Politics Who's Gonna Win?

I am skeptical, not of your mother's situation, but of the premise that an 86 year-old does not need ID to function in this society. If true, that Medicare, hospitals, doctors, social security, banks, cruise ships, big BINGO night winners ($10,000+) don't need some form of photo ID, as a tax payer I would support a program where government (perhaps IRS agents, put them to some productive use) employees go door to door and produce a photo ID for seniors who need them.

My premise: Some people will do illegal or unethical things to help themselves or their candidate get elected. If you agree, what is the dispute? If you disagree, I understand your point of view - I just don't share it.

We are splitting hairs. If a person wins because they cheated, in my view the victory is illegitimate.
--- merged: Apr 26, 2012 at 5:19 PM ---

I think Republicans can be equally guilty of voter fraud. When I say "the machine", it can exist in any type of jurisdiction that is controlled by insiders. Whenever one party dominates a jurisdiction over decades, I get a bit skeptical. I suspect something is rigged one way or the other. Most Americans are not at the extremes, and we should expect that occasionally a Democrat could be more conservative than a Republican and a Republican be more liberal than a Democrat on the issues most important to voters during an election.

Your logic has flaws, do you want them pointed out? I bet you know, and as I have been saying lately, we are adults here.

 

The evidence does not support your premise and it is not my logic, but the evidence.

If you think that less than 1/10th or even 1/100th of one percent is significant enough to place additional burdens on what would likely be a discriminatory manner against minorities and seniors to warrant additional regulations, then we disagree.

But I'll remember that the next time you complain about unnecessary regulatory burdens...particularly when it deals with a Constitutional right.

 

Well, she's functioned for 40 years without one. An update to this story, though. My Mom loves to read and received a Kindle for Christmas. She was told that she can download books from her local library - only problem is - she doesn't have a library card. Her main source for book buying has been Goodwill or book sharing with her friends. So she goes to get a library card and they tell her she needs a photo ID. WTF! For a library card! But she's a determined old chick so she pursues it.

She's told that in order to get her state issued photo ID, she'll need to provide her birth certificate (all good) and two other forms of ID -her SS card (good) and one more from the list. The only one applicable to her would be her marriage certificate (lost or misplaced years ago)

She's still determined. She contacts the Rhode Island department of Vital Statistics to get a copy of her marriage certificate and.....oh yes...she needs a photo ID to obtain it.

There's America for you.

And Ace, just in case you're even thinking of making voter ID hay of the fact that a photo ID is needed to get a library card, please don't. Two wrongs don't equal a right.
--- merged: Apr 26, 2012 at 6:18 PM ---

I hope this is a joke.

I agree. The wealthy are very good at this.

http://m.npr.org/news/front/151379832

 

You can get a state issued identity card instead of a driver's license. My friend in college didn't drive, but had one to get into clubs.

In Ohio, I have successfully used a utility bill in order to vote. I think there is a lot more of a risk to fraud there... (Not that it would be worth the mail theft and voter fraud charge just to get another vote).

 

Again, you fail to note the distinction between a photo ID and a state issued photo ID. By the way, medicare cards have no photos in them.

 

If the point you are trying to make is that it's somehow easier to get a state issued photo ID, I know that in Virginia (and CT where my mother lives), getting a state issued photo ID requires the same forms of ID for proof of citizenship as does a driver's license. It's no easier with the exception of not needing to pass a driving test.

I agree, the risk is not worth it for the average would-be vote defrauder. A fine, an arrest record, or possible imprisonment in exchange for a vote? I just don't see it either.

Strangely, there is no requirement for photo ID in order to vote in VA but every time I show up to vote, they ask for photo identification. I don't stick around to see if they might be turning anyone away who doesn't have it though.

 

So are we back to pontificating about VP's? I would love to hear Darling Nikki Haley vetted for VP, and then we could dig up her alleged sex scandal with Will Folks again and maybe get that Santorum back in the mix. Someone was telling me the other day that there was "rumor" that Romney was kicking around the Gringrich name to get that Southern credibility. Thinking of Newt in the whitehouse race for VP? Awesome. All of the footage of him blasting Romney in the primaries in the Obama adds? Awesome.
--- merged: May 2, 2012 at 8:35 AM ---
Oh, just saw this. How sweet! I guess it's on...similar that referenced above by rogue

 

I said some people will do illegal or unethical things to get elected or to help those they support get elected. And you appear to dispute my premise. I offer exhibit A:



Yes, I know, I know - he has not been convicted...yet. Not technically voter fraud either but I am shocked that someone would actually present an argument against my premise. Perhaps we don't need campaign finance controls...because as some might say...there is no real evidence of mass election finance fraud.
--- merged: May 7, 2012 at 3:48 PM ---

I did not "fail" to note the difference - in my view it can be state authorized or state approved. The difference is more or less inconsequential in my view.

 

Ace,..are you really trying to connect the dots between Edwards paying his mistress out of campaign funds to a need for a state mandate requiring more stringent voter ID than presently exists?

The former is not voter fraud by any stretch of the imagination and has absolutely nothing to do with the integrity of ballots cast at the voting booth.

But if you are calling more stringent campaign finance reform abuses like Edwards or Bobby Thompson (and his $100 million phony charity scam to fund Republicans), I agree!

The problem is that Republicans/conservatives wont support campaign finance reform that would require, at the very least, more transparency for big donors (and Super PACs). They prefer to put a greater burden on minority and elderly voters.

Protect the rights of fat cat corporate contributors, not poor voters...the Republican way!

 

Yes. Didn't you understand what I wrote?

Attempts to steal elections through voter fraud or campaign financial fraud, at the end of the day are the same.

I support disclosure. Identification of where the money comes from.
I support voters proving they are who they say they are when they vote.

My views on election fraud are not complicated. My views on election fraud are not partisan. And I am not naive on these issues.

 

Bullshit.... particularly given that there is virtually no evidence of voter fraud under the current system of voter IDs (other than a required state-issued photo).
--- merged: May 7, 2012 at 4:43 PM ---

Right. You're just attempting to compare apples and oranges.

 

This is why I brought up campaign finance, there is very little relatively speaking, to suggest any need for campaign fiance rules and regulations. And at the core every American should have a right to exercise political speech through financially helping the candidate of their choice. all I want is disclosure. And all I want from voters is for them to prove they are who they say they are.

If you don't get it, fine. If you don't agree, fine. You either don't get it or we disagree.

 

I get it, Ace.

You still cant provide any meaningful evidence of voter fraud.

BTW, for me, the need for campaign reform is not that there is excessive criminality under the current system, but simply that there is excessive unaccounted for spending, to the tune of $hundreds of millions by a small group of fat cats and corporate interests, that influence elections far beyond the potential fraud in the voting booth that exists only in your mind.

 

Viviette Applewhite, 93, says she has voted since 1960, when she cast her first presidential ballot for John F. Kennedy. But she doesn't have a driver's license. And since she has been unable to obtain a birth certificate from the state, Applewhite says, she will not meet the law's requirements and therefore will be barred from voting in the Nov. 6 presidential election. Three other elderly women who say they cannot obtain necessary ID because they were born in the Jim Crow South, where states have no records of their births, are among the ten plaintiffs who would likely also be denied the right to vote under the PA law.

 

How can anyone agree with your premises Ace when you can't seem to agree on them yourself? You offer up John Edwards as evidence for the need for campaign finance control and in the very next post, suggest there is no need for it.

And the fact that the best and only example of voter ID fraud you can come up with is John Edward's funneling of campaign funds to his pregnant mistress (connected because he's a politician and voting puts politicians into office?) is evidence itself of the fact that you have nothing but straws to grab at.

Please refer me to the passage in the US Constitution which states that what you want trumps the rights of the legitimate voters who would be alienated by your anal measures.

While you're at it, explain to me how the right to exercise political speech through campaign financing is more worthy of protection than the basic right of every American to vote for the candidate of their choice

Some evidence showing that voter fraud is more prevalent and in need of remedial action than campaign finance fraud would be welcome, as well.

 

I don't have any evidence. I thought a made that clear many posts ago. All I have is empirical data from my own observations and understanding of human nature. As a rule if unethical activity is easy to get away with, you get unethical behavior. My view on this will never change and if you had asked me 30 years ago it would have been the same - voters should prove who they say they are in order to vote. My motives are not partisan, not racial, not any other nefarious motive you want to assign, it is just my point of view. and you can bet if I ever got elected to an office where I could require voters to prove they are who they say they are, I would do it.
--- merged: May 8, 2012 at 12:23 PM ---

I think there should be full disclosure regarding campaign funding. I believe Edwards was hiding and misdirecting campaign funds. I believe campaign funding should be used for campaign activity, I believe Edwards was using campaign funds for his personal benefit and in a way to avoid public embarrassment so that he could get elected. I am not sure I understand your confusion.

I am thinking I could do better, if I really tried. How long have you known me? Is this some kind of challenge?
--- merged: May 8, 2012 at 12:29 PM ---

I would make sure she would get what she needs to vote. In cases like hers I think the government should send someone to her door and personally make a record of who she is and provide her transportation to the polling place. I see no reason not to make a herculean effort to make the process easy for elderly people who need help. You are barking up the wrong tree on this with me.

 

So you want to impose a new financial burden on the state and have the government knocking on people's doors?

And how about the potentially hundreds or thousands of others like her in PA and other states that we dont know about that could (or would) be disenfranchised by these laws?

 

I think voter fraud happens-

Indiana sec. of state convicted of voter fraud - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

How to Rig an Election:Convicted Phone-Jammer Tells All - ABC News

So, yeah it happens.

 

Let me point out your two seemingly conflicting posts again for you then: (in the first you suggest, via sarcasm, that John Edwards is proof of the need for campaign finance reform, in the second, you suggest that there is little to warrant it.

No challenge. I was merely pointing out the fact that you can't provide better in the way of evidence because there is none.
--- merged: May 8, 2012 at 1:36 PM ---

Obviously, this sort of fraudulent activity can be easily remedied by insisting that individual voters present state issued photo ID cards. Problem solved!