Granted about refusal.
Denied is what I want to focus on.


http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50151747n
1:30 in. The women they interview, 78 year old Alberta Curry doesn't have a birth certificate, since she was born at home. without the birth certificate, she can't get a photo ID.



http://www.aarp.org/politics-society/go ... icans.html



More here:
(from http://www.npr.org/2012/01/28/146006217 ... -wont-vote )

_________________

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/20/us/po ... anted=all&

This article includes a few more people who can't get an ID due to a lack of a birth certificate.

The following link talks about some of the various studies regarding lack of ID:
http://www.politifact.com/texas/stateme ... ercent-af/

I found this quote important: "...lack of the documents needed to apply for the photo ID, such as birth certificates (not issued to many African Americans born before the Civil Rights Act passed)"




Do you think the flip side is true? If one person is disenfranchised b/c of these laws, then it is too much? The stories of the people above suggest that is a problem.

Perhaps requiring photo ID for all NEW registrations while giving some sort of "grandfather" clause for these cases makes sense.

_________________

No offense 84, but that CBS video you posted was almost humorous. A student who argues its too hard to get an ID, yet provides no evidence why for herself? The tattoo on her left arm cost more than an ID so its not an economic burden. The reporter is obviously slanted, they don't even try to hide that. The 78 year old woman comes on, says a few words and suddenly its gospel? It was a quick sound bite that wasn't even verified. Isn't this the same stuff you were accusing me of? Stories? How do we know the level of truth?

The NYTs article is where I stopped. As soon as I read the quote about stopping people from voting for Obama is where I have to draw the line. You're quoting highly biased material.

I'm simply asking for a system that attempts to ensure you get one vote and you are who you say you are. Key word being "attempts", I know nothing is guaranteed or perfect.

I will say your grandfathering proposition is something to further investigate. Difficult, but worth further discussion.

I don't care about the student (she is annoying), I do care about the older lady who doesn't have a birth certificate. All the links show people who can't get the ID due to the lack of birth certificate. That us what I focus on.

_________________

I went and looked at details of most of the proposed or passed voter ID laws... the birth certificate argument seems to be a myth. Most of the laws I saw allow any form of state issued photo ID (license, etc) to prove your identity.

_________________

That can be negotiated. Having ID is the important factor and can be achieved through other means (proof of citizenship, proof of residency, a valid SS number, etc.). I'm all for compromise on that.

Lets be really honest here. The point of voter ID is to ensure that no one votes more than once, no one votes in place of someone else, and a non citizen does not vote.

In looking back at old articles, it is interesting how voter fraud was such a big deal to the left, but now the system is clean...

_________________

Never said it was squeaky clean. I never said voter fraud doesn’t happen, but the studies show that is incredibly rare. In-person voter fraud is the rarest of an already rare problem. Think logically here. You need to find a person willing to commit the fraud. You then need to identify a legal voter in which you are impersonating. Or you have to register a fictitious person and then get that registration approved. Then you have to be willing to show up on Election Day and go through with it.

But that is just one person.

If you wanted to sway an election, you need a massive conspiracy to be organized.

There is a reason why only 10 cases of in person voter fraud have been proven in the last 12 years.

There is a fear of voter fraud that doesn’t match the reality. That needs to be kept in mind.

Requiring everyone to have a photo ID at the polls is taking a sledgehammer to a problem that facts show to be virtually insignificant.

There are too many Americans who don’t have one. Some of the reasons for this are valid, some suggest stubbornness. It appears very likely that the solution will prevent more eligible citizens from legally voting then it would prevent illegal in-person voter fraud.

If your response is “too bad” then I have no answer for you. You can’t claim that one illegal vote is an anathema to the system and at the same time denying others is okay.

Let’s take a poor person who doesn’t want to part with the funds to get the id (ie paying for a copy of a birth certificate or taking off work and losing money to get it). That person has been voting already in a legal matter. Now he has to pay to ensure his right to vote?

Who are we to apply our perspective to them? If the problem of in-person voter fraud was rampant then you could convince me. But it is not. So come up with a solution that is fair and ensures no one is going to be left out.

States can start by cleaning up the voter rolls. Remove dead people and citizens who have moved. At the local level, registrars can identify which of their voters lack photo ID and work to tackle the problem. I already mentioned a grandfather clause that could deal with these types of voters (many poor or elderly). Give me solutions that are fair for everyone.

_________________

The studies? You mean the one study you cited tha receives funding from George Soros. No agenda there, right?

You need to take a step back and do more OBJECTIVE research before you present what you said above as fact.

_________________

I think you're being a bit naïve if you think voter a fraud is a mere handful of cases.

Why would government, who would benefit from these particular voters since it is a move toward BIGGER government, be motivated to investigate and prosecute something that hurts it?

I know this all generated from Mak's comment about welfare and MA is a perfect example. Just remember that when confronted with the possibility of massive welfare problems and fraud the honorable Deval Patrick claimed there was only anecdotal evidence. And, there were not large reports or proven abuses before this discovery, yet the checks kept rolling in.

http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/lo ... g%e2%80%99

If you want to claim this has nothing to do with voter fraud that is fine. I see it as unfortunate evidence of how many people are willing to scam the system and will do so at higher levels to keep their public benefits.

You need to read more carefully and get off your high horse.
You posted from two conservative sites.
The study you claimed was funded by the Brennan Center was not the one that did the study. That was a separate organization.

Where is your proof that it is a big problem? Do you know what the scientific method is? According to you, it is

Make an assumption
Look for evidence- and when you find some to the contrary you ignore it. And when you find nothing to corroborate your assumption,
You make the conclusion anyway.

Congrats.

_________________

Says the guy who takes the conversation off topic at will but then demands that others don't.



You've posted mainly from progressive sources. NYU versus people like you and me? Oh boy... I'd rather listen to people like you and me than trust the research of some academics at one of the more progressive universities in one of the most progressive cities in the United States.

The point is, there is a counter argument to what you present as fact. But you choose to ignore the counter argument because it doesn't fit your ideology, meanwhile whatever you post you present it as gospel and ignore who is behind it.

You have no desire to look at the issue objectively. If you did, you wouldn't only focus on "Republican" gerrymandering for example.



I've provided sources that are just as valid as yours, even though they are saying the opposite.

You're the one that decided to site sources without bothering to vet them. I've gone ahead and done that for you. You're the one that started arguing that the system is almost perfect.



What's funny about pointing a finger is that you got more pointing right back.

The scientific method starts with a problem. You don't seem to think there is one, so I guess you feel you don't have to be scientific about this at all, just site some bias sources and dismiss everything else...

_________________

Do you guys realize that you're arguing the same point? You are both presenting rather biased articles. The only difference is that they are from different sides of the aisle. Bias is bias, no matter which side it's on.

_________________
www.aspoonfulofsports.blogspot.com
www.aspoonfulofsports.com

1984 is basically saying that not all people can produce an ID, one way or another, right? 1984 can't answer a simple yes or no question. Produce a valid ID and you can vote, bottomline. If you "lose" your ID or Birth cert. show your passport. No ID..NO VOTE FOR YOU!

I'm not just calling Rich's site biased.
Even Rich's site doesn't refute the study I posted. His true the vote site talks about inaccurate voter rolls. Which is a separate issue. Even their cases of fraud are few and not all of them are in person voter fraud. Some of the links are just dead links.

The study I posted (which is once again NOT the one he called George Sorros influenced) studied it and found 2068. Go ahead and review the study.

Rich still hasnt posted a similarly comprehensive study that claims otherwise.
Yet his conclusion is that it is anyway.

Neat trick. He gets to always be right and gets to say how terribly biased 84 is when he himself has brought nothing.

_________________

Whoopsy daisy!

Nice try, Aqnor. But those are not studies conducted by liberal universities or funded by George Soros. So those are invalid. Plus you didn't post more than 2068 articles, so the point still stands. Only 2068 cases! The electoral system is clean!!

_________________

lol I guess you are right, what was I thinking.

You guys must be the same people who think winning the lottery is easy, since "Hey, people win it all the time!"

There were 120 million votes cast in the last election.

Mount Vernon- 1 dead voter voting, 1 duplicate, unspecified "group" = lets say 25 people

Desoto- Father and Son voting (side bar- Absentee Voting is much worse than in person voting), someone voting and the real person turns up, trying to vote twice under his own name (ID doesn't solve that one)= 3 cases

Iowa- 3 people (once again, an accurate voting list solves the problem as well without the ID)

Dutchess- 2 cases (oh and lots of people claiming they were disenfranchised)

Boston- doesn't really give a number, but I'll be nice and say 500.

California article- "Some" is the number given. Although it does say sometimes there is a misplaced signature, not an actual illegal vote. So, I'll give you another 500 to be nice.

So, that means we have 1,033.

Which is once again less than one tenth of one percent. (0.0008%)

Remember, not all your articles even have cases that an ID would have solved. Having accurate voting rolls takes out the vast majority of those.

Heck, I could post 1,000 of the cases from the study I already posted to make it seem worse than it is.

_________________

I feel like I'm not getting your best on this topic. You keep misreading my information. You keep mentioning Soros, when that info isn't even relevant. Once again, since I feel like you are not reading right, his name was linked with the study that mentions how many people don't have ID. NOT VOTER FRAUD CASES.

Plus the liberal university study (NYU) and the Soros study are the same study.

I will say for the last time:

The system is not clean, but the cases of in-person voter fraud are rare and statistically zero when you compare the cases to votes cast.

And a best solution to getting rid of those cases is more accurate, up to date voter rolls, not ID.

_________________

And a best solution to getting rid of those cases is more accurate, up to date voter rolls, not ID.

Why no ID 84?

Because it is not supported by the left, and he has to tow the company line. Just like the one about Obamacare being awesome...

_________________

I must be playing down to the competition again...

_________________

I just don't agree with this and think it is naïve to assume that only the few you've found are an accurate number.

Its like saying that drinking and driving must not be as prevalent because of the 100 people who left the bar only 10 were busted for DUI.

Its too easy to cheat the system. Cleaning up the voter roll is only the first step. This goes deeper than statistics. I just don't have that much trust in people to not game the system if the opportunity for free stuff on other people's dime is put at risk. Nor do I trust a campaign's drive to ensure their candidate's power grab by any means necessary.

What those articles show to me is that the problem is probably more wide spread then is being reported. How do you catch someone? One answer in the articles was you need to wait here and confront the person when they come to vote. So who are the ones watching out and reporting this and how many resources are being used to make sure this type of voter fraud does not happen? Why are newspapers the ones finding out that dead people voted and telling those in charge of voting that there is a problem? If having an ID helps cut down on some of this what is the problem? If it takes a little more effort for someone to vote by getting an ID is not the privilege of voting worth a little effort on those who want to participate?

These are just a few news articles found by me, in a few minutes searching, an untrained guy posting on a football site not an exhaustive search. Would that not suggest that the problem could be bigger?

I am not surprised that a research paper/study would only find a relatively few prosecuted cases when it seems like there is no good mechanism to catch the wrong doers. It seems more by chance than actual investigation.

1984 I wonder if you would have said during prohibition because only 27 convictions in NYC due to prohibition laws happened between 1921 -23 that only a small percentage of the NYC population was drinking? I only use this reference to show a point that just because a study says something is not happening it may not be the whole story.

Yeah, that's right Rich. Hey, IMO, you lose your ID and can't produce a passport, birth cert then you are too irresponsible to vote.

I'm not going to continue arguing against an unsupported assumption.

Who cares anymore; Miami is 3-0

_________________

Is it an unsupported assumption that people who want to vote will not get an ID? Where are the facts that back up that assumption?

I am with you on the Dolphin win. Look we have common ground. : )