Nah...voter fraud isn't a problem...

[mjr]

EVERYTHING has a cost. "Poll Taxes" were monetary costs. I could argue that it costs me money AND time to drive to the poll to vote. So why can't I have them drive a ballot to my house?

And if you have to take off to vote, wouldn't that, under your definition, be a poll tax?

[Daskinor]

In my state TDOS offers drivers licensing testing in every county at least once a month, most more and in some 5 days a week. I'm sure if someone that didn't have a car to get to the testing stations could call a local politician or political organization or church group to get a ride to get a free ID. I've driven folks from their home counties to neighboring counties to do so. Heck I bet there is also veteran groups that would take folks to get IDs.
Is this available in all situations? No but my state also allows folks without ID to cast a provisional ballot. Once the person is confirmed then their ballot is included.
And I stick by my premise that the state could come to a person's home to make an ID and they'd still complain. If you aren't willing to put some effort to vote then perhaps you shouldn't be voting.
In the 2012 election there were several students at the local university complaining that there wasn't a polling station at the university for out of state students to vote. What rubbed me was why does my state have to provide a polling station for out of state students and why are out of state voting in my state's elections? How many folks that have residences in multiple states also vote in multiple states? Justin Timberlake owns some land in the Memphis area, he flew in to vote but he lives in CA. Did he vote both places? By law he can't be a residence of both states. If he did vote both places then IMO that is voter fraud. And it's just not him, there's lots of damnyankees that live both in FL and up in yankeeland. Vote both places that's fraud.

The state can not rely on a third party to satisfy 24th and Voting Act requirements. The can do mobile things for rural areas, but not actually following through with those plans sunk Texas' voter id laws.

The provisional ballot thing is a trap waiting for problems. Its basically weasel words to not back down on the voter ID laws after the federal courts cracked down on the efforts as voter suppression. What happens when the election is close enough and you need to count those votes. It is not fun dealing with them.

Since college students live in your state for more then half the year, they are eligible to vote in that state or their home state. Or that district if they are from another part of the state. The particulars depend on each state but you are wrong about a person being a resident of two states. There are some differences between being a 'full resident' or a 'resident'. But I feel if you pay personal taxes in both states you should be able to vote in whatever state you want. Most people settle for where they are in November. So yes whatever they call people who go south in the winter, and college students.

EVERYTHING has a cost. "Poll Taxes" were monetary costs. I could argue that it costs me money AND time to drive to the poll to vote. So why can't I have them drive a ballot to my house?

And if you have to take off to vote, wouldn't that, under your definition, be a poll tax?

We call those absentee ballots. And some places do early voting. And one state says "screw it we will do the whole thing by mail".

So yes those points are addressed. As for getting to the polling place, that's the one thing that is not expressly covered by the 24th. But it is covered under the Voter Act. Since the poll is technically a place not an act. The amendment does not cover getting to the place or waiting in line there. But the Voter Rights Act prevents blatant ways to exploit that. Like make a polling place to far away or open a short amount of time. Or even closing before everyone in line has voted.

Honestly I am against the Tuesday vote, because I think it is an attempt at voter suppression from over 200 years ago. Should be a national holiday.



For me what it comes down to is the fact that no one has been able to show wide spread voter fraud at the individual voting level. We seen it as suppression, we seen it in gerrymandering, we have seen it with the counters. Trying to drum up enough in person fraud to influence all but a local election is more difficult then one can imagine. So many people would be involved that need to keep the crime under wraps would be that much more difficult.

I seen articles that scream "OVER 1000 DEAD PEOPLE VOTED THIS YEAR". First that is statistically barley able to affect a local election. Second you read into the article, 90% of them have been verified to have died after sending an absentee ballot. So perfectly legal votes sent in by people who happened to have died since then.

Or that "3800 people MAY of voted improperly in CA" where a record 14.6 million people voted that year. And most of those cases where paperwork irregularities not attempted fraud.

One of the articles in this thread about non citizens voting. Even stated that in some cases they filled out the form accurately. The state just did not do its job correctly, and they were the one that messed up.

And we get a published case of in person fraud. Then separate out the ones committed by someone with intellectual impairment. It statistically amounts to nothing.

But I do take great offence to putting up a barrier to voting because you do not have and item that you are not legally required to have. Then force you to get that item to exercise said right.

And if its really that important, then support a national ID program. Where everyone gets an ID. See how much backlash that gets.....

[mjr]

We call those absentee ballots. And some places do early voting. And one state says "screw it we will do the whole thing by mail".

So yes those points are addressed.

Not in all cases. If you have a post office box where you have to get to the post office, then that means you have to get to the post office. So you'd either have to drive (gas, wear on the car), walk (a decent amount of time) or take public transit (pay a fare, time). Not everyone has a mailbox outside their house or at their apartment complex.

And if ballots are supposed to be anonymous, doesn't a "mail in" ballot sort of defeat that purpose?

As for getting to the polling place, that's the one thing that is not expressly covered by the 24th. But it is covered under the Voter Act. Since the poll is technically a place not an act. The amendment does not cover getting to the place or waiting in line there. But the Voter Rights Act prevents blatant ways to exploit that. Like make a polling place to far away or open a short amount of time. Or even closing before everyone in line has voted.

None of which prevents anyone from showing an ID when they vote.

For me what it comes down to is the fact that no one has been able to show wide spread voter fraud at the individual voting level. We seen it as suppression, we seen it in gerrymandering, we have seen it with the counters.

So then, just how much voter fraud is OK?

Funny thing about gerrymandering. People are against it unless it's benefiting them.

One of the articles in this thread about non citizens voting. Even stated that in some cases they filled out the form accurately. The state just did not do its job correctly, and they were the one that messed up.

The question is: Did the non-citizens vote? That's why we need more oversight. The Constitution doesn't say "residents" can vote. It says citizens can vote.

Also, is it OK and Constitutional for non-citizens to vote? Answer to both: No.

But I do take great offence to putting up a barrier to voting because you do not have and item that you are not legally required to have. Then force you to get that item to exercise said right.

There is something you ARE legally required to have: Citizenship. How do you propose people prove that? "Take my word for it"?

Sorry, that doesn't work.

Also, aren't people generally big on "one person, one vote"? If people are voting more than once, doesn't that violate that premise? Answer: Yes.

"One person, one vote" is also why a lot of people don't want "approval voting", either.

[s_stabeler]

once again the issue isn't that voter fraud is ok, it's that many methods of countering voter fraud disenfranchise more legitimate voters than they catch fraudulent voters

Or, to put it simpler, it's just as bad to disenfranchise a legit voter as it is to allow a fraudulent vote. Both can skew the result. Considering that every singe election you hear of attempts at disenfranchising opposition voters, then I don't personally trust that any voter ID scheme would be bipartisan.

[Daskinor]

Not in all cases. If you have a post office box where you have to get to the post office, then that means you have to get to the post office. So you'd either have to drive (gas, wear on the car), walk (a decent amount of time) or take public transit (pay a fare, time). Not everyone has a mailbox outside their house or at their apartment complex.

There is a legal theory of minimum effort. Like you need to be able to get mail, or use a phone. Or have someone who can do those things for you. Also before you start splitting hairs, case history on this is really clear about. Minimums on time and effort required before it becomes suppression or a poll tax. If you are really curious I can give you the ISBNs so you can do the reading.

And if ballots are supposed to be anonymous, doesn't a "mail in" ballot sort of defeat that purpose?

That can still be accomplished. And to answer your question, no. We actually call the current ballot type in use by most states an "Australian ballot". And current voting systems were not really in place until 1952.

So then, just how much voter fraud is OK?

Mathematically speaking about .05%. In essence, no system is 100% infallible. IDs wont solve the problem, real vs fake. And I would also include making it so eligible voters can't vote a failure of the system even if no fraud has occurred.

Funny thing about gerrymandering. People are against it unless it's benefiting them.

So are you for or against, I can't tell. I stand by gerrymandering as a voter suppression technique.

The question is: Did the non-citizens vote? That's why we need more oversight. The Constitution doesn't say "residents" can vote. It says citizens can vote.

The point was the state made a mistake, and issued them a voter card. Even though they checked the box saying they are a non citizen.

Also, is it OK and Constitutional for non-citizens to vote? Answer to both: No.

Wow, you are just not right, at all. The situation is complicated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_..._United_States

There is something you ARE legally required to have: Citizenship.

See above

How do you propose people prove that? "Take my word for it"?

How does a drivers license prove it? Don't flip out the answer is it does not.

Also, aren't people generally big on "one person, one vote"? If people are voting more than once, doesn't that violate that premise? Answer: Yes.

"One person, one vote" is also why a lot of people don't want "approval voting", either.

No idea what you are trying to say

[mjr]

IDs wont solve the problem, real vs fake.

Well, there are already laws on the books about fake IDs.

So are you for or against, I can't tell. I stand by gerrymandering as a voter suppression technique.

Are you for it if it "helps" your side? Honestly, I don't care for gerrymandering, and getting districts drawn up fairly can be quite a complicated task.

The point was the state made a mistake, and issued them a voter card. Even though they checked the box saying they are a non citizen.

I get that. But how many of them voted when they shouldn't have? If the bank makes a mistake and puts $100 extra in my account, I technically don't have the right to spend that money.

Wow, you are just not right, at all. The situation is complicated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_..._United_States

Complicated, sure. But that doesn't mean that the Constitution is wrong.

In fact, the constitution only says that citizens have the right to vote. https://www.usconstitution.net/const.pdf

Further: http://joshblackman.com/blog/2013/05...izens-to-vote/

And https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/611

The important word: "Citizen".

How does a drivers license prove it? Don't flip out the answer is it does not.

It proves you are who you say you are. Because it has a photo on it.

[Daskinor]

Well, there are already laws on the books about fake IDs.

So what is it organised groups of people who are voting illegally that can only be stopped by the DMV. Or the system is so sacred that people who fall into the margins, or have paperwork problems outside of their control. Cannot be allowed to vote, even if they are citizens. Because the risk of a non-citizen voting is to great.

Are you for it if it "helps" your side? Honestly, I don't care for gerrymandering, and getting districts drawn up fairly can be quite a complicated task.

I think a 'first past the post' system is stupid for representatives. And I could go into a long i discussion about doing a different style of election for them.

I get that. But how many of them voted when they shouldn't have? If the bank makes a mistake and puts $100 extra in my account, I technically don't have the right to spend that money.

Apples to oranges, It be more like if I was given a drivers license after I failed my test. The state in the end still said it was OK for me to drive.

Complicated, sure. But that doesn't mean that the Constitution is wrong.

In fact, the constitution only says that citizens have the right to vote. https://www.usconstitution.net/const.pdf

Further: http://joshblackman.com/blog/2013/05...izens-to-vote/

And https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/611

The important word: "Citizen".

FROM ONE OF THE ARTICLES YOU REFERENCED O_O

Of course, nothing in the text of the Constitution would *stop* a state from giving noncitizens the right to vote. But what are the cultural or philosophical issues about extending the franchise in this manner?

It proves you are who you say you are. Because it has a photo on it.

Doesn't prove you are a citizen, not required for daily life. And the paperwork to get one does not include any photo IDs at all.

But in the end I still have the same problem. Forcing someone to get something they are not required to have otherwise in order to perform a fundamental right of democracy. One that has been updated multiple times in the Constitution to prevent people in power from keeping that right from 'others'.

This widespread fraud you keep talking about died a long time ago. You will always see a number because no system is failproof. But when you count 32 people who should not of voted where over a million voted. Where that smaller number statistically has zero impact.

Eleven million people don't have ID in this country. I'm not about to say you can't vote because .005% of votes in this county may have been cast illegally. The people born before computers who don't have valid license, and are unable to get a copy of their birth certificate. People going off to college who don't drive where a student ID will be good enough until they are able to drink. People who are citizens but born to midwives or parents who were not citizens....

All this crap over something that is less then .005% and that is a high number.

And when fully investigated, nothing was found

https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...claration.html

Just a handful of isolated cases and very few were tired. Most dismissed as mistakes.

[mjr]

Doesn't prove you are a citizen, not required for daily life. And the paperwork to get one does not include any photo IDs at all.

True. But guess what. When I originally got my driver's license, I had to show documentation. Documentation that I'm assuming can be verified. If I recall correctly, I had to show my birth certificate AND Social Security card.

But in the end I still have the same problem. Forcing someone to get something they are not required to have otherwise in order to perform a fundamental right of democracy. One that has been updated multiple times in the Constitution to prevent people in power from keeping that right from 'others'.

So why do I need to get a fishing license? Or show ID to purchase a firearm? The "right to bear arms" is codified in the Constitution, yet we have people (some on this very forum) who say that right should be restricted, and some even say you must get a license, pass a test, etc. in order to get a firearm.

Do you agree with that?

Eleven million people don't have ID in this country.

How many of them are legal citizens?

The people born before computers who don't have valid license, and are unable to get a copy of their birth certificate. People going off to college who don't drive where a student ID will be good enough until they are able to drink. People who are citizens but born to midwives or parents who were not citizens....

There are fixes to all of those things.

[Daskinor]

True. But guess what. When I originally got my driver's license, I had to show documentation. Documentation that I'm assuming can be verified. If I recall correctly, I had to show my birth certificate AND Social Security card.

Birth Certificates rarely are, especially if there is no computer record. They really just check for the watermark. When you throw in the number of different kinds from different states it can be a nightmare. Social Security numbers have some meta-data matching but its not very robust. Most they will perform is a e-verify check.

So why do I need to get a fishing license? Or show ID to purchase a firearm? The "right to bear arms" is codified in the Constitution, yet we have people (some on this very forum) who say that right should be restricted, and some even say you must get a license, pass a test, etc. in order to get a firearm.

Do you agree with that?

Fishing License - Is not codified in the constitution. There is allot of case law on this one.

Firearm Purchase- Technically this is protected under the commerce clause. Case law also supports the state when it imposes restrictions on purchase in this manner. (United States v. Miller) You probably could make an argument for your point of view. But how the National Firearms Act was created, almost everything you are required to do is in order to pay a tax. But Sonzinsky v. United States will most likely mean you will not succeed. State laws vary dramatically, of course.

I do feel that the argument that you need and ID to do action A. So you should need an ID to vote is somewhat weak. The argument you need a license for anything is doubly so to me. You still essentially apply to vote, we call it voter registration. Just because one thing is more strict then does not have berrying on the argument. I apply for a fishing license, in MD I just need to prove in some way I am aware of some restrictions to what I can catch. My license fee goes towards programs to make sure I can enjoy my hobby, and not catch toxic Pfiesteria. My other professional license are allot harder to get.

How many of them are legal citizens?

Sorry Eleven million citizens of voting age.

There are fixes to all of those things.

Not really, those facts alone sunk allot of Voter ID laws. Because telling an senior citizen they need to 'hire a lawyer' so they can vote is a very bad answer. And I take great offence when you take away someones right to vote because a new restriction has been implemented. A restriction whose whole purpose is suppress votes, disguised as a way to fight an imaginary problem.

[mjr]

You still essentially apply to vote, we call it voter registration.

Ok, but again, how do you ensure that those who register to vote are actually eligible to vote? Can I have my under 18 year old son register to vote? No. Why? Because he doesn't meet the criteria (yet) to vote.

Citizens are eligible to vote. And only citizens. How do we ensure that?

Not really, those facts alone sunk allot of Voter ID laws. Because telling an senior citizen they need to 'hire a lawyer' so they can vote is a very bad answer. And I take great offence when you take away someones right to vote because a new restriction has been implemented. A restriction whose whole purpose is suppress votes, disguised as a way to fight an imaginary problem.

Texas has SEVEN things you can use as "ID". I don't care for some of them, because they don't have photo ID. They also have an affidavit you can sign that makes you affirm that you are who you say you are. What's wrong with that?

[Daskinor]

Ok, but again, how do you ensure that those who register to vote are actually eligible to vote? Can I have my under 18 year old son register to vote? No. Why? Because he doesn't meet the criteria (yet) to vote.

Citizens are eligible to vote. And only citizens. How do we ensure that?

I don't care, because the problem is so minor. So minor that regions with millions of voters who check for non-citizens voting find less then 100 possible cases. And of those cases very few amount to criminal intent. Like 823 convictions of in person voter fraud in the last 40 years nationwide. Statistically a problem that has zero impact on any election. It is not worth the energy to deal with. Of course people who shouldn't vote do vote in an election. And even picture IDs wont fix that.

If you really are worried about election fraud, I would pay more attention to who counts the votes. Or the ones who try and keep people from voting, through laws, intimidation or even those robocalls trying to trick people into going to the wrong place or at the wrong time.

If you believe 0 is the only appropriate number and no resources should be spared to get to that number. That's fine. I believe that .005 is good enough, and anything more is a waste of tax dollars and public resources. Only to fight a boogieman.

Texas has SEVEN things you can use as "ID". I don't care for some of them, because they don't have photo ID. They also have an affidavit you can sign that makes you affirm that you are who you say you are. What's wrong with that?

Yes because the new Texas Voter ID laws are nothing but a copout at this point. They kept getting their ass handed to them in court. Texas is also one of the worst states for losing Birth Certificate data. The flooding this year alone destroyed over 50,000 vital records.

Bring your ID!

Unless you don't have ID then bring a voter registration card, a copy or original of a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck or other document that shows the voter’s name and address. Then sign a piece of paper saying you cant get an ID.....

So in the end result is, nothing changes. You may just need to wait in line longer.

Same crap other states require. The only difference is most states will wave the show form of identification requirement after you vote for the first time.