Poll: 74% support voter ID laws

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

PrintSmith wrote:

plaidvillain wrote: PrintSmith, why do you support voter ID? It is to combat a problem that doesn't exist. Do you think voter fraud is a real problem? Or could it be that you are fully aware these laws will disproportionately affect minorities?...minorities which are quite likely to vote opposed to your radical views?

My views are only radical to those on the extreme left wing - reasonable people are more likely to place me equidistant between the actual middle and the far right wing, perhaps even closer to the middle than that given some of my views. I support voter ID simply as a means to protect the integrity of the vote. I also believe, as a result of such things as same day voter registration, that there is far more fraud occurring than is being uncovered. When you stop and realize that the election of one president came down to a margin of 537 votes out of 6 million which were cast in one State (less than one one hundreths of a percent of the votes in that state and roughly 5 ten thousandths of a percent of the total votes cast in the election) you quickly understand that it doesn't take a whole lot of fraud to alter the outcome of an election by whatever means it is accomplished. I support stringent safeguards on every level, not just the photo ID law. If I had my way it would be more difficult to vote by mail or in absentee than it is to show up at the polls on election day. Considering the wailing and gnashing of teeth that goes on about a simple thing like a photo ID, I can't begin to imagine how many knickers would be in knots if the protections needed were attempted to be put in place with regards to the mail in ballots.

No one seems to have an answer to my question up thread. Why do they have voters rolls at all?

So that non-voters can be easily identified and pushed to vote whether they are iinterested in doing so or not.

The answer to the question is as obvious as the nose on Jimmy Durante's face was Twin - we have voter rolls to identify those who are eligible to cast legal ballots in elections. Given that there is no possible means in this day and age by which the election judges are going to be personally familiar with each and every name on the list, another means of realizing that goal has to be found. I'm pretty sure that the election judges in a town of 200 people are going to have at least a passing familiarity with everyone on their list, but even here in our small town of Bailey, CO such a thing is quite impossible given the number of people who volunteer to be election judges.

Perhaps if a sufficient number of citizens were willing to step up and volunteer for the job on a regular basis we could have election judges that knew everyone on their list as well as the ones in towns with a total population of 200 do and such measures would be unnecessary, but that is every bit the utopian pipe dream that not a single child would ever go to bed hungry at night is.

PrintSmith wrote: The answer to the question is as obvious as the nose on Jimmy Durante's face was Twin - we have voter rolls to identify those who are eligible to cast legal ballots in elections. Given that there is no possible means in this day and age by which the election judges are going to be personally familiar with each and every name on the list, another means of realizing that goal has to be found. I'm pretty sure that the election judges in a town of 200 people are going to have at least a passing familiarity with everyone on their list, but even here in our small town of Bailey, CO such a thing is quite impossible given the number of people who volunteer to be election judges.

Perhaps if a sufficient number of citizens were willing to step up and volunteer for the job on a regular basis we could have election judges that knew everyone on their list as well as the ones in towns with a total population of 200 do and such measures would be unnecessary, but that is every bit the utopian pipe dream that not a single child would ever go to bed hungry at night is.

Well... I think voters rolls are racist. Why should the poor and elderly have to do whatever it is they do to get placed on a voters roll. They should be able to walk right in and vote.

PrintSmith wrote:

plaidvillain wrote: PrintSmith, why do you support voter ID? It is to combat a problem that doesn't exist. Do you think voter fraud is a real problem? Or could it be that you are fully aware these laws will disproportionately affect minorities?...minorities which are quite likely to vote opposed to your radical views?

My views are only radical to those on the extreme left wing - reasonable people are more likely to place me equidistant between the actual middle and the far right wing, perhaps even closer to the middle than that given some of my views. I support voter ID simply as a means to protect the integrity of the vote. I also believe, as a result of such things as same day voter registration, that there is far more fraud occurring than is being uncovered. When you stop and realize that the election of one president came down to a margin of 537 votes out of 6 million which were cast in one State (less than one one hundreths of a percent of the votes in that state and roughly 5 ten thousandths of a percent of the total votes cast in the election) you quickly understand that it doesn't take a whole lot of fraud to alter the outcome of an election by whatever means it is accomplished. I support stringent safeguards on every level, not just the photo ID law. If I had my way it would be more difficult to vote by mail or in absentee than it is to show up at the polls on election day. Considering the wailing and gnashing of teeth that goes on about a simple thing like a photo ID, I can't begin to imagine how many knickers would be in knots if the protections needed were attempted to be put in place with regards to the mail in ballots.

And as soon as you can show evidence of voter fraud sufficient to sway an election, your calls for Voter ID will have some support. Prove that it happens and I'll even agree with and support your side...but, until then...you basically admit that you have nothing. Your entire argument is built upon speculation...you usually criticize others for building arguments upon speculation. Not only is it speculation, but it's paranoid speculation. You want to pass legislation (more govt), to control a fear that doesn't exist, knowing that it will have an adverse impact on a sizable percent of the population, which is what makes the effort unnecessary and discriminatory.

plaidvillain wrote:
[snip]

And as soon as you can show evidence of voter fraud sufficient to sway an election, your calls for Voter ID will have some support. Prove that it happens and I'll even agree with and support your side...but, until then...you basically admit that you have nothing. Your entire argument is built upon speculation...you usually criticize others for building arguments upon speculation. Not only is it speculation, but it's paranoid speculation. You want to pass legislation (more govt), to control a fear that doesn't exist, knowing that it will have an adverse impact on a sizable percent of the population, which is what makes the effort unnecessary and discriminatory.

Maybe you can tell me? What steps have to be taken for a person to be put on the voters roll?

plaidvillain wrote: And as soon as you can show evidence of voter fraud sufficient to sway an election, your calls for Voter ID will have some support. Prove that it happens and I'll even agree with and support your side...but, until then...you basically admit that you have nothing. Your entire argument is built upon speculation...you usually criticize others for building arguments upon speculation. Not only is it speculation, but it's paranoid speculation. You want to pass legislation (more govt), to control a fear that doesn't exist, knowing that it will have an adverse impact on a sizable percent of the population, which is what makes the effort unnecessary and discriminatory.

We have in excess of 8 million aliens of voting age here in violation of the immigration laws PV. Without safeguards in place to deny them access to the ballot, a fraction of that number is sufficient to alter the outcome of general elections in some areas of our union. In some locales, one not need be a citizen to be on the local voting rolls at all, being a resident is sufficient as these communities have determined that the voice of the resident, legal or not, is as valid as the voice of the citizen is. Are you certain that these communities are not also allowing non-citizens to vote in general elections? And while the number of illegal aliens voting may be a small percentage of the overall total at present, it is certainly not zero and could easily increase if there is no means of finding out that it is being done or to prevent it from occurring. The number of people casting multiple ballots in certain precincts may be quite small as well, but each of those votes still has the potential to alter the outcome of the election in a close race in that district. How does that old saying go - an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure? It applies beyond the realm of medicine PV.

I will also note that at present there is far more than some support among the citizens of the States for such laws among both major parties and unaffiliated voters. Whether or not you choose to support such laws is irrelevant. The highest court in the land supports them and has ruled that they are not an infringement on the right to vote and a large majority of the citizens of the States, upwards of the percentage needed to pass a constitutional amendment, supports them as well. Guess what PV - if you can convince enough of the population to take away the right to keep and bear arms the Constitution provides the means to take that right away from the people of the union. You can take away the right to free association as well if you can get at least 5 justices in black robes on the right court to take it away, and that's already been done in the name of "progress".

PrintSmith wrote:

plaidvillain wrote: And as soon as you can show evidence of voter fraud sufficient to sway an election, your calls for Voter ID will have some support. Prove that it happens and I'll even agree with and support your side...but, until then...you basically admit that you have nothing. Your entire argument is built upon speculation...you usually criticize others for building arguments upon speculation. Not only is it speculation, but it's paranoid speculation. You want to pass legislation (more govt), to control a fear that doesn't exist, knowing that it will have an adverse impact on a sizable percent of the population, which is what makes the effort unnecessary and discriminatory.

We have in excess of 8 million aliens of voting age here in violation of the immigration laws PV. Without safeguards in place to deny them access to the ballot, a fraction of that number is sufficient to alter the outcome of general elections in some areas of our union. In some locales, one not need be a citizen to be on the local voting rolls at all, being a resident is sufficient as these communities have determined that the voice of the resident, legal or not, is as valid as the voice of the citizen is. Are you certain that these communities are not also allowing non-citizens to vote in general elections? And while the number of illegal aliens voting may be a small percentage of the overall total at present, it is certainly not zero and could easily increase if there is no means of finding out that it is being done or to prevent it from occurring. The number of people casting multiple ballots in certain precincts may be quite small as well, but each of those votes still has the potential to alter the outcome of the election in a close race in that district. How does that old saying go - an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure? It applies beyond the realm of medicine PV.

I will also note that at present there is far more than some support among the citizens of the States for such laws among both major parties and unaffiliated voters. Whether or not you choose to support such laws is irrelevant. The highest court in the land supports them and has ruled that they are not an infringement on the right to vote and a large majority of the citizens of the States, upwards of the percentage needed to pass a constitutional amendment, supports them as well. Guess what PV - if you can convince enough of the population to take away the right to keep and bear arms the Constitution provides the means to take that right away from the people of the union. You can take away the right to free association as well if you can get at least 5 justices in black robes on the right court to take it away, and that's already been done in the name of "progress".

Perhaps you can provide facts to back up your assertion that undocumented individuals are voting? because it ain't happening. You would rather prevent registered American voters from exercising their constitutional rights based on the boogeyman unfactual basis of undocumented individuals.

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote: Well... I think voters rolls are racist. Why should the poor and elderly have to do whatever it is they do to get placed on a voters roll. They should be able to walk right in and vote.

Same goes for primaries, too. Right?

plaidvillain wrote: [
And as soon as you can show evidence of voter fraud sufficient to sway an election,.

Sway an election? When did we raise the bar?

Raees wrote:

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote: Well... I think voters rolls are racist. Why should the poor and elderly have to do whatever it is they do to get placed on a voters roll. They should be able to walk right in and vote.

Same goes for primaries, too. Right?

Yup.