Here's a video of someone getting the opportunity to vote using Eric Holder's ballot. Ironic.

 

Seemed pretty easy.

 

 

If that is genuine, it is very, very scary.

One irresponsible voter hurts no one. One irresponsible gun owner can hurt multiple people.

 

I don't have a problem with making people show their ID to vote. That's no big deal to me. If they can go vote they can to get an ID.

 

I do question the timing of the enforcement of this new rule and the motivation behind this new rule.

 

One fraudulent vote could make my valid vote meaningless. Your's too. To the extent our votes would have meant something, I'd say we would be hurt.

 

Frankly, it amazes me that we sit around on this website and complain over and over again about how the wrong people keep getting elected and re-elected. Some of us condemn voters for electing people like Reid and Pelosi. Some of us condemn voters for electing people like Paul and McConnell.

 

Yet an attempt to make sure only eligible voters are voting is resisted or challenged as being for political reasons. I don't care what is the motivation for making sure that only eligible voters vote. I want to do everything possible to make sure that my vote counts and that your vote counts.

 

I don't and can't know for certainty the level of voter fraud going on throughout this country. But even a small amount of voter fraud can impact close races. Charlie Rangel won his primary by approx 900 votes out of approx 40,000 cast. A very tight race. NY doesn't require voter ID. Anyone opposed to tougher voting laws willing to swear on a Bible that they are certain voter fraud didn't impact that race?

One fraudulent vote could make my valid vote meaningless. Your's too. To the extent our votes would have meant something, I'd say we would be hurt.

 

Frankly, it amazes me that we sit around on this website and complain over and over again about how the wrong people keep getting elected and re-elected. Some of us condemn voters for electing people like Reid and Pelosi. Some of us condemn voters for electing people like Paul and McConnell.

 

Yet an attempt to make sure only eligible voters are voting is resisted or challenged as being for political reasons. I don't care what is the motivation for making sure that only eligible voters vote. I want to do everything possible to make sure that my vote counts and that your vote counts.

 

I don't and can't know for certainty the level of voter fraud going on throughout this country. But even a small amount of voter fraud can impact close races. Charlie Rangel won his primary by approx 900 votes out of approx 40,000 cast. A very tight race. NY doesn't require voter ID. Anyone opposed to tougher voting laws willing to swear on a Bible that they are certain voter fraud didn't impact that race?

 

 

For an even better example: Bush defeats Gore in Florida by 537 votes.

That is true. So why not introduce that program along with the new rules so those voter's rights are protected for this election? Or has some kind of grace period such as beginning Jan. 1, 2013 in a show of good faith that they aren't stripping their right to vote in this election.

It does not take a genius to realize this has a lot of potential political implications and being done for that reason. To me if the Dem's (leadership) are against this, then they should be against it from henceforth, beyond this election. Because if they are in support of it or variation thereof to require voting proof, but ONLY after the election, me that appears they are admitting to the potential flaws and frauds, but want to hold out because it gives Obama the best chance in some battleground states. So if the R's are looking bad, the D's look equally as bad.

For an even better example: Bush defeats Gore in Florida by 537 votes.

 

Absolutely correct. If 538 people ineligible to vote voted for Bush in Florida, such forever changed the history of this country. Which is the VERY reason that every person that values the importance of their vote should want to see everything possible done to make sure that only eligible voters vote.

For an even better example: Bush defeats Gore in Florida by 537 votes.

 

Absolutely correct. If 538 people ineligible to vote voted for Bush in Florida, such forever changed the history of this country. Which is the VERY reason that every person that values the importance of their vote should want to see everything possible done to make sure that only eligible voters vote.

This is absolutely the best example/argument for voter ID I've seen yet.

One fraudulent vote could make my valid vote meaningless. Your's too. To the extent our votes would have meant something, I'd say we would be hurt.

 

Frankly, it amazes me that we sit around on this website and complain over and over again about how the wrong people keep getting elected and re-elected. Some of us condemn voters for electing people like Reid and Pelosi. Some of us condemn voters for electing people like Paul and McConnell.

 

Yet an attempt to make sure only eligible voters are voting is resisted or challenged as being for political reasons. I don't care what is the motivation for making sure that only eligible voters vote. I want to do everything possible to make sure that my vote counts and that your vote counts.

 

I don't and can't know for certainty the level of voter fraud going on throughout this country. But even a small amount of voter fraud can impact close races. Charlie Rangel won his primary by approx 900 votes out of approx 40,000 cast. A very tight race. NY doesn't require voter ID. Anyone opposed to tougher voting laws willing to swear on a Bible that they are certain voter fraud didn't impact that race?

 

I agree with the sentiment in your post and would be on board with two conditions:

 

1) A plan be put in place that would begin the first Wednesday following the first Tuesday following the first Monday in November of this year.

2) The plan include a way to address issues similar to what I mentioned earlier in this thread about my mother prior to her passing. I have an unpleasant feeling that had my mother lived and what some suggest happen actually come to pass in November, then this year would have been the first that she wouldn't have been qualified to vote. That saddens me, as it was one of those things that she was proud of.

I agree with the sentiment in your post and would be on board with two conditions:

 

1) A plan be put in place that would begin the first Wednesday following the first Tuesday following the first Monday in November of this year.

2) The plan include a way to address issues similar to what I mentioned earlier in this thread about my mother prior to her passing. I have an unpleasant feeling that had my mother lived and what some suggest happen actually come to pass in November, then this year would have been the first that she wouldn't have been qualified to vote. That saddens me, as it was one of those things that she was proud of.

 

As to point one, if it's worth doing and needed, why delay it?

 

As to point two, I obviously didn't know your Mom but I wonder what her answer would be if you had asked her: would she be willing to forego voting if it resulted from steps being taken to make sure that only eligible voters voted and fraudulent voting was reduced? Sounds like she was a wonderful, patriotic American. I do agree that a plan should include a way for homebound, homeless and poor people to be able to vote.

 

Do I think some of these voter ID laws are driven by some knee jerk reaction to concerns about ACORN, the fact that President Obama is from Chicago (and I think to a person, everyone I've ever spoken to from Chicago has told me it is the most politically corrupt govt system in the US and vote buying and fraudulent voting is a given) and reports of dead people voting (that often turn out to be false)? Sure. Then again, when you consider what is said in this article: Study: 1.8 Million Dead People Still Registered To Vote : NPR, it should give a reasonable person concern about what is or could be happening. 1.8mm dead people still registered to vote; 3mm people registered to vote in multiple states; 24mm people with invalid or inaccurate registrations. Throw on top of that what is shown in the video concerning the guy given the opportunity to vote Holder's ballot, and I'd think that any eligible voter that wants his or her ballot to actually count and mean something, should support some type of tougher voting laws.

As to point one, if it's worth doing and needed, why delay it?

 

As to point two, I obviously didn't know your Mom but I wonder what her answer would be if you had asked her: would she be willing to forego voting if it resulted from steps being taken to make sure that only eligible voters voted and fraudulent voting was reduced? Sounds like she was a wonderful, patriotic American. I do agree that a plan should include a way for homebound, homeless and poor people to be able to vote.

 

Do I think some of these voter ID laws are driven by some knee jerk reaction to concerns about ACORN, the fact that President Obama is from Chicago (and I think to a person, everyone I've ever spoken to from Chicago has told me it is the most politically corrupt govt system in the US and vote buying and fraudulent voting is a given) and reports of dead people voting (that often turn out to be false)? Sure. Then again, when you consider what is said in this article: Study: 1.8 Million Dead People Still Registered To Vote : NPR, it should give a reasonable person concern about what is or could be happening. 1.8mm dead people still registered to vote; 3mm people registered to vote in multiple states; 24mm people with invalid or inaccurate registrations. Throw on top of that what is shown in the video concerning the guy given the opportunity to vote Holder's ballot, and I'd think that any eligible voter that wants his or her ballot to actually count and mean something, should support some type of tougher voting laws.

 

To the bolded that is what I was saying in my post. This is politics at its finest. The right is wanting it for political reasons. The left is wanting it... but only after this election... with the delay being for political reasons. That is why I feel if you are Dem leadership - to avoid being hypocritical - one has to be all-in in not requiring proof to vote beyond November.

 

Can anyone answer my statement earlier? Are you required to provide some form of identification to register to vote?

I'm 37 and I have never voted one time that I was asked to show my ID.

Getslow made the following post in another thread in response to a post by me) and we agreed that we should really be discussing the issue in this thread:

 

My Post:

"Contrary to the extremely insulting comments made by some on here about the motivation for the tougher voting laws, I'm not in favor of tougher voting laws to discriminate against the poor, the homeless, blacks or latinos."

 

Getslow's response:

 

 

 

"And I'm not going to suggest that you are. In fact, as far as I'm concerned, the intentions of those pursuing voter ID laws is irrelevant. What I'm concerned with are results. Regardless of what candidates or parties they're going to support, I'm having real difficulty with putting into place additional hurdles to participation in the process of governance for those who are least equipped to deal with those hurdles.

 

Like I said in my previous post, I'm not against these proposals to make sure everyone's vote counts and counts fairly, but I have concerns. We're sort of jacking the thread here so maybe we'll move this to the other one. "

 

I agree with Getslow completely that the motivations behind the tougher voting laws are irrelevant, or at least largely irrelevant. When a former wife comes into the police dept and claims that her ex is harassing and stalking her, it's reasonable for the officer to wonder if there is a motivation behind the charge. But the police officer doesn't just focus on the motivation, he investigates the allegation to see if it is true.

 

Perhaps there is some political motivation behind the voter ID laws. But the issue is and should be: are the voting laws so lax in this country that voting fraud is easy? Is it too easy for me to walk into a voting place and say I am someone I am not and be able to vote that person's ballot? Do we have too many dead people still registered to vote making it possible for fraudulent voting? Do we have too many people registered and able to vote in multiple states? Are there systems and processes out there that could be implemented to more quickly get the dead off the voting lists? That identify people registered to vote in multiple states and that can prevent voter ID fraud?

 

Some will say who cares, because of the oft repeated statement that there have only been 13 documented cases of voting ID fraud and that any voter ID law would be an over-reaction. First, I'd like to see the research behind the statement about only 13 cases of documented voter ID fraud. Second, do we know what we don't know? How do we know that a whole lot of unreported voter ID fraud isn't happening but just hasn't been caught? If I'm registered to vote but haven't actually done so myself, but someone else has shown up in my precinct and voted my ballot for the last 5 years, how would we ever find such out? It's not like the govt sends out some "thank you letter" for voting that would alert me that someone voted my ballot. Third, even if it hasn't been a problem yet, if the conditions are "ripe" for it to happen in the future, shouldn't we act before it happens and a big election is impacted by voter ID fraud ? That's akin to ignoring warnings of terrorist attack and doing nothing until after the attack has happened. Does a prudent business owner not install checks and balances in its purchase order generation and invoice payment processes

before

someone in the accounting department issues bogus purchase orders and then cuts checks? Of course he does. I posted some stats, that if valid, are alarming. 1.8 million dead people supposedly still registered to vote; 3 million people registered to vote in multiple states (absentee ballot sent into one state, walk in ballot in another); many states requiring no ID to vote (see the Holder ballot video if one disagrees with the ease of voting someone else's ballot if one wants if an ID isn't required). In my opinion, the situation is overly ripe for voting fraud and the fact it may not be happening yet or in the past provides little comfort to me.

 

I want my vote and every eligible voters vote to actually mean something. I think my constitutional right to vote means my actual vote should actually mean something and not be a vote that is easily negated by a fraudulent vote. I think state govt's have a obligation to me to make sure that my vote is protected.

 

Do I think such voting ID laws have to be carefully drafted? Sure, I agree with Getslow that any photo ID be provided free to everyone wanting it. Do I think that inconveniencing someone is a reason not to implement a policy requiring a photo ID law? No I don't as think the integrity of the vote is more important than inconveniencing someone. I think that states must have processes and systems in place to make sure that anyone wanting and eligible to vote can actually vote. We need more people to be engaged in voting. What we don't need however is, in our push to have more people voting, we make it easier for voting fraud to happen. At some point in time, I think we risk a whole lot of eligible voters stop voting because they believe the election is rigged and their vote won't matter anyway. I don't know it's indicative of how a lot of voters in Chicago feel, but I have friends who are natives of Chicago tell me they don't even bother voting in local elections because they "know" the elections are rigged. That mentality is very disturbing to me.

 

My concern if you will about voting fraud is not based on wanting to make it harder for any eligible voter to vote; it stems from the fact I take my voting right and responsibility extremely seriously. I want it to matter.

 

I'm 37 and I have never voted one time that I was asked to show my ID.

 

I on the other hand, have had to show a photo ID every time I've voted. Even when the person working the voting place knew me!

I on the other hand, have had to show a photo ID every time I've voted. Even when the person working the voting place knew me!

Sorry, that's what I meant.

I'm 37 and I have never voted one time that I was NOT asked to show my ID.

 

Funny how omitting one word changes totally changes what I meant to say. To be clear I have been asked for ID 100% of the times I have voted.

To the bolded that is what I was saying in my post. This is politics at its finest. The right is wanting it for political reasons. The left is wanting it... but only after this election... with the delay being for political reasons. That is why I feel if you are Dem leadership - to avoid being hypocritical - one has to be all-in in not requiring proof to vote beyond November.

 

Can anyone answer my statement earlier? Are you required to provide some form of identification to register to vote?[/QUOTE]

 

From the Ky Secretary of State website:[h=4]Do I have to produce Identification to vote?[/h]All voters must produce identification or be known by a precinct officer prior to voting. KRS117.227 and 31 KAR 4:010 provide the types of ID that can be used by the voter such as: Personal acquaintance of precinct officer, Driver’s license, Social Security card, credit card, or another form of ID containing both picture and signature.

 

 

117.227 Confirmation of voter's identity.

Election officers shall confirm the identity of each voter by personal acquaintance or by a document, such as a motor vehicle operator's license, Social Security card, or credit card. The election officer confirming the identity shall sign the precinct voter roster and list the method of identification.

Effective: July 15, 2002

History: Amended 2002 Ky. Acts ch. 10, sec. 1, effective July 15, 2002. -- Created 1988 Ky. Acts ch. 341, sec. 9, effective July 15, 1988.

 

 

31 KAR 4:010. Voter identification cards. RELATES TO: KRS 117.227 STATUTORY AUTHORITY: KRS 117.015 NECESSITY, FUNCTION, AND CONFORMITY: To define the forms of identification that are acceptable in confirming the identity of voters on election day, and to provide uniformity of identification standards throughout the state. This administrative regulation is required to establish a procedure for documenting the confirmation of identity on precinct voter rosters. Section 1. In addition to the forms of identification specifically provided for by KRS 117.227, any identification card that bears both the picture and signature of the voter, or any identification card that has been issued by the county, and which has been approved in writing by the State Board of Elections, shall be acceptable for confirmation of the voter's identity. Section 2. The method of identification used shall be recorded on the precinct voter roster by use of the following codes: (1) Personal acquaintance - "PA" (2) Motor vehicle operator's license - "DL" (3) Social Security card - "SS" (4) Credit card - "CC" (5) Identification card with picture and signature (other identification) - "OI" Section 3. The election officer confirming the identity shall enter his initials on the precinct voter roster in lieu of a signature. (17 Ky.R. 1229; eff. 12-7-90.)