The Myth of Voter Fraud - Page 2 - Political Forum

colourislast · 05-14-2008, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Izzibeth

The majority of illegals do NOT vote. When people go to vote there are poll workers there and those people pay attention to who comes. Also, the majority of the time they ask for identification (though they can not stop you from voting if you do not have it). They also check your name with your address and all that other crap. ALSO there are people from the parties who are taking notes on who votes so they can report back to their respective parties on who voted and when. You do not HAVE to prove who you are but there are plenty of people at any polling place at any given time who have an interest in who you are. Illegal immigrants are not stupid. By going to a poll you risk calling a lot of attention to yourself and risk deportation. So.. no... the number of voters will decline because they will make it a pain in the ass to go put all this crap together just so you can go down to the voting booth.

There is no problem with voter identification theft. Instead of worrying about the 4 cases that took place 2 years ago let's focus on making sure that people are able to vote if they want to and making sure that those votes will be handled correctly and counted.

There are such things as sanctuary cities that allow illegal "residents" to vote in local elections. One of those sanctuary cities is the 2nd largest city in the U.S. (Some argue the 4th is too.) It is so populated with Mexican nationals that the candidates for the President of Mexico campaign there. There is no fear of deportation. ICE would not raid a polling place on Election Day. They are not stupid and the top brass are politically savvy enough to not allow it. Over half of the states require an ID of some type to vote already. How is it a pain in the ass to get an ID and voter registration card together? If that is such a daunting task vote by mail. Even in states that require ID at the polls do not require ID to vote by mail.

prrriiide · 05-14-2008, 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grokmaster

The Democrats and idiotic ACLU failed to produce a single,legal voter, OF ANY COLOR,who would be prevented from voting because of Indiana's law.

They didn't need to. The press took care of it for them:

Quote:

With no photo IDs, nuns denied ballots in Indiana
By Greg Gordon | McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON — At least 10 retired nuns in South Bend, Ind., were barred from voting in Tuesday's Indiana Democratic primary election because they lacked photo IDs required under a state law that the Supreme Court upheld last week.

McClatchy Washington Bureau | Homepage

Quote:

Nuns are turned away from Indiana polls under voter ID law

By Scott Martelle, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
May 7, 2008

A dozen nuns and an unknown number of students were turned away from polls Tuesday in the first use of Indiana's stringent voter ID law since it was upheld last week by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Los Angeles Times - News from Los Angeles, California and the World

Quote:

No photo ID, no vote for Indiana nuns

News Wire Services

Wednesday, May 7th 2008, 4:00 AM

About a dozen Catholic nuns were turned away from the polls in Indiana yesterday by a fellow sister because they didn't have state or federal photo IDs.

Sister Julie McGuire said she was forced to turn away her fellow members of St. Mary's Convent in South Bend, across the street from the University of Notre Dame.

New York City's Hometown Newspaper - NY Daily News

Quote:

Indiana nuns lacking ID denied at poll by fellow sister

Tuesday, May 06, 2008

By DEBORAH HASTINGS, AP National Writer

About 12 Indiana nuns were turned away Tuesday from a polling place by a fellow sister because they didn't have state or federal identification bearing a photograph.

Breaking News | Latest News | Current News - FOXNews.com

Let's see...where were we? Oh yeah, you were discussing someone's idiocy...

Grokmaster · 05-14-2008, 10:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GlobalSmiles

Got to say I'm on the road of the idea that says "you need ID to drink, you need ID to vote".

The fewer people that vote the better has always been argued about. Republicans benefit from apathy in a great way and I'm sure anything that could add to that apathy would probably be appealing to them as a party.

Preventing illegal ballots from being cast,which ,BTW,"disenfranchises" EVERY LEGAL VOTER,is what you call seeking to "benefit from apathy"?
Interesting take....

GlobalSmiles · 05-14-2008, 11:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grokmaster

Preventing illegal ballots from being cast,which ,BTW,"disenfranchises" EVERY LEGAL VOTER,is what you call seeking to "benefit from apathy"?
Interesting take....

I don't know what an illegal ballot is, I have no idea how not counting illegal ballots would disenfranchise everyone, and finally I clearly need to expound upon said apathy. If not having legal ID is preventing you from voting then clearly you are apathetic to voting.

Half the US doesn't vote because of apathy for one reason or another. I know it because that apathy is in my own house.

Grokmaster · 05-14-2008, 11:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by prrriiide

They didn't need to. The press took care of it for them:

McClatchy Washington Bureau | Homepage

Los Angeles Times - News from Los Angeles, California and the World

New York City's Hometown Newspaper - NY Daily News

Breaking News | Latest News | Current News - FOXNews.com

Let's see...where were we? Oh yeah, you were discussing someone's idiocy...

To keep on point...were the nuns turned away due to their race? No,they weren't. Thanks for proving that the law is color blind (aka:my point). As for the nuns...should have done their homework,right? Bet they bring their IDs to the next election...
And where is that story..? I tried your link and couldn't find it. I'll research it myself,and get back.

Grokmaster · 05-14-2008, 11:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grokmaster

To keep on point...were the nuns turned away due to their race? No,they weren't. Thanks for proving that the law is color blind (aka:my point). As for the nuns...should have done their homework,right? Bet they bring their IDs to the next election...
And where is that story..? I tried your link and couldn't find it. I'll research it myself,and get back.

Well..what a surprise.
Late Tuesday, Secretary of State Todd Rokita was unapologetic.

"Indiana's Voter ID Law applies to everyone. From all accounts that we've heard, the sisters were aware of the photo ID requirements and chose not to follow them," he said in a statement released by his office.

Gee..it seems that the "poor nuns" were DELIBERATELY CHOOSING to not follow the law,as a means of protest,not "innocent victims of the Big Mean Law", as you seem to imply.
And,as the MSM articles point out that "they do not drive", they failed to mention that transportation was available to them whenever they wanted it.
They were treated EQUALLY UNDER THE LAW,that they CHOSE to not follow. So much for the intent of the law to "disenfranchise legal minority voters",huh?
"I don't want to do that"...said one of them about obtaining the necessary ID.( This,although, it's FREE if you cannot afford it). Another person who cannot be "inconvenienced" to vote,but manages to do their other business just fine. Their CHOICE.
Speaking of idiocy...

Grokmaster · 05-14-2008, 11:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GlobalSmiles

I don't know what an illegal ballot is, I have no idea how not counting illegal ballots would disenfranchise everyone, and finally I clearly need to expound upon said apathy. If not having legal ID is preventing you from voting then clearly you are apathetic to voting.

Half the US doesn't vote because of apathy for one reason or another. I know it because that apathy is in my own house.

An "illegal ballot",would be,( among other things),one cast by someone without the legal right to vote,in the context of this thread,of course.
As for the apathy...I agree. Your characterization of the GOP "seeking to benefit from it" was the mistake. 2006 was the result of apathy. 2004 was the opposite.

jpn of Seattle · 05-15-2008, 10:47 PM

Here's a link to a New York Times article outlining what a full-court press by our national police authorities to uncover voter fraud turned up: Read All About It

Quote:

Here's the nickel summary: In 2002, DOJ changed their guidelines to make it easier to prosecute voter fraud. They made it a priority to find voter fraud cases. They appointed a clean slate of U.S. Attorneys loyal to the Republican Party. They set up training classes to help prosecutors charge and win voter fraud cases. But after all that, they managed to demonstrate fraud in a grand total of only 86 cases over four years. And even then, many of the cases of confirmed fraud were simply mistakes, while virtually none of them were actually designed to affect the outcome of an election.

So in four years of concerted effort, the Bush Justice Department managed to come up with maybe half a dozen cases of actual voter fraud. In other words, two or three per election cycle. Mostly in rural districts for low-level offices. And because of this, we're supposed to believe that it's a high priority to spend millions of dollars on voter ID laws that plainly do nothing except make it harder for poor people to vote.

Can we now please put this nonsense to rest? Can we please stop writing stories that treat voter ID laws as if they're sincerely designed to stop voter fraud? There's no longer any excuse.

POSTSCRIPT: This stuff can also ruin lives. Be sure to check out the part of the story about the guy who was deported to Pakistan because he mistakenly filled out a voter registration card while standing in line at the DMV. I'm sure the prosecutor who brought that case is proud of himself.

--Kevin Drum

jpn of Seattle · 05-15-2008, 10:52 PM

Right after the Supreme Court decision, Kevin Drum had this to say:

"And what are the examples of voter fraud that John Paul Stevens managed to adduce to support this paragraph? Marty Lederman tells us: (1) Boss Tweed stuffing ballot boxes in 1868, (2) a case in Washington state in which one person committed voter fraud, and (3) a 2003 case of fraud in Indiana which, as Stevens acknowledges, the new law wouldn't cover because it was done via absentee ballot.

"Presumably these were the best examples that anyone could come up with. And what do you conclude from them? That's easy: in-person voter fraud is vanishingly rare while absentee voter fraud is, perhaps, a problem genuinely worth addressing. Needless to say, though, Indiana's law does exactly the opposite: it requires voter ID for in-person voting and does nothing to ensure the integrity of absentee voting.

"We all know why this is: it's because, as Common Cause reminds us, restricting in-person voting tends to reduce turnout among minorities, the elderly, voters with disabilities, the poor, and the young — all of which, though CC is too polite to mention it, tend to vote Democratic. Absentee voters, by contrast, tend to vote Republican.

"So what's the real motivation for Indiana's law? That's pretty obvious, isn't it? And pretty shameful."

Kevin Drum

One more reason that minorities should never vote Republican.

GlobalSmiles · 05-15-2008, 11:19 PM

Got to say it seems like common sense, the real question is, why don't these people have any form of ID? How do we fix that?