Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Facebook | Twitter | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 
Latest Post:
Started By:
Rank:
Category
212 days ago.
by BobBarker
rocker
#1

Are states who do not require Photo ID in order to vote encouraging fraudulent elections?

Recently, the obama administration's attorney general struck down laws in Texas and South Carolina requiring voters to show a Photo ID before they can vote claiming it "disenfranchises" voters. Now illegals, dead people, and other unauthorized voters will be able to vote freely in elections. In effect, giving people the right to conduct fraudulent elections. Is this fair to legal voters?

 
 

Member Comments

BeRight

If you MUST show your identification to board an airplane, cash a check, buy liquor, or check out a library book and rent a video, but not to vote for who runs the government - you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

-Jeff Foxworthy

Posted 220 days ago.

moderation

Well presented,kendall .

Posted 339 days ago.

Kendall78

As I have said before, let's have a Voter ID as long as it does the following:

1. Enough time to bring them into action. Meaning, you wouldn't need one till after the 2016 election.

2. The stupid thing would count as another form of ID for anything. So getting other forms of ID like your driver's license won't be tough. You could use the voter ID in place of youe SSN for example.

3. It counts as a nation wide form of ID. Meaning that some idiot cop from NJ, barkeep in Hawaii or whatever would have to accept the ID to prove who you are.

Posted 340 days ago.

moderation

Not like many would prefer,beright.

Posted 340 days ago.

luvthesouth

moderation, i agree with simple.

Posted 340 days ago.

luvthesouth

fred, forgive me as i am but a simple man. however, i am capable of removing my shoes and using my extra digits commonly called toes if need be when calculating fancy math problems. my decimal was and is in the correct spot to make my (decimal) point. i will tell you that i did enjoy your clever post!

Posted 340 days ago.

moderation

Keep it simple.

Posted 340 days ago.

luvthesouth

fred, according to the Census Bureau approximatly 131 million people reported voting in the 2008 Presidential election, i would say that your estimated .2% of voter fraud cases totals a whopping 262,000 and is pretty significant. would you not have a problem with potentially 262,000 legal american voters not having their vote count? i say fraud, you say supression... pish posh....both need to be prevented.

Posted 340 days ago.

luvthesouth

i don't think so moderation. i was not assigning severity in the way you were assigning frequency.

Posted 340 days ago.

moderation

lts- the two rapes analogy is a (way )bit much isn't it!

Posted 340 days ago.

luvthesouth

moderation, what you said was...."voter fraud wasn't a legitimate issue." if it is not a legitimate issue, then why are there laws against such action? also, i didn't think that the laws were based on a minimum number of violations. thats like saying one or two rapes are ok but once you hit that third one, boy have we have got to do something about this rape epidemic. unfortunately or fortunately, depending on your point of view, this scenario occurs mostly with installation of traffic devices. actually in regards to voter suppression, it appears that as long as you only have two armed thugs at a polling site you are O-Tay Buckwheat.

Posted 340 days ago.

BeRight

and it does not seem to be supressing the vote as the liberals say it does.

Posted 340 days ago.

moderation

valueguy- what I said Isnt about one's iq, but simply( no pun intended),there is no historical record of identified and verified,large,result changing situations of voter fraud. Has there been some suspicious activity in Mayberry ?

Posted 340 days ago.

Valveguy

White turnout continued to dive after the 2004 election when it was at a post 1992 high. In contrast, minority and especially black turnout moved in the opposite direction. The black turnout rates of 64.7 percent and 66.2 percent in the past two elections were the highest since 1968 when Census surveys began. Hispanic and Asian turnout improved markedly after 2004. For both groups, turnouts for the 2008 and 2012 elections were higher than any year since 1992.

So, what again is it about voter ID laws that is "suppressing" the minority vote? People like moderation immediately jump to the conclusion that some people are too stupid or lazy (not sure which one it) to comply. The facts show this is not true.

Posted 341 days ago.

luvthesouth

elections: republicans lose, it is voter fraud. democrats lose, it is voter suppression. it is a good idea to prevent both except when legally ineligible.

Posted 342 days ago.

moderation

The facts are,that before the voter ID issue became a conservative issue, voter fraud wasn't a legitimate issue.

Posted 342 days ago.

BeRight

So do you still want to say it is too hard for people to get a photo ID?:

Friday: After years of setbacks, Democratic lawmakers and Latino activists are on the verge of seeing immigrants who are in the country illegally granted the right to a driver's license in California. The state Assembly approved the bill on a 55-19 vote late Thursday, hours after the Senate also voted to pass it. Gov. Jerry Brown issued a statement indicating he would sign it into law.

So if illegal immigrants can get a photo ID I think that BS about it being too hard for a Citizen to get one is just that, BS!

Posted 343 days ago.

thegreek

kendall. I understand that, but not 1 person in a precint even voting for Romney does not seem odd to you?? Especially with all of the voter complaints that people had with choosing Romney but their voting slip showed Obama.??? Or even McCain for that matter. Seems to me that someone with a rogue attitude would have voted for them. I dont think the photo ID idea is to get anyone any more votes but to assure that everyone that votes is a legal voter! Is it too much to ask that we be sure that all of the votes are by living, bonafide Americans?? I dont think so. If I lived in Texas and decided to have a bus load of illegals come vote, I could register them all in some deceased americans names, give them an address (or an absentee ballot) and send them to vote (or send in their ballot in the mail) and no one would be any wiser unless a crew of people wanted to scour the counties death certificates for weeks on end. Point is, they would probably not catch it.

Posted 359 days ago.

Kendall78

I personally do not see how a voter ID card would have produced any votes for Romney or Mccain in those areas. After all, I didn't hear any complaints from any Romney supporters in those areas saying they were not allowed to vote.

Posted 360 days ago.

Kendall78

@thegreek- If I may, Obama did not win any of the precints unanimously. There were third party candidates that received votes. It might also be noted that, "Romney won 72 of Ohio's 88 counties, including two that no Republican had won since 1972." Also, Mccain did not receive any votes in 18 precincts so Romney not getting any is backed by historical trends.

Posted 360 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or