Over at fellow blogger Marshall Art's place, a comment thread is steadily growing over what would seem to most reasonable, logical people to be a logical, common sense measure that would insure only eligible, legally registered voters would, in fact, be able to vote in elections.
Art (and I agree) has posited that a simple and nearly effortless requirement of presenting a legal photo ID would help prevent voter fraud.
Apparently, some of Art's resident Liberal's argument against this is a rather illogical supposition that the requirement of Photo ID's would somehow intimidate and/or discourage those legal voters who want to vote from doing so.
I say "apparently" because the whole thing seems rather cut and dried to me. I fail to see any logic in allowing just anyone who wants to show up and vote to do so without asking any proof beyond their word, that they are legally registered and eligible.
Incidentally, recently I noticed a television ad for Wal-Mart which states that shoppers are no longer required to show proof that some other retail outlet in town is offering items at lower prices than Walmart in order to get Wal-Mart to "match the price". Formerly, if a shopper wanted Wal-Mart to match the price of some other retail outlet, they were required to bring in an advertisement which proved the other outlet was indeed selling the item at a lower price.
Now, all they have to do is state that the item is being offered at a lower price than Wal-Mart to get a lower price.
No proof is required.
Apparently, Wal-Mart doesn't consider the possibility that some unscrupulous shoppers might actually lie about lower prices just to get a lower price from Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart employees are expected to simply take the shopper's word for it. If one doesn't see a potential disaster in that practice, one would have to be incredibly naive.
This is the exact same reason that not requiring proof of eligibility to vote is a horrifically bad idea.
Perhaps, in the 1950's we could be safe in assuming we could trust someone's word, but that era has long since passed.
Admittedly, it's unfortunate that we have regressed to the point that we can no longer trust our neighbors, and I wish it were not so, but the fact is, we can't. And, that is why we need to require proof of eligibility.
My own resident Liberal, Jim, according to his comments, doesn't seem to believe any ineligible people would even consider trying to commit voter fraud. I find this thinking naive at best, and dangerous at worst. The idea that you can trust people, especially people who have a vested interest in pivotal issues that directly affect election outcomes, to refrain from attempting voter fraud, is unbelievably naive.
So, I offer this example of why requiring proof of voter eligibility is crucial to preventing voter fraud:
Hey, we're eligible. I promise!And, imagine me (as an illegal alien) being able to vote for every politician who has promised to grant amnesty to anyone who wants to immigrate to this country regardless of criminal history and/or highly contagious medical conditions, etc, because there is no way to ascertain whether or not I am legally eligible to vote.
So now, with no requirement to insure ineligible people don't vote, I and my 1000's of illegal alien relatives and friends, who share the same vested interest in the outcome of the election as I do, have effectively defeated the candidate who would have enforced the immigration laws, and installed a pro-illegal alien candidate in office.
Is this what the Liberals really want for our country?
It is my opinion that unbridled and unchecked amnesty for illegal aliens would quickly cause the degeneration of this country into third world status. Not to mention the drug cartels and Islamic Jihad terrorists flowing unstopped into our country, and wreaking their own brand of havoc.
All because of simply removing all requirements to show proof of eligibility to vote.
Can anyone think of an easier way to accomplish this task?
16 comments:
Well, this matter seems very simple to me.
One must be qualified to vote in any kind of election.
As a teenager, I couldn't vote in a school officers' election if I went over to another school instead of voting in the jurisdiction of my own school.
It seems to me that the Left wants to do away with national borders.
Formerly, if a shopper wanted Wal-Mart to match the price of some other retail outlet, they were required to bring in an advertisement which proved the other outlet was indeed selling the item at a lower price.
Now, all they have to do is state that the item is being offered at a lower price than Wal-Mart to get a lower price.
No proof is required.
Huh? That's crazy!
does he really think no ineligable voters will attempt voter fraud? Anyone who know how to use google can enter the words "ACORN convicted voter fraud" and see the folly in that.
I think it is rather obvious why liberals are so opposed to legislation which protects the integrity of the electoral process. They routinely recruit criminals and lobby for felons and current incarcerated people the right to vote.
John Boy said:
Anyone who know how to use google can enter the words "ACORN convicted voter fraud" and see the folly in that.
Actually since ACORN doesn't vote, it can't commit voter fraud. There have been some convictions of registration fraud for things like paying people to register people (illegal in some states).
But no voter fraud, that is, casting a fraudulent vote.
Mark said:
some of Art's resident Liberal's argument against this is a rather illogical supposition that the requirement of Photo ID's would somehow intimidate
This is actually untrue. No body claims that requiring a photo ID is any kind of intimidation. That's your fantasy, I guess.
I fail to see any logic in allowing just anyone who wants to show up and vote to do so without asking any proof beyond their word, that they are legally registered and eligible.
I fail to see how showing a photo ID at the polls proves eligibility any more than a signature does. I don't know how it is in your state, but in mine, if you are registered, your name and signature is on a voter roll at the polling place. The polling person asks you to sign and then compares your signature to the one you registered with.
Showing up with a photo ID does not prove eligibility.
My own resident Liberal, Jim, according to his comments, doesn't seem to believe any ineligible people would even consider trying to commit voter fraud.
No, you are mischaracterizing what I believe.
I believe that almost all incidents of voter fraud are attempts by ineligible former felons to vote. And unless their photo ID says, "I am a convicted felon and not eligible to vote" on it, I'm pretty sure a poll worker is not going to stop him from voting. So what good is the photo ID?
And, imagine me ... being able to vote ... because there is no way to ascertain whether or not I am legally eligible to vote.
How were you able to vote? You'd have to be registered, right? Or do you not have to register in order to vote? We do in California.
So if you are registered, you are already eligible to vote, aren't you? How does having a photo ID at the polls prove you are eligible?
All because of simply removing all requirements to show proof of eligibility to vote.
Who removed all the requirements? We have them in California.
And why is there no evidence, criminal investigations and convictions of all these supposedly thousands of illegal aliens voting?
Excellent points. This is one of the simplest issues ever. Anyone opposing having voters prove their identity is up to no good. I treat their arguments as a concession speech.
Anyone opposing having voters prove their identity is up to no good.
Absolutely! In California we do it by signing in at the polls and having our signature compared to the one on their rolls from our registrations.
Simple indeed.
A decade (or two) ago, when I first voted, I pulled out my drivers license to show the poll worker who I was, and he reacted as though I had just thrown acid at him, or much like Dracula reacting to a crucifix.
He almost shouted at me to put it back in my wallet, and shielded his eyes so that he would not glimpse the reviled document.
This was in Oregon, go figure.
You're right Jim, ACORN merely facilitated and encouraged voter fraud. But at least you're technically correct, and that's all that matters in blog comments, right Jimbo?
ACORN merely facilitated and encouraged voter fraud.
This is false. They committed or facilitated REGISTRATION fraud, and they have been convicted of a number of incidents of that.
However, if there is any evidence that ACORN ever committed or aided VOTER fraud, I'd love to see it. It's one thing to REGISTER Mickey Mouse. It's another thing for Mickey to show up and vote.
You really need to educate yourself on these matters instead of just repeating what you hear on Hannity.
Aparently Jim thinks only cartoon characters were registered. I'm sure Jim Smith, and John Brown werent among the false registrations.
The characters were among those found to be fraudulent, not the only ones. If you want me to believe that no normal-named false registrations were not filed, and no actual or attempted fraudulent voted cast, then you sir put too much stock in Olbermann
Aparently Jim thinks only cartoon characters were registered.
Nope.
If you want me to believe that no normal-named false registrations were not filed, and no actual or attempted fraudulent voted cast
No. Definitely no to the first part. As to the second, maybe a few. Got some evidence other than what you believe?
"They committed or facilitated REGISTRATION fraud, and they have been convicted of a number of incidents of that."
Jim, what is the purpose in registering to vote?
So one can stay home on election day?
Geez, Mark, are you that dense?
Jim, what is the purpose in registering to vote?
That depends on who is doing the registering, of course. The vast majority of people who register to vote are people who are eligible to vote and are registering so they can do so.
However, some people commit registration fraud by submitting false registrations. This is the most common, most noted, and most prosecuted form of registration fraud and usually involves people paid to get registrations who submit phoney ones to boost their count.
I invite you to read this excellent study called The Truth About Voter Fraud from the Brennen Center for Justice.
One salient quote: "The most common example of the harm wrought by imprecise and inflated claims of “voter fraud” is the call for in-person photo identification requirements. Such photo ID laws are effective only in preventing individuals from impersonating other voters at the polls — an occurrence more rare than getting struck by lightning." The penalty for doing so is 5 years and a fine of $10,000 and would yield only one incremental vote.
And "The voter fraud phantom drives policy that disenfranchises actual legitimate voters, without a corresponding actual benefit."
And the study included this:
Royal Masset, the former political director for the Republican Party of Texas, concisely tied all of these strands together in a 2007 Houston Chronicle article concerning a highly controversial battle over photo identification legislation in Texas. Masset connected the inflated furor over voter fraud to photo identification laws and their expected impact on legitimate voters:
Among Republicans it is an “article of religious faith that voter fraud is causing us to lose elections,” Masset said. He doesn’t agree with that, but does believe that requiring photo IDs could cause enough of a dropoff in legitimate Democratic voting to add 3 percent to the Republican vote.
And that is the goal of voter ID laws.
In some poor neighborhoods people simply don't have a photo ID. Should they be required to obtain one? Well, is the incidence of voter fraud that common.
I want that question answered objectively first. I don't want it determined by right wing bigots who, as Jim has pointed out, don't know the difference between voter fraud and registration violations.
Again, no I.D. until there is a demonstrable problem and the bigots are not driving the conversation.
Did Ducky buy into this operation? Where does he get off demanding anything on a blog of someone else?
One of the main distractions in this discussion is the parsing of registration vs voter fraud. Registering to vote is part of the voting process, so that to commit fraud in registering is the same as voter fraud. Though the attempt to distinguish between committing fraud during each part of the process is valid, what isn't valid is the need to identify one's self to do either not being equally desirable.
My opinion is that registration should require both a birth certificate, to prove citizenship (or citizenship papers for legal immigrants), as well as a state issued ID to prove the identity of the bearer is that of the person indicated on the certificate (or citizenship papers). Then, when actually going to vote, presenting the ID, as well as signing one's name to compare signatures, would insure the identity of the person wishing to vote.
The more I think about it, the less I feel that there should be any waiver for the cost of the ID for anyone. The most expensive ID I've found anywhere in the country is less than $45 and most states are well below that. Borrow the money. It's the voting process and worth the effort.
But, since some states do offer freebies for those who need it, hardship should be proven as well. Someone whined about one state (Wisconsin, I believe) that told their state employees not to offer the fact that IDs can be had for free so that those who can easily afford it don't cry poor.
Most of this can be grandfathered in so that whiners like Jim and Ducky don't wet themselves over disenfranchisement that doesn't happen. THAT, by the way, has never been shown in any of the discussions I've seen on the topic. It is the main whine regarding this proposal and seems to be less likely than getting struck by lightening.
The worst whine seems to be that someone such a requirement is more burdensome than any other, such as registering at all. If one must prove identity there, why not when voting? Photo IDs are simply a more common sense way of doing so and easier than comparing signatures.
Jim whines that Republicans profit by a 3% bump where a photo ID policy is implemented. How do we account for this? It doesn't prevent anyone from voting. One's own situation, be it lack of time and/or money to acquire the ID (not likely with an average of two years to get either in time for the next election) or a lack of motivation to do one's civic duty (far more likely, especially from the left) is what prevents one from voting. The policy itself does not any more than the requirements that now exist (registration and the requirements to do that) do.
Why would the right not also be affected by such a policy? Because we're all rolling in dough? I'm not. Mark isn't. We both have IDs. I can't speak for him, but I paid for mine. In fact, the one I have now cost me far more than it would for the average person because I needed it to get a job. That is, I had to pay for it before I found the job I have. I did what I had to do to get it because that's what mature, responsible citizens do, and I wish to be one, or as close to one as I can get.
The lefty whines are invalid. Photo IDs are common sense. The left has less of that than they do IDs.
Photo IDs are common sense.
They might be if there was evidence of rampant voter impersonation.
There is not.
Therefore, photo IDs are not common sense.
I have given you links to studies which refute everything you say. I can practically see you sitting in front of your keyboard virtually holding your hands over your ears and yelling "lalalalalalalala" at the top of your lungs.
Post a Comment