Are Democrats promoting any bills aimed at keeping people

[sleepyhead]

Hello,

The republicans have sponsored bills requireing ID's, and also bills in Ohio which prevent people from voting early. Both were aimed at a certain group of voters (Democrats). Have democrats put forth any similar bills aimed at keeping republicans from the polls?

[Goat]

What is the problem with asking a person to produce identification to enable them to vote? I've had to do so since I was 16 (which was old enough to vote on issues in Ohio), and I didn't have a driver's license until I was 28. There is such a thing as a state ID for those of us who couldn't drive for one reason or another. I must produce identification to use my Visa card, for Pete's sake. Big deal, and all I'm doing is buying Chinese! Isn't the voting process a bit more sacrosanct that Asian Chao?Shouldn't it be protected from potential abuse? Or are y'all worried dead folks won't get to vote?

There are plenty of people who do not have the ID needed... and I will point out your VISA card would not be an acceptable form of identification for voting in these laws.

Here is an article by an ex-Republican about his experience with that, and what turned his politics around.. when it comes specifically to voter ID.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 ... aws-racism

[East of Eden]

Uh, when I buy a gun, you're darn right I have to show a photo ID.

You are correct. Unfortunately the question is not whether ID is required to buy a gun, but why the Republican Party would suddently go against party platform to increase regulation when the current legislation works just fine (I believe that is the line that is commonly used to explain why further gun regulation is unneccessary).

I would suggest the status quo benefits Democrats, who are guilty of most voter fraud.

Interesting point. As per the requirements of this website, I would be expecting facts to back up your points...

The protesting too much part is on behalf of unknown voters who are too stupid to follow simple rules. You show a photo ID to buy a beer, I believe voting is at least as important.

I would be careful with terms like "stupid", as it does more to harm your position then help. And in case the point of this conversation was forgotten, there wasn't a "simple rule" to provide ID to vote - until Republicans introduced legislation to increase regulation.

And I believe that voting is way more important than buying a beer

Exactly, if we have to show an ID when buying beer it is perfectly reasonable to do the same when voting.

[lo_rez]

Is buying a cool cool case of Michelob as fundamental a human right as participating in representative democracy in a free country?

[dianaiad]

Or are y'all worried dead folks won't get to vote?

As others have said, this is a red herring. Tell you what - I'll give you $100 for every dead person that voted in 2008, if you give me $10 for every voter that was improperly stripped from the rolls and denied the right to vote.

Deal?

Hmmn. Well, I won't take you up on that, but I did find this:

Among the Journal's findings:

The Journal identified dead people on the voter rolls in all 62 counties and people in as many as 45 counties who had votes recorded after they had died.
One address in the Bronx was listed as the home for as many as 191 registered voters who had died. The address is 5901 Palisade Ave., site of the Hebrew Home for the Aged.
Democrats who cast votes after they died outnumbered Republicans by more than a 4-to-1 margin. The reason: Most of them came from Democrat-dominated New York City, where higher population produced more matches.

Not that it means much, but I thought it was funny.



But I do have to ask....what IS the problem with showing ID? As has been mentioned, we have to show ID to do anything else, from using a debit card to cashing a check to....you name it. I just looked at all the state requirements for those states which currently require ID at the polls, and ALL of them accept different kinds of ID--some as simple as a utility bill, a student ID card, a military card, a driver's licence or state ID, social security card--please notice that some of these won't have pictures on them.

I also have noticed that in all places where there has been a problem with dead people voting, the majority of those dead people seem to have been converted to the Democrat party post mortem. Now, true, it doesn't seem to be a huge problem in most places, but in SOME, we have quite literally hundreds of thousands of dead folks on the voter rolls, and quite a few of them have been rather active, voting wise.

Of course, there is also the problem of illegal aliens and felons voting when they aren't supposed to. Mind you, this doesn't seem to be a huge problem in the ultimate results of most political races, but there has been, evidently, at least one mayoral election that got voided on account of people taking far graver notice of the election than would seem appropriate.

As for me, when I get asked for ID before the sales person will take my VISA, I smile and say THANK you. My vote is important to me, and I don't want anybody else using it. Not now, and not later.

Not that this would happen; anybody who wanted to vote Democrat in my post mortem name might suddenly learn that ghosts are real.

[bluethread]

Is buying a cool cool case of Michelob as fundamental a human right as participating in representative democracy in a free country?

Sorry, "participating in representative democracy in a free country" has never been a fundamental human right. As has been noted people under 18 have no right to vote, neither do noncitzens in Nepal. Isn't it a bit jingoistic to presume that countries without representative democracy are not free? If it is a "human" right, then it should be hapening everywhere. In fact, these Unitied States were not orignially set up as a representative democracy, according to the way it is being argued in this thread. It was a republican oligarcy. Only land owning males had the right to vote. Were these United States not part of a free country then?

[chris_brown207]

Uh, when I buy a gun, you're darn right I have to show a photo ID.

You are correct. Unfortunately the question is not whether ID is required to buy a gun, but why the Republican Party would suddently go against party platform to increase regulation when the current legislation works just fine (I believe that is the line that is commonly used to explain why further gun regulation is unneccessary).

I would suggest the status quo benefits Democrats, who are guilty of most voter fraud.

Interesting point. As per the requirements of this website, I would be expecting facts to back up your points...

The protesting too much part is on behalf of unknown voters who are too stupid to follow simple rules. You show a photo ID to buy a beer, I believe voting is at least as important.

I would be careful with terms like "stupid", as it does more to harm your position then help. And in case the point of this conversation was forgotten, there wasn't a "simple rule" to provide ID to vote - until Republicans introduced legislation to increase regulation.

And I believe that voting is way more important than buying a beer

Exactly, if we have to show an ID when buying beer it is perfectly reasonable to do the same when voting.

Interesting that out of all the points that was discussed, the only one you could find fit to reply to was "beer". If only the world was as simple as buying a brewski...

So lets deal with this one issue, since that seems to be the only one you wish to discuss. The problem is not being required to provide ID. If that was the only issue - no problem, everyone would bring their ID to the polls. The problem is that there was no attempt at also providing a solution to those people who do not have the time, means, or money to get an ID. I like South Carolina's proposal to provide transportation and help for those who need IDs, but they are the minority of those States proposing voter ID laws.

If the intent were only to get people to have an ID for the election, then those introducing this legislation probably would have accounted for those people - the senior citizens, the infirm, the extremely poor, etc - who are still citizens, and can still vote, but do not have the means to get IDs.

With all else considered, and the fact that there was no solution or plan to deal with this small but still important population, leads me to believe that the intent was not to fix "voter impersonation fraud" but to instead try to change the demographics for the benefit of one political party.

And you still haven't provided any evidence beyond "buying a beer" to support why the Republican Party would see fit to increase regulation, and go against party platform on this one topic... (It couldn't possibly be what Rep Mike Turzai stated - "Voter ID laws, which will win the State of Pennsylvania for Romney..." )

[East of Eden]

Uh, when I buy a gun, you're darn right I have to show a photo ID.

You are correct. Unfortunately the question is not whether ID is required to buy a gun, but why the Republican Party would suddently go against party platform to increase regulation when the current legislation works just fine (I believe that is the line that is commonly used to explain why further gun regulation is unneccessary).

I would suggest the status quo benefits Democrats, who are guilty of most voter fraud.

Interesting point. As per the requirements of this website, I would be expecting facts to back up your points...

The protesting too much part is on behalf of unknown voters who are too stupid to follow simple rules. You show a photo ID to buy a beer, I believe voting is at least as important.

I would be careful with terms like "stupid", as it does more to harm your position then help. And in case the point of this conversation was forgotten, there wasn't a "simple rule" to provide ID to vote - until Republicans introduced legislation to increase regulation.

And I believe that voting is way more important than buying a beer

Exactly, if we have to show an ID when buying beer it is perfectly reasonable to do the same when voting.

Interesting that out of all the points that was discussed, the only one you could find fit to reply to was "beer". If only the world was as simple as buying a brewski...

So lets deal with this one issue, since that seems to be the only one you wish to discuss. The problem is not being required to provide ID. If that was the only issue - no problem, everyone would bring their ID to the polls. The problem is that there was no attempt at also providing a solution to those people who do not have the time, means, or money to get an ID. I like South Carolina's proposal to provide transportation and help for those who need IDs, but they are the minority of those States proposing voter ID laws.

If the intent were only to get people to have an ID for the election, then those introducing this legislation probably would have accounted for those people - the senior citizens, the infirm, the extremely poor, etc - who are still citizens, and can still vote, but do not have the means to get IDs.

With all else considered, and the fact that there was no solution or plan to deal with this small but still important population, leads me to believe that the intent was not to fix "voter impersonation fraud" but to instead try to change the demographics for the benefit of one political party.

And you still haven't provided any evidence beyond "buying a beer" to support why the Republican Party would see fit to increase regulation, and go against party platform on this one topic... (It couldn't possibly be what Rep Mike Turzai stated - "Voter ID laws, which will win the State of Pennsylvania for Romney..." )

I have no problem with that statement, if the intent was to say that by eliminating voter fraud, Romney would have a chance.

300 more non-citizens just discovered on CO voter rolls:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10 ... ter-rolls/

[chris_brown207]

(It couldn't possibly be what Rep Mike Turzai stated - "Voter ID laws, which will win the State of Pennsylvania for Romney..." )

I have no problem with that statement, if the intent was to say that by eliminating voter fraud, Romney would have a chance.

300 more non-citizens just discovered on CO voter rolls:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10 ... ter-rolls/

You have no problem with that statement? It is not like that statement indicates an attempt at passing this regulation in the 11th hour before a very tight election for the explicit purposes of bringing a win of a certain swing state for Romney... Oh, wait, yes it does, because there has been exactly ZERO documented cases of voter impersonation in the State of Pennsylvania since at least the beginning of this century.

Even the people who introduced the legislation could produce no evidence to back up their public claims: [Leading up to the trial, the state said it would offer no evidence that “in-person voter fraud has in fact occurred in Pennsylvania or elsewhere� or that “in-person voter fraud is likely to occur in November 2012 in the absence of a photo ID law.� Pennsylvania officials, who responded to the News21 public record requests, also reported no cases of Election Day voter-impersonation fraud since 2000.]

It is hard for me to believe that the other swing states, with Republican Reps who just happened to introduce this legislation at the exact same time were of hugely different opinions that Rep Mike T.

And as for non-citizens on the CO voter rolls - my friend, you are talking about apples and oranges. If you look at each state and the requirements to get an ID card, there is an exemption for non-citizens to be able to get an ID card.

From the DMV website: "If you are legally present in the US, but ineligible for an SSN, you are exempt from SSN requirements. However, you must still provide an acceptable birth date/legal presence document for any DL/ID card application"

Birth date and legal presence documents aren't too difficult to obtain for non-citizens. So not only is it entirely feasible for a non-citizen to get an ID card, but many of them already do. And so do convicted felons - who are also ineligible to vote, but have ID cards. So, it is not like presenting an ID card is going to stop someone from voting, even if they are ineligible, as long as they are on the voter roster.

So, lets stick with the current issue - which is why the sudden "need" for Voter ID laws? It couldn't be the 785,000 people in the state of Pennsylvania alone, according to DOS and DOT, who don't have ID cards? The majority of which just happen to be more likely to swing the other political direction...

You have yet to provide evidence of the need for Voter ID laws...

[East of Eden]

(It couldn't possibly be what Rep Mike Turzai stated - "Voter ID laws, which will win the State of Pennsylvania for Romney..." )

I have no problem with that statement, if the intent was to say that by eliminating voter fraud, Romney would have a chance.

300 more non-citizens just discovered on CO voter rolls:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10 ... ter-rolls/

You have no problem with that statement? It is not like that statement indicates an attempt at passing this regulation in the 11th hour before a very tight election for the explicit purposes of bringing a win of a certain swing state for Romney... Oh, wait, yes it does, because there has been exactly ZERO documented cases of voter impersonation in the State of Pennsylvania since at least the beginning of this century.

Even the people who introduced the legislation could produce no evidence to back up their public claims: [Leading up to the trial, the state said it would offer no evidence that “in-person voter fraud has in fact occurred in Pennsylvania or elsewhere� or that “in-person voter fraud is likely to occur in November 2012 in the absence of a photo ID law.� Pennsylvania officials, who responded to the News21 public record requests, also reported no cases of Election Day voter-impersonation fraud since 2000.]

It is hard for me to believe that the other swing states, with Republican Reps who just happened to introduce this legislation at the exact same time were of hugely different opinions that Rep Mike T.

And as for non-citizens on the CO voter rolls - my friend, you are talking about apples and oranges. If you look at each state and the requirements to get an ID card, there is an exemption for non-citizens to be able to get an ID card.

From the DMV website: "If you are legally present in the US, but ineligible for an SSN, you are exempt from SSN requirements. However, you must still provide an acceptable birth date/legal presence document for any DL/ID card application"

Birth date and legal presence documents aren't too difficult to obtain for non-citizens. So not only is it entirely feasible for a non-citizen to get an ID card, but many of them already do. And so do convicted felons - who are also ineligible to vote, but have ID cards. So, it is not like presenting an ID card is going to stop someone from voting, even if they are ineligible, as long as they are on the voter roster.

So, lets stick with the current issue - which is why the sudden "need" for Voter ID laws? It couldn't be the 785,000 people in the state of Pennsylvania alone, according to DOS and DOT, who don't have ID cards? The majority of which just happen to be more likely to swing the other political direction...

You have yet to provide evidence of the need for Voter ID laws...

How can the electoral process be harmed by making it more secure? Where is your evidence that huge numbers of people who would like to vote aren't because of this security?

[chris_brown207]

(It couldn't possibly be what Rep Mike Turzai stated - "Voter ID laws, which will win the State of Pennsylvania for Romney..." )

I have no problem with that statement, if the intent was to say that by eliminating voter fraud, Romney would have a chance.

300 more non-citizens just discovered on CO voter rolls:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10 ... ter-rolls/

You have no problem with that statement? It is not like that statement indicates an attempt at passing this regulation in the 11th hour before a very tight election for the explicit purposes of bringing a win of a certain swing state for Romney... Oh, wait, yes it does, because there has been exactly ZERO documented cases of voter impersonation in the State of Pennsylvania since at least the beginning of this century.

Even the people who introduced the legislation could produce no evidence to back up their public claims: [Leading up to the trial, the state said it would offer no evidence that “in-person voter fraud has in fact occurred in Pennsylvania or elsewhere� or that “in-person voter fraud is likely to occur in November 2012 in the absence of a photo ID law.� Pennsylvania officials, who responded to the News21 public record requests, also reported no cases of Election Day voter-impersonation fraud since 2000.]

It is hard for me to believe that the other swing states, with Republican Reps who just happened to introduce this legislation at the exact same time were of hugely different opinions that Rep Mike T.

And as for non-citizens on the CO voter rolls - my friend, you are talking about apples and oranges. If you look at each state and the requirements to get an ID card, there is an exemption for non-citizens to be able to get an ID card.

From the DMV website: "If you are legally present in the US, but ineligible for an SSN, you are exempt from SSN requirements. However, you must still provide an acceptable birth date/legal presence document for any DL/ID card application"

Birth date and legal presence documents aren't too difficult to obtain for non-citizens. So not only is it entirely feasible for a non-citizen to get an ID card, but many of them already do. And so do convicted felons - who are also ineligible to vote, but have ID cards. So, it is not like presenting an ID card is going to stop someone from voting, even if they are ineligible, as long as they are on the voter roster.

So, lets stick with the current issue - which is why the sudden "need" for Voter ID laws? It couldn't be the 785,000 people in the state of Pennsylvania alone, according to DOS and DOT, who don't have ID cards? The majority of which just happen to be more likely to swing the other political direction...

You have yet to provide evidence of the need for Voter ID laws...

How can the electoral process be harmed by making it more secure? Where is your evidence that huge numbers of people who would like to vote aren't because of this security?

Sorry, it doesn't work like that... "you show me yours and then you show me yours again".

You have yet to show any evidence that demonstrates a need for voter ID law, or even disprove that this legislation wasn't explicitly created to sway voting. I have already demonstrated ample evidence that there is little to no reason to justify requiring ID cards at this juncture (and also that it is a little shifty for Republicans to introduce this increased regulation, which goes against their party platform of decreasing regulation, at this particular point in time).

Since you are for this law, I am sure you have plenty of evidence to support increasing regulation. I will await for you to present this evidence, and then I will demonstrate to you how passing something like this without concern for those who don't have an ID or the means to get one can damage the electoral process.