Here's a list of convictions:
http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/2015/pdf/VoterFraudCases-Merged-3-2.pdf
Only scanned through the first few pages, lots related to absentee ballots.
Here's a list of convictions:
http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/2015/pdf/VoterFraudCases-Merged-3-2.pdf
Only scanned through the first few pages, lots related to absentee ballots.
There laws right now requiring ID.
19 states require photo ID.
https://ballotpedia.org/Voter_identification_laws_by_state
Federal law.
A photo ID is not required to vote absentee in most states.
https://ballotpedia.org/Absentee_voting
According to a study conducted by the United States Election Assistance Commission, absentee voting creates one of the greatest opportunities for vote fraud and is the area of voting subject to the largest proportion of fraudulent acts.
Debbie Devronica wrote:
Dora the Agoraphobiac wrote:Even though voter fraud is a complete non-issue, I would be completely fine with Voter ID laws as long as there were serious provisions made to eliminate obstacles to obtaining an ID, require that information about the new ID law be widely dispersed among the general public, and ensure that polling stations are adequately staffed and offices that provide IDs be open at convenient hours. But that will NEVER happen and everyone knows why.
How can you say voter fraud is a non-issue? Last election someone voted as Eric Holder. How many other times did it happen. Why are you liberals so opposed to required a state-issued ID when you need it pretty much FOR EVERYTHING ELSE IN YOUR LIFE. Ridiculous.
It's only happened a whopping total of 31 times since 2000 in EVERY ELECTION, from local to federal. That number is statistically insignificant.
Where I live in Virginia, you need to provide your SSN and Driver's License number to vote absentee.
I can't speak for elsewhere, but I find the claim that absentee voting would drive more voter fraud than not requiring an ID completely illogical.
Its basic common sense and not an undue burden to require an ID to vote.
Anyone who argues otherwise is obviously biased.
You know you've lost an argument when you cite a research study. C'mon. Use common sense, people.
They require me to show ID here in Georgia. No one ever complains about how hard it is to get an ID.
yadda yadda yadda wrote:
I find the claim that absentee voting would drive more voter fraud than not requiring an ID completely illogical.
According to a study conducted by the United States Election Assistance Commission, absentee voting creates one of the greatest opportunities for vote fraud and is the area of voting subject to the largest proportion of fraudulent acts.
https://ballotpedia.org/Absentee_ballot_vote_fraudIt's because voter ID laws are barriers to voting because it makes voting inconvenient (taking that extra step to be able to vote) for most legal citizens. Therefore less people vote. The reason why democrats especially find these laws bad is because the democratic party represents minorities and the poor. The poor find it even more difficult to prove they are a legal citizen than the rich because they don't have things like cars (so no drivers license), etc. So democrats want who they represent to be able to vote.
I'm sure someone else has said it already, but this is normal for the dems. They need every vote especially from non citizens, the dems are a cheat first party.
They discriminate against dead people.
sekond guesser wrote:
The intent is discriminatory.
Because they know a large proportion of poor people will not have the resource to acquire a license / ID. Nor the inclination.
strh wrote:
"Can someone explain to me why voter ID laws are bad?" In all probability, no.
Do you know the old teachers' saying: "If your students didn't learn that lesson, then you didn't teach it"?
Similarly, an explanation can only work if the person to whom it's presented is willing and able to grasp it. And it appears that, though you might be able, you are certainly not willing: your mind is made up and you are not to be confused with "facts" or "logic."
So no, it probably can't be explained to you. I would imagine that you've been presented with the motivations that people have had for enacting such laws; I would bet that you've been informed about how absentee ballots are untouched (though they're the easiest mechanism for fraud), yet early voting is curtailed--both for partisan reasons; I would guess that you've been told that the kinds of ID required by these laws do *not* agree 1:1 with the kinds of IDs that qualify a person for government benefits.
But you already have your conclusion a priori, right? And the more facts you might be given, the *more* strongly you'll hold to your conclusion, right?
So: no, I seriously doubt that anyone can explain to you why the *particular* voter ID laws *that have actually been passed* are bad.
They are bad because they lower the voting rate among eligible voters. You might not like how those voters vote (and I would agree) but trying to eliminate segments of the population from voting is about as undemocratic as it gets.
Again what problem does it solve? None. But you do end up with stupid things like the divorce people having issues. People registered with and without middle names being denied the right to vote and so on.
Absentee ballots are much more ripe for fraud. But that doesn't suppress the right voters. And isn't a good dog whistle issue to rile up the base.
How will dead people be able to vote if they need an ID?
webby wrote:
Tree 26 wrote:Driving is racist. Travelling is racist.
Driving and traveling aren't constitutional rights. One person, one vote, is. The question that voter ID opponents raise is why is universal suffrage bad? What is wrong with letting people without IDs vote? When it comes to illegal/undemocratic outcomes, the evidence seems to support them more than you.
The right to keep and bear arms is constitutional. Why do lib TARDS want a fcking ID to purchase a gun? You POS lib TARDS can't answer that one. You fcking hypocrite pieces of $hit.
13 years ago I went in to vote in Dublin, Ohio and my parents had already voted - The problem is my parent had been dead for years...
teacher from Ohio wrote:
13 years ago I went in to vote in Dublin, Ohio and my parents had already voted - The problem is my parent had been dead for years...
So, you tried to vote for your parents. That is the only way you would know they voted. The names of people who voted are not given out, not even to family. All should be well. As older people they likely voted Republican, as is the case with that type of fraud--dead people using the mail it in method.
Dora the Agoraphobiac wrote:
Debbie Devronica wrote:How can you say voter fraud is a non-issue? Last election someone voted as Eric Holder. How many other times did it happen. Why are you liberals so opposed to required a state-issued ID when you need it pretty much FOR EVERYTHING ELSE IN YOUR LIFE. Ridiculous.
Wowee! You provided ONE example of voter fraud occurring in a nationwide election, and it's a complete farce:
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/04/09/okeefes-video-on-eric-holders-ballot-still-not/185858Again, there is zero evidence that voter fraud is a major issue. (But who knows how many other bogus videos could have been leaked to Breitbart??) There is, however, quite a bit of evidence that voter suppression is a major issue.
I agree with most of this, but all evidence suggests that voter fraud is rare.
Dora - you know how they say if you see one roach - there are likely 1000s hiding in your house. One example of voter fraud means there at many, many more examples no one knows about. Do you not care about voter fraud? Or, are you like ever other Liberal who wants felons, illegals and other to vote just becuase they will vote for you. Do you have ANY integrity, Dora???
Libt*rdism wrote:
webby wrote:Driving and traveling aren't constitutional rights. One person, one vote, is. The question that voter ID opponents raise is why is universal suffrage bad? What is wrong with letting people without IDs vote? When it comes to illegal/undemocratic outcomes, the evidence seems to support them more than you.
The right to keep and bear arms is constitutional. Why do lib T*RDS want a fcking ID to purchase a gun? You POS lib T*RDS can't answer that one. You fcking hypocrite pieces of $hit.
That right wasn't mentioned. The question with the second admendment is what does that right mean. At the extreme (right to bear arms) means that everyone should be allowed to own nuclear weapons, RPGs, SAMs, and mustard gas. After all we wouldn't want to abridge those rights. Or at a more minor level look at how various knife laws. You will find a various mixture of bans on blades, mechanisms, and concealment.Most people go along with supreme court rulings that allow that right to be abridged. The question is by how much and why.
As a small government guy I am opposed to useless laws all around. I know that isn't a very popular POV in todays world where everyone wants to use government to control people. Most people are just fighting over who gets to right those rules.
And it is pretty awesome Username given how hard it makes to reply to you.
There's nothing immoral or unethical with ID laws. You can be arrested for not having ID while walking your dog.
19th Amendment wrote:
There's a very obvious tell in nearly all state voter ID laws - absentee balloting doesn't require ID. Wouldn't those intent on fraud prefer to just mail in a few thousand illicit votes rather than physically cast ballots at multiple locations on voting day?
This line of thinking is incorrect, at least in my state. In order to get an absentee ballot, you have to register, which requires an ID and a signature which is kept on file (digitally). Only registered voters can receive an abostee ballot, and when it is sent in, it must be signed. That signature is compare to the one on file to verify the identity of the voter. Same thing happens when I vote in person: I show my ID & sign on the line, they look at both to verify it's really me, I get to vote.
Voter ID is about the integrity of the vote, not discrimination.