-
CVille...there are those that would have us audition for our rights every day if they could. A right is so much more fundamental than seeing a movie or cashing a check, both of which are priveledges. I think rights should be jealously guarded and exercised with as few barriers as possible.
I'm opposed to voter ID laws because they erect barriers to voting. You and others argue that the barriers are so small and inconsequential that they really aren't barriers and that if people don't want to take the time to comply then they don't deserve to vote. Ironically, that very arguement was used to defend poll taxes and literacy laws.
The secondary "BIG DEAL" is that the laws do nothing to prevent vote fraud. Responsible government involves implementing policies that are effective. Would it not make sense that if vote fraud that could be prevented by ID was as rampant as we're led to believe that after voter ID laws are implemented the number of legitimate voters would decrease? If that was happening don't you think the R's would be crowing about it? Voter ID is a red herring. Let's pay attention to the ideas that really promote better elections.
I agree with you 100% that the Dems need to get to work. I'm a Dem as well and work to make voting easier for everyone.
Posted at September 20, 2005 9:22 PM in response to James Baker Strikes Again
-
El Campesino...I give you credit for at least doing some homework but just re-printing passages out of John Fund's book won't be good enough today.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200411010001
In his recent book Stealing Elections: How Voter Fraud Threatens Democracy (Encounter Books, September 2004), Wall Street Journal op-ed columnist and author John Fund uses distortions and half-truths to impugn Democrats who, he states in his introduction, "figure prominently in the vast majority of examples of election fraud described in this [Fund's] book."
Your passages are word for word from his book.
Dig a little deeper and you'll find that...
www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n6_v9_19254701#contin ue
"According to the [Fair Elections] Group's executive director, Karen Saranita, 95 percent of the voters who registered through Hermandad requested absentee ballots..."
How does requiring ID at the polls prevent this?
Louisiana... www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/07/23landrieu/
"Jenkins charges that some people voted multiple times and others were paid to vote for Landrieu...
During the joint investigation, Ford said Tuesday some 130 witnesses have been interviewed, some of whom admitted to having been paid to fabricate stories of voter fraud."
And another humorous read...
www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/06/30/time/louisiana.html
And just curious? How again does providing ID at the poll prevent people from voting twice? That is a structural issue that needs to be addressed through having accurate voting lists and sharing data between precincts. Even if 1000 people were registered using the same name and SSN, unless the voting lists are accurate they would all be able to vote even with an ID.
ST Louis...the voting rolls are not accurate and current? How does an ID at the polls prevent that???? Many voting lists around the country are inaccurate, people die every day, people move every day.
Milwaukee????
http://www.jsonline.com/news/metro/feb05/298205.asp
"And unless the gaps can be fully resolved, they leave room for critics to allege that ballot boxes were stuffed in the city, which went heavily to Democrat John Kerry over President Bush in a state with one of the closest margins in the country.
City officials said Tuesday that the large gaps can be blamed on major flaws in how polling-place logbooks were scanned and individual votes recorded in the computer. In some cases, entire pages were bypassed in the process, which involves scanning a barcode for each pre-registered person who votes.
That echoes the "layer upon layer of human error" statement offered last week by Lisa Artison, executive director of the Election Commission, in explaining why some 300 people are mistakenly listed as voting twice. Artison was out of the office Tuesday and unavailable for comment.
After inquiries from the Journal Sentinel about the gaps, officials said election staffers rescanned the logbooks for the 10 most problematic wards. In doing so, they tallied 1,707 votes that, while counted by voting machines, were not recorded properly later.
Officials now plan to rescan all of the books. They also have identified other problems, including new voters who were added to the system without being shown as having voted. They hope those problems will explain the 7,000-vote gap found a week ago by the newspaper in its extensive review of city election records."
This issue was again a structural issue and shows that better systems and better trained poll workers will give us better elections. An ID requirement would not have prevented these errors either.
Does vote fraud occur? YES! Will demanding ID at the polls solve any of it? NOT AT ALL. Voter ID laws do nothing to stop the fraud that is occuring. Why waste resources chasing after the boogieman when so many other sensible ideas to improving the voting system exist??
Posted at September 20, 2005 8:36 PM in response to James Baker Strikes Again
-
Additional scenarios under which a person may not have a driver's license or ID and would not be able to vote if ID is required...
Purse or wallet stolen. (Happens frequently)
Traffic Violation which results in surrendering your license to authorities. (Happens frequently)
Just a couple that came to mind. Are the chances small that any of these could happen, say, on Nov 1 or 2....sure....are they any less likely than someone traveling precinct to precinct pretending to be someone they're not?
Some states with voter ID laws have provisions that allow a person without an ID to use a provisional ballot such as New Mexico. Then if there are concerns about fraud in an individual case they can still be addressed by proving a crime has been committed by someone instead of erecting additional barriers to voting for honest citizens that don't fit your mold.Posted at September 20, 2005 12:22 PM in response to James Baker Strikes Again
-
The USPS comment was only one example of how you do not need an ID to start and stop mail service. The same thing can be accomplished in person by filling out a paper form.
And the I-9 requirement does not apply to all employees (even after they are hired). You seem to have missed that part.
The point is that the examples people use to justify the ID requirement for voting are not convincing arguments and they're also usually not accurate. In the end people always fall back on the argument that it shouldn't be a big deal. "Not a big deal" is not a reason to implement policy. I prefer reasons.
And the vote fraud issue that is your biggest fear, and justification for voter ID requirements, is just not documented. There are plenty of other ways that people cheat in elections but none of them are prevented by requiring ID.
Which do you think is more likely CVille...
A person with no ID running from precinct to precinct pretending to be someone they're not. Or political operatives finding ways to exclude people from having their votes counted? The latter is far more widespread and documented.
Bring me facts CVille. Not bad dreams.
And so why wouldn't hiring and training more poll workers and mandating simplified consistent ballots be worthwhile? Those issueas are also well documented and easily implemented. And based on hard facts they would improve our election process far more than protecting against the hypothetical vote stealers that everyone is all of a sudden afraid of.Posted at September 20, 2005 9:27 AM in response to James Baker Strikes Again
-
CVille...I've heard your frustration from many people but all the analogies fall short of justification for an ID requirement.
"If I go to collect my mail after vacation I have to show an ID."
Not so...you only need to go to the USPS website to have your mail held and delivery resumed on the date you desire.
https://dunsapp.usps.gov/HoldMail.jsp
"If I apply for a job I have to show an ID"
Again...not so. Only those who are hired are required to document eligibility. And the law provides exemption for people - providing domestic services in a private household that are sporadic, irregular, or intermittent;
- providing services for the employer as an independent contractor http://uscis.gov/graphics/howdoi/faqeev.htm
"If I cash a check, likewise..."
Would it surprise you to find that there are many people in our country that receive no checks of any kind? Some have no income and are supported out of charity by family members and some have a spouse that earns enough that they don't have to work. If you're unsure how significant this is consult a divorce attorney. You might be shocked to find there are women who are so dependent on their husbands that they have no driver's license or job.
"If someone does not want to have any form of ID, then I don't know how they manage to do any of the other things that life requires."
Well CVille...in many cases they just don't do the things you do. And still, they have a right to vote.
I do think though that you hit on a point that gets lost in this debate...that there are people in our country who are not part of the mainstream, whether by choice or circumstance. Some see them as suspects. Others see them as citizens.
The whole issue of voter ID is nothing more than a solution in search of a problem. Where is the kind of fraud happening in the real world that requiring an ID would prevent?
There are sensible solutions to improving our election process that would yield far better results for our country than the ID proposal. Like having adequate numbers of trained poll workers for instance. Or requiring standardized ballot formats to reduce confusion. Why not start with those?
Posted at September 20, 2005 1:29 AM in response to James Baker Strikes Again
