voters.

In July 2016, a federal appeals court found that Texas's voter ID law discriminated against black and Hispanic voters because only a few types of ID were allowed; for example, military IDs and concealed carry permits were allowed, but state employee photo IDs and university photo IDs were not.

Since 1994, Ohio has had a policy of purging infrequent voters from the rolls. In April 2016, a lawsuit was filed, challenging this policy on the grounds that it violated the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) and the Help America Vote Act of 2002. In June, the federal district court ruled for the plaintiffs, and entered a preliminary injunction applicable only to the November 2016 election. The preliminary injunction was upheld in September by the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Had it not been upheld, thousands of voters would have been purged from the rolls just a few weeks before the election.[

An ID law in North Dakota which would have disenfranchised large numbers of Native Americans was overturned in July 2016. The judge wrote, "The undisputed evidence before the Court reveals that voter fraud in North Dakota has been virtually non-existent."

In 2013, the state House passed a bill that requires voters to show a photo ID issued by North Carolina, a passport, or a military identification card to begin in 2016. Out-of-state drivers licenses were to be accepted only if the voter registered within 90 days of the election, and university photo identification was not acceptable. In July 2016, a three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a trial court decision in a number of consolidated actions and struck down the law's photo ID requirement, finding that the new voting provisions targeted African Americans "with almost surgical precision," and that the legislators had acted with clear "discriminatory intent" in enacting strict election rules, shaping the rules based on data they received about African-American registration and voting patterns. On May 15, 2017, the law officially died when the US Supreme Court rejected efforts to review the Appeals Court ruling.

Those are real examples on how your ID laws have been struck down as illegal but let's return to the question of illegal votes that you think is such a big problem:

The Brennan Center’s seminal report on this issue, The Truth About Voter Fraud, found that most reported incidents of voter fraud are actually traceable to other sources, such as clerical errors or bad data matching practices. The report reviewed elections that had been meticulously studied for voter fraud, and found incident rates between 0.0003 percent and 0.0025 percent. Given this tiny incident rate for voter impersonation fraud, it is more likely, the report noted, that an American “will be struck by lightning than that he will impersonate another voter at the polls.”

That is from New York University School of Law but clearly must be false news since "we know" there were 5 million illegal voters according to Trump.

Then there's this by Justin Levitt, a professor at the Loyola Law School, Los Angeles and an expert in constitutional law and the law of democracy:

A comprehensive 2014 study published in The Washington Post found 31 credible instances of impersonation fraud from 2000 to 2014, out of more than 1 billion ballots cast. Even this tiny number is likely inflated, as the study’s author counted not just prosecutions or convictions, but any and all credible claims.

That's 31 fraud causes out of 1 billion ballot votes; oh my freaking God that's clearly a case to implement ID cards right there!!1

Then let's look at the 2016 election with a whopping total of 4 cases found:

A man in Texas who voted twice. Phillip Cook was arrested on Election Day after voting twice. He claimed to be an employee of Trump's campaign who was testing the security of the electoral system. He wasn't an employee of the campaign — and the polling location's security worked perfectly well, it seems.

A woman who cast a ballot on behalf of her dead husband. Audrey Cook is a Republican election judge in Illinois. She and her husband applied for absentee ballots because he was ill. He died before completing his, so she filled it out for him and sent it in. The ballot will not be counted.

A woman in Florida who marked absentee ballots. Gladys Coego was hired to open absentee ballots in Miami-Dade County. One of her co-workers noticed that she was going a step further, filling in the bubble for a mayoral candidate with a pen she had in her purse. She was caught in the act and arrested. There's no evidence that she changed any presidential votes.

Hmm, 3 out of 4 fraud cases were done by Republicans and not some rapist murder from Mexico, how odd...

I mean I can keep going if you want but not only is there no actual documented cases for major fraud from a reputable source (and no Veritas is not a reputable source since they are known for recutting things to fit their false narrative and have been caught multiple times doing so) the ID laws implemented hurt a specific demographic group of voters who are more likely to vote for one party over the other.

29-01-2018 2:46pm

I don't know why you think there would be accurate numbers for something next to impossible to detect.

And even your 0.0003% to 0.0025% numbers give between 30k and 350k votes in America which would be enough to swing the election, as I kept hearing about.

Well it seems to no one is really in that much agreement.

I think there should be voter ID laws, and even if they were implemented with malicious intent, if they work because black people don't bother getting ID, then too bad.

Really Interested thinks voter ID laws are ok, if they are enacted without predudice or in bad faith.

Nody thinks there shouldn't be voter ID requirements because the reported numbers of fraud are so low.

Maybe we should just talk about something else.

spacecoyote · 29-01-2018 2:48pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHFOwlMCdto

A bit of John Oliver on the hot topic of the day.

I think that a lot of people talking about this here today & dismissing the issue need to take a step back from their position of real privilege. Like me, you've likely never had an issue casting a vote in your life, and are proud of having that privilege.

The likelihood is you're probably living comfortably, have no real financial/socioeconomic/racial issues to deal with, because chances are, most of the people on here, are Irish born, white, living in Ireland. Most of us don't really know what its like to be in a minority or have had what feel like basic rights taken away from us.

We can say, $25 is nothing to anyone, but to some people, $25 could be the difference between your kids eating this week or not. Its a dismissive attitude, and not really a fair statement to make.

And to say, the fault lies with the lazy democrats for not getting their people out is just pure ignorance in the face of the issue at hand.

I know that we're all influenced massively by the bias that's built in to us since the day we're born. We need to try harder to look beyond those bias though & get to the heart of an issue.

If the aim is for a fair & democratic system then the aim should be to make it as easy as possible for people to access their right to vote, not create laws & systems to marginalise any group to fit the needs of a particular group.

Really Interested · 29-01-2018 2:49pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I don't know why you think there would be accurate numbers for something next to impossible to detect.

And even your 0.0003% to 0.0025% numbers give between 30k and 350k votes in America which would be enough to swing the election, as I kept hearing about.

Well it seems to no one is really in that much agreement.

I think there should be voter ID laws, and even if they were implemented with malicious intent, if they work because black people don't bother getting ID, then too bad.

Really Interested thinks voter ID laws are ok, if they are enacted without predudice or in bad faith.

Nody thinks there shouldn't be voter ID requirements because the reported numbers of fraud are so low.

Maybe we should just talk about something else.

What about the person who bothers but the state keeps changing the law to stop them because they are black is that ok in your book? As long as it stops some possible fraud. Funny the law makers don’t think withe people would be involved in fraud!

29-01-2018 2:50pm

If your country is the biggest and richest in the world, and enough of your population can't afford $25 for an ID card that it has to be removed as a requirement, then your country's problems must be a lot more severe than voting laws.

29-01-2018 2:52pm

Really Interested wrote: »

What about the person who bothers but the state keeps changing the law to stop them because they are black is that ok in your book? As long as it stops some possible fraud. Funny the law makers don’t think withe people would be involved in fraud!

Has that been happening recently?

You mentioned university / gun IDs above.. Did that happen in a state?

Edit: I guess the federal government should set definite requirements so state legislators can't do this sort of thing.

US Voting Rules & ID Requirements

Comments