Politics Who's Gonna Win?

There are some legitimate reasons why locals want to have a say in the administration of voting. I think you know that, so I don't understand your tone.

There are some big voting rights issues, some worthy of national discussion, and others that are not. For example is a locality has limited resources and can only accommodate a limited number of early voting locations - that is a rule that the local citizens have to adapt to - if a law is passed setting a certain date range for that - voters have to adapt to that as well. Voting takes effort. If a college town, like mine, has a student population when school is in session that is 4 times the normal full time number of residents, they may have some concerns about students unduly influencing local politics and potentially turning it into a joke - if laws/rules/regulations are needed, that is a local issue.
--- merged: Apr 19, 2012 at 11:13 AM ---

I noted that you did not give your view on the low 49% youth vote turnout in 2008, although higher than 2004. And given some people will spend hours in line in advance of a midnight release of a game like Halo 4, and not vote - it brings into question if your view of priorities is accurate - the below says economic issues are top concerns. Contraception is affordable and easily available in this country and will always be so.

Survey: Young adults cool to Obama, Romney, voting
--- merged: Apr 19, 2012 at 11:19 AM ---
Just when I thought things were set, I see that many would support Rice as a Romney VP pick. That would be gutsy on Romney's part, and if he did it, I would seriously reconsider and possibly give the ticket my 100% support.

Condi Rice, Gov. Christie, Sen. Rubio top VP polls

 

More avoidance of the facts.

States have had voter ID laws in place for 50+ years that have worked in the best interest of the state and of the voters.

Those voter ID laws generally had requirements of photo-ID (drivers license, passport, etc) OR government ID (Social Security card/Medicare card, etc) and documentation of current residence (bank statement, utility, bill, etc.). There are no examples of this either/or system resulting in voter fraud.

These new laws drop everything after the OR and mandate a strict photo-ID requirement, knowing that it adversely impacts certain demographic groups (minorities, elderly).

For all the bitching by the right about over regulating when unnecessary, this is the height of hyprocracy and blatantly political.
--- merged: Apr 19, 2012 at 11:23 AM ---

The Halo issue is bullshit.

The turnout issue will play both ways, with Obama trying to retain the high turnout from 2008 and Romney dealing with the worst "enthusiasm gap" among the core Republican voters in our lifetime.

 

It shouldn't have to, is the point. And it definitely shouldn't be made more difficult. Our voting technology and methods are lingering somewhere in the dark ages. It makes no sense to me why voting isn't already as easy as buying a new laptop online, just in case the effort you're talking about is the effort required to set up and man polling locations. Issues with casted vote security and transparency? Definitely, but it could be worked out and it isn't as if those issues aren't already in play with our current, inconsistent system.

Any one of these candidates spells certain death for Romney. He needs to pick a strong, well known, social conservative, which none of these candidates are.

In fact, a Romney/Rice ticket is so attractive, I'd vote for it. Not a good sign.

 

It certainly wont, given that Rice is pro-choice, pro-civil unions and highly critical of the radical evangelical right using religion to force their beliefs on the country.

 

I don't avoid those facts. I simply have no objection to them and think it reasonable to prove a voter is who they say they are. In the US a person needs two forms of ID to get a legitimate job, including one with a photo. Why a higher standard for getting a legit job over voting? How about some consistency from government?

It could be, but the young adult vote is not. Odds are Obama is going to get a lesser turnout and a smaller margin. Halo 4 was used to highlight the risks. Like I wrote - if I were on Obama's team I would address this issue. It would actually be innovative and cutting edge (and less costly) to target young adults through the avenues they enjoy like gaming. A dismissive attitude, simply illustrates a narrow view point.

Let's discuss one issue at a time. The young adult vote is one thing. The core Republican voter enthusiasm gap is another. As I suggested, Romney could win me by his VP pick, but not if he selects one of the people most often discussed up until now. I read one commentator describing Romeny's most likely choices as "vanilla on vanilla" (meaning nothing to get excited about).
--- merged: Apr 20, 2012 at 12:42 PM ---

This statement illustrates a fundamental difference in our points of view. I believe anything of value, should and does require effort. I want people to be interested, I want people to try to know and understand the issues, choices, candidates. I want people to get satisfaction from the effort they put into voting. I want people to be willing to fight, sacrifice, do whatever it takes to participate in our system of government.

I agree with your technology point. And I also think our electoral college system is obsolete. I would support a popular vote for President.
--- merged: Apr 20, 2012 at 12:47 PM ---

I am one of those folks who can support people I do not agree with 100% of the time. I am not a "litmus test" voter - I have a more holistic approach.

But, point by point, I am pro-choice up to the point of viability. I am pro-civil unions. And I can be critical of the radical evangelical right and the radical evangelical left - and anything in between if it is deserving. The question is does Romney have the guts to make such a pick and defend it?

 

Voting is a constitutionally guaranteed right, not a privilege that the state can impose burdens upon that make it more difficult for some citizens.

So where is the data that a govt ID card (social security. medicare) and a document demonstrating current residence (bank statement, utility bill, etc) is not sufficient to prevent voter fraud?

A higher standard than for a getting a job? I am not aware of any laws that requires providing a photo ID to get a legitimate job, perhaps other than jobs that require security clearances.
--- merged: Apr 20, 2012 at 12:58 PM ---

This assumes Romney will get a higher percentage of the young adult voter than McCain did in '08 and there is nothing to suggest that is the case, particularly among young women (18-29) where he trails by a staggering 40+ percent (in one poll).

I dont doubt that the Obama team will cover all bases but their job is not nearly as difficult as Romney's, who trails in nearly every demographic group, some by much wider margins than McCain, other than educated, wealthy, white males.

 

What about the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? A person needs two forms of ID to work, to make a living??? and worse as an employer, I have to be the counterfeit police, to verify the documents are not a fraud or I face the wrath of the government! Are you outraged about this? We simply disagree on voter ID laws.

Again, I would defer to local officials. If I am a local election official in a rural county and everyone knows everyone and they don;t need photo ID, fine. As long as they are not treating people differently i see no problem with it. If I am a election official in Cook County Il. (Includes Chicago), you bet I fight for photo ID's for verification.

Here you go.

USCIS - I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification

Here is a link to the form, didn't you fill one out?

http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/i-9.pdf

 

Nope. I have never filled out an I-9 form. I guess that makes me illegal.

Moving on now. I've made my point and you still have not provided any data that non-photo IDs have been a problem for the last 50 years, requiring new burdens to vote that disproportionately impact some citizens over others.

 

I doubt accurate data exists. Just as you illustrate, most people comply with the I9 requirements and you didn't, I doubt accurate data exists showing the importance of I9's.

 

Is it important or merely a bureaucratic technicality? I worked for a company which did what it was mandated to do as far as requesting ID and filling out the I9 documentation. It was a small metal plating shop which employed about 20 workers, more than 50% of them of Mexican or Dominicans. I saw some pretty dodgy forms of ID which were accepted by the company and filed away. Most of these employees have been with the company for at least 5 or 6 six years. Their employment and work performance contributed to the company being able to expand into a new, larger location and hire more workers. They're paid well and have the maximum amount of federal and state payroll and income taxes taken from their paychecks. Taxes which they never see any portion of refunded, as they don't file 1040's.

In light of this:
As no one has ever come around and questioned their right to work, how important have the two forms of ID been?
As they are making a contribution to the employer and in this instance, to the local job market, and they are paying their share of taxes, how important have the two forms of ID been?

Anecdotal yes, but I highly doubt this is an isolated incident.

I9's do not appear very important to Homeland Security or ICE and they are obviously of absolutely no concern at all to the IRS who will accept taxes from employees with counterfeit SS#'s.

So, there is no comparison to be made between employer's requiring 2 forms of ID and the same being asked of voters.

What I do see is one of the illegitimate reasons Republicans and conservatives use while pushing for more stringent proof. Heaven forbid an illegal slip through the cracks, which is paranoiac nonsense, of course. As has been mentioned, most states already require a photo ID and from what I've seen of the quality of fake ID's out there, they will never pass muster with the sharp old ladies manning the voting tables, even if an unregistered alien was stupid enough to risk capture and deportation if they did attempt to vote.

So where is the problem exactly, to warrant two forms of ID to vote?

 

An employer can face stiff penalties, and some want to make those penalties worse. This should not be the responsibility of an employer. I bring this up in the context of consistency. If an photo ID is not needed to vote, why are they needed to work. There is no statistical data supporting work place ID needs, why doesn't that argument fly with the I9 waste of time?

I repeat, I lived in the Chicago area. Perhaps, your experiences are different, but I grew up knowing Chicago politics were corrupt and voter fraud was rampant. I have that baggage of distrust and will always have it.

 

I have no idea and don't care. The two don't even belong in the same conversation.

Republicans promote voter photo ID legislation for the purpose of making it difficult for certain citizens to participate in the voting process.

You keep trying to put lipstick on the pig.

 

Voter fraud IS NOT rampant. Voter registration might be, but those fake registrations never get to vote.

 

Who are we talking about, that is my main point? Who does not have a photo ID? Anyone who is employed (or ever plans on being employed), by law has to have two forms of ID, including a photo ID. Why wouldn't a person want to show their photo ID to vote? What is the big deal? On the other-hand a person committing voter fraud would love for that activity to be as easy as possible.
--- merged: Apr 24, 2012 at 11:32 AM ---

it does not have to be rampant, for it to make the difference between a candidate winning or losing. In some local elections the margins can regularly and easily be ten votes or less. If you ever run against "the machine" (could be either party) as a grassroots unconventional politician, in some areas it will be guaranteed that you will lose even if you legitimately win. I don't get why some here are being so naive.

Why do you buy into b.s. so easily? In local areas and states where they are pushing voter ID laws, look at the patterns and history in those areas. If I were a Republican in Chicago, and buy a fluke, won a general election - you bet the first thing I do is try to fix the system so that the next election is fair. Of course "the machine" is going to push back, perhaps with the talking point being repeated here.

 

No, anyone who is employed does not need a state issued photo ID.

Look at an i9, and you will see that the following combinations of documents are enough to show eligibility to work:
voter registration card and birth certificate

Not to mention that to work the person can present non state issued photo ids (like a school ID0, while these laws only accept state issued photo ids.

 

I have never seen a voter registration card - I have never lived in a state that required one - so I am learning something. What is required to get one? Do people need one to vote in areas that require them? Is this a problem too?

 

My 86 yr old mother doesn't have a photo ID. She hasn't driven since she contracted rheumatoid arthritis in her late 50's. Has had no need for a photo ID and probably never will, unless Republicans decide that she'll need one to vote. She votes for everything from dog-catcher to President. She feels it's her responsibility so she'll probably jump through the hoops to get one, if it's required, but I have to wonder how many other seniors and elderly might be in the same boat and might find it too much of hardship to try and comply.

I think it's you who are being naive. Voter fraud is not a significant problem, despite your insistence that it is. Those ten less votes are more likely to come about through voter suppression than fraud.

How does a candidate lose if they've legimately won? Could it be that they legimately lose, because they are a grassroots unconventional politician or they are the unfortunate victim of gerrymandered re-districting? Why assume voter fraud?

If you really believe that fraud, committed by voters themselves, is a problem, please tell me how it's being done?

 

I dont think he is being naive but rather he is perpetuating a grossly exaggerated caricature of the evil Democratic fraudsters.

The Bush DoJ aggressively cracked down on alleged voter fraud between 2002 and 2005 and found "scant evidence" of voter fraud.

Convictions of twenty some voters for voter fraud, "many by mistake or misunderstanding"....out of millions of ballots cast? Less than 1/10th of 1 percent or even much less (ballpark).

I would suggest that far more voters (predominately minorities and seniors) will be denied or face added difficulty in exercising their Constitutional right to vote.

Can you say CARICATURE of voter fraud, Ace? Or maybe you can explain it to Joniemack's 86 year old mother.