The results are in: Voter ID Fraud a myth - but we knew that

This is inaccurate. In Florida, for instance, they found that 100 illegal immigrants had registered to vote. It was determined that most of those who registered did so out of ignorance of the system, mistaking it as a requirement for them, and did not do so out of an effort at intentional voter fraud.

Out of those 100 it was determined that 50 of those actually voted. As those 50 were caught it in no way impacted the election. Even if they were not caught, it would in no way impact the election.

I know it will be difficult for you to accept facts vs. your own conjecture - but this is the "problem" that is being touted as the reasoning for disenfranchising legitimate voters.

The Constitution explicitly forbids this scenario. To support this effort suggests that you do not support your constitution as written. My previous statement stands - if you do not support the constitution as written then the only way to directly violate its provisions is to pass a constitutional amendment that removes the violation.

To argue otherwise is simply spewing rhetoric and "things that outta' be" and does not have any basis in fact or objective reasoning.

Sorry to be a dick about it, but that's the way things be.

 

Except that a voter ID law will not fix the majority of voter fraud cases. If you were truly interested in protecting the integrity of the system it seems like you would abide by the constitution and support measures that take care of the legitimate issues without disenfranchising voters in the interim.

I can only assume that your agenda is other than the integrity of our elections.

 

Unfortunate that America is not a house, and you are not a federal appeals court.

Until there is an overwhelming judicial consensus on these laws (which will only be reached on standing present evidence), these laws will very much be in question, especially as their proported benefits, are on balence even or smaller than their net costs.

 

You are the one who seeks to limit the discussion by requiring it be buttressed by past judicial ruling.

No I didn't. I called your putting words in my mouth "lazy and dishonest." There you go again! If you would focus more on discussing the topic than in rushing to oppose me, we might make some progress.

You're showing your colors...

 

I don't think it's really worth the effort to even address your discussion at this point, given the minimal amount of effort you put into empirical research or validation.

However, the following studies will be of intrest to some.

http://www.brennancenter.org/content/section/category/voter_id/

http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/the_cost_of_voter_id_laws_what_the_courts_say/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/18/voter-id-poor-black-americans

Black voters in Birmingham, Alabama. About one in four African Americans do not have the recognised photo ID cards.

My true colors, perhaps. You do, however, invite derision by advancing a discussion you cannot defend. Deal with it.

 

You can't deny that the vulnerability exists and we must safeguard the system against this threat. That's why the overwhelming majority of Americans support Voter ID laws. My house analogy was perfect. I'm not turing off my security system just because I didn't have a break-in last night. When you have fraud in an election, honest votes are nullified. The sacred right of voting must be preserved and the only way to do that is for the process to have integrity.

 

I'm not going to take the time to address your points in-depth (as your persona clearly does not warrent this)---however, suffice it to say that you may find that a proper reading of the judicial context lends more weight to the cost of 14th Amendment violations, to the proported benefits of a law that only scrapes at the edge of a problem; and does so very poorly (considering the rate here cited of 1/15 million cases)

 

Y u say my solution to nonexistent problem no cost-effective?

 

Why are you not directing as much energy to correcting the issues with absentee ballots, which is where the overwhelming majority of house break-ins occur? It must be that you have another agenda, do not understand the problem or believe something other than facts and objective analysis.

 

I interpret this to mean that you are unable to refute my very salient points and therefore my points stand. The vulnerability for fraud is there without Voter ID laws. We must protect the system and ensure that each vote is honest.

 

If you read what I wrote, my concern was for the future of voting. I'm neither convinced or unconvinced that there is a problem right now but I am concerned about the trends in America that we see which is illegal immigration.

Whether or not they impacted the election is inconsequential.

Your present facts are only pertinent to my expressed concerns about the future in that they indicate a trend which could become problematic. If those 50 votes above had impacted the election, would you have cared then? I'm trying to get ahead of the curve while you want to speed right through it.

Not sure to what you are referring here; you don't specificy. Safeguarding voting rights of US citizens is not forbidden by the Constitution. That document limits voting rights to legal citzens.

See here is the deal: expressing a view opposite of The Left is spewing rhetoric. Is it a fact that there is out-of-control illegal immigration in the US? Are our schools and hospitals burdened with new demands from these new residents?

 

I am perfectly OK with safeguarding against the threat (one that is realized so rarely that it doesn't warrant safeguarding, but that is neither here nor there) as long as the required ID is both easy and free for legitimate voters to acquire.

Since this is not the case with the current Voter ID laws being passed, I am against them. Once the "easy and free" criteria are met, these measures are sure to pass judicial muster.

 

Just loving your snobbery.

I'm content being a Big Picture Guy.

I've sufficiently defended my assertion. When you make it into something else, I do not need to defend that thing. Go impress yourself with your research... :grin:

 

Of course you're not, despite reams of evidence.

Wait - why is this your new concern? We have less illegal immigrants here today than 4 years ago. The problem is receding. If the fraudulent voting hasn't been a concern for you in the past, it seems that it should be less of a concern to you now.

Depends if it's things like this:

No. The illegal immigrant population has been on the decline for several years now. So yes, things like "out of control" makes it rhetoric, especially when it's completely false.

 

What assertion?

You've made no points at all with any evidence worth mentioning.

If you consider this snobbery, don't ever go challenge anything of any note, write on any issue of any substance, or discuss anything of substance. You can content yourself with being a "big picture" guy for all I care, but the usual standard for that is evidence and empirical research that can back your assertions. So long as you are content with spreading empty platitudes on internet forums, this is not a problem, I suppose.

 

Ok I think I understand where you are coming from. I am just curious though how far you extend this attitude in regard to other issues. That though is probably for another discussion.

 

You can think whatever you want; your thought processes and what you think are totally beyond the realm of whatever the f**k I care about.

However, when you make such egregously bad statements, it is always good to clarify for others why your views should be disregarded.

 

So going to the DMV in GA is like taking a stroll in the park?

So is anything else that is administered through the government yet you don't see conservatives clamoring for more bureaucracy or arguing that more requirements and regulation is not a burden except in this and a few other issues.