ExiledInIllinois Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 Both parties are gaming the system... Like that ballot I mailed is really for a person who lives in Dane (Madison) County. The parties pander to how their base operates. Betcha the river pilot votes in multiple states absentee. The out of state GOP money no doubt sent out the absentee smoke signal no more than the Dems striking up the poor base by giving them rides to polling places! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjamie12 Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 That is opinion, not fact. In fact, in my opinion, its about as far away from fact as can be. Firstly, let me say that I support Voter ID laws. I don't see what the big deal is -- if they're free and reasonably available I think it makes sense to ask people to present their ID before they vote. Secondly -- If you think that Republican *politicians* are doing this for any other reason than that they think it will help them win more often, you're deluding yourself. It doesn't take a genius to realize that folks who don't have ID are more likely to vote Democrat than Republican. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 Firstly, let me say that I support Voter ID laws. I don't see what the big deal is -- if they're free and reasonably available I think it makes sense to ask people to present their ID before they vote. Secondly -- If you think that Republican *politicians* are doing this for any other reason than that they think it will help them win more often, you're deluding yourself. It doesn't take a genius to realize that folks who don't have ID are more likely to vote Democrat than Republican. You are correct. I am sure that the reason most GOP politicians are for ID laws, is that it will will cut down on fraud and most likely help Republicans to win more elections. But shouldn't the goal of having fair elections be everyone's goal ? No matter who it "benefits" more ? . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 You are correct. I am sure that the reason most GOP politicians are for ID laws, is that it will will cut down on fraud and most likely help Republicans to win more elections. But shouldn't the goal of having fair elections be everyone's goal ? No matter who it "benefits" more ? . But if it benefits someone, it's unfair! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 Firstly, let me say that I support Voter ID laws. I don't see what the big deal is -- if they're free and reasonably available I think it makes sense to ask people to present their ID before they vote. Secondly -- If you think that Republican *politicians* are doing this for any other reason than that they think it will help them win more often, you're deluding yourself. It doesn't take a genius to realize that folks who don't have ID are more likely to vote Democrat than Republican. Fraud is fraud. Doesn't matter who benefits from it and who is hurt by it. But obviously the ones being hurt by it will want it changed, while those being helped will claim nothing should be done about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjamie12 Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 (edited) You are correct. I am sure that the reason most GOP politicians are for ID laws, is that it will will cut down on fraud and most likely help Republicans to win more elections. But shouldn't the goal of having fair elections be everyone's goal ? No matter who it "benefits" more ? . Of course it should! Please point me to all of the giant problems we've had with unfair elections due to voter fraud and, specifically, to voter fraud that would be stopped by having ID cards. Again. I'm for this idea of voter id cards, but this issue is only alive because Republicans think it will suppress Democrat turnout. That's the reason, and they're probably right. Fraud is fraud. Doesn't matter who benefits from it and who is hurt by it. But obviously the ones being hurt by it will want it changed, while those being helped will claim nothing should be done about it. Same to you: Please point me to somewhere where I can see all this giant voter fraud epidemic that is actually disenfranchising 'true' voters because the 'fraudsters' are changing elections. Edited June 2, 2012 by jjamie12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 Of course it should! [/discussion] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 (edited) From my perspective, the intentions are a secondary issue that is virtually disprovable one way or another. If we are going to elect people who have tremendous power, so much power that it affects peoples lives, then what matters most is that we get it right and that we do everything that we reasonably can to limit fraud. Asking someone for a freaking ID isn't unreasonable! Edited June 2, 2012 by Magox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 (edited) From my perspective, the intentions are a secondary issue that is virtually disprovable one way or another. If we are going to elect people who have tremendous power, so much power that it affects peoples lives, then what matters most is that we get it right and that we do everything that we reasonably can to limit fraud. Asking someone for a freaking ID isn't unreasonable! Especially when it's free and easy to obtain. The "discrimination" argument is a lie perpetuated by the Dems so that voter fraud, although maybe not massive in scale, can continue. Edited June 2, 2012 by Doc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjamie12 Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 (edited) From my perspective, the intentions are a secondary issue that is virtually disprovable one way or another. If we are going to elect people who have tremendous power, so much power that it affects peoples lives, then what matters most is that we get it right and that we do everything that we reasonably can to limit fraud. Asking someone for a freaking ID isn't unreasonable! I agree. It's also not unreasonable for some to say this: Voting is such a fundamental right that to put restrictions on it, in ANY way, should only be done if there is some problem that needs to be addressed. At this point, there is NO problem, so why should we be limiting, in any way, people's right to vote? Again -- intentions can and do matter. If there isn't a problem with voter fraud, what are we trying to fix? The very simple answer (and really, Magox -- disprovable? You know better than this) is that the ONLY reason this is an issue is because Republicans think it will limit Democrat turnout and Democrats think it will limit Democrat turnout. Complicating the issue is that there is a 'moral high ground' argument for both sides, neither of which is unreasonable. Why does anyone on this board give a rip about voter id laws? There is NO problem. What are you trying to solve? Because it's a partisan issue that both sides use to rile up their base. Stop being played. Vote the issues. This is so far away from being an issue it's comical. Especially when it's free and easy to obtain. The "discrimination" argument is a lie perpetuated by the Dems so that voter fraud, although maybe not massive in scale, can continue. What voter fraud!?! Edit: I hate it when you guys force me to argue the other sides of these things. I think there should be voter ID laws. If I were 'in power', I wouldn't think about this for even two seconds in my first four years. This is just not anything to be all riled up about. There are so many more issues that need to be dealt with. Voter fraud is NOT a problem. Edited June 2, 2012 by jjamie12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 I agree. It's also not unreasonable for some to say this: Voting is such a fundamental right that to put restrictions on it, in ANY way, should only be done if there is some problem that needs to be addressed. At this point, there is NO problem, so why should we be limiting, in any way, people's right to vote? Again -- intentions can and do matter. If there isn't a problem with voter fraud, what are we trying to fix? The very simple answer (and really, Magox -- disprovable? You know better than this) is that the ONLY reason this is an issue is because Republicans think it will limit Democrat turnout and Democrats think it will limit Democrat turnout. What I can't understand is how hasn't this been a law to begin with? Yes I know, it was "Civils rights" sort of deal back in the 50/60's, but that was then, this is now. Lets just get it right, it will have to be done some time, and no better time than now. And in regards to your claim that it isn't a problem, how do you know? That's like saying a teacher only caught 2 students all year cheating on their tests in class, so since there were only two people caught, it's not a problem. Well, that just doesn't fly in the face of reason, what about all the kids that did cheat who didn't get caught? I can assure you, there are a whole lot more people getting away with **** than those who get caught. So, I reject the premise of the case that you are making. And I also reject that you believe that all the motives from these people is to suppress turnout. Are there some people who's main objective is to suppress turnout? For sure. Are there people who have an honest desire to ensure that they limit voter fraud? Without a doubt. This is a common sense solution, and there is no rational basis to object to it, other than questioning peoples motives, which as I said is disprovable. I support this idea, does that mean that I want to suppress voter turnout? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjamie12 Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 What I can't understand is how hasn't this been a law to begin with? Yes I know, it was "Civils rights" sort of deal back in the 50/60's, but that was then, this is now. Lets just get it right, it will have to be done some time, and no better time than now. And in regards to your claim that it isn't a problem, how do you know? That's like saying a teacher only caught 2 students all year cheating on their tests in class, so since there were only two people caught, it's not a problem. Well, that just doesn't fly in the face of reason, what about all the kids that did cheat who didn't get caught? I can assure you, there are a whole lot more people getting away with **** than those who get caught. So, I reject the premise of the case that you are making. And I also reject that you believe that all the motives from these people is to suppress turnout. Are there some people who's main objective is to suppress turnout? For sure. Are there people who have an honest desire to ensure that they limit voter fraud? Without a doubt. This is a common sense solution, and there is no rational basis to object to it, other than questioning peoples motives, which as I said is disprovable. I support this idea, does that mean that I want to suppress voter turnout? I think what you wrote is completely defensible. I also find the other side to be completely defensible, although I tend to agree with you. And, strictly speaking, yes, you do want to suppress voter turnout. By making it more difficult for people to vote, you are for suppressing voter turnout. And THAT is why the other side has any sort of case at all. If you're seeking to limit voter turnout, in any way, then there should be a darn good reason to do so (so goes the argument against). What if I lose my card? What if I'm mugged on the way to the voting booths? What if my house burns down two days before the election? What if...? In those instances, I would be denied my right to vote. I fully respect your rejection of the premise of 'since there isn't reported voter fraud, there isn't voter fraud'. I would disagree with a 'well, that settles it, then. We need voter id!' conclusion based on something that is 'absence of evidence'. I wouldn't spend two seconds of energy on this issue if it was me 'in power'. I just don't see where this is any significant problem at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 I think what you wrote is completely defensible. I also find the other side to be completely defensible, although I tend to agree with you. And, strictly speaking, yes, you do want to suppress voter turnout. By making it more difficult for people to vote, you are for suppressing voter turnout. And THAT is why the other side has any sort of case at all. If you're seeking to limit voter turnout, in any way, then there should be a darn good reason to do so (so goes the argument against). What if I lose my card? What if I'm mugged on the way to the voting booths? What if my house burns down two days before the election? What if...? In those instances, I would be denied my right to vote. I fully respect your rejection of the premise of 'since there isn't reported voter fraud, there isn't voter fraud'. I would disagree with a 'well, that settles it, then. We need voter id!' conclusion based on something that is 'absence of evidence'. I wouldn't spend two seconds of energy on this issue if it was me 'in power'. I just don't see where this is any significant problem at all. Lets leave motives aside. If someone needs an ID to buy cigarrette and alcohol, then I believe it is completely legitimate to require ID to help decide the course of direction of the city/state/country. This is long past due, it's time to make the sensible decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 What voter fraud!?! Check-out the 2008 Wisconsin senate race that ultimately saw Al Franken "win." But I know what the response will be. And even if you don't believe there was fraud there, are you saying that no one has EVER voted as someone else? Because if even one person has, it's fraud. The magnitude is irrelevant. And contrary to your belief, there are restrictions on voting, like you need to be a citizen of the U.S. and not a convicted felon. So showing ID to prove you are who you say you are should be mandatory. Edit: I hate it when you guys force me to argue the other sides of these things. I think there should be voter ID laws. If I were 'in power', I wouldn't think about this for even two seconds in my first four years. This is just not anything to be all riled up about. There are so many more issues that need to be dealt with. Voter fraud is NOT a problem. No one is forcing you to do anything jj. You said that elections should be fair. And again, obtaining voter ID is free and no one is restricted from getting one. So why continue to argue the other side? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 Voter fraud is not non-existant. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/12/felons-voting-illegally-franken-minnesota-study-finds/ http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/minnesota-leads-the-nation-in-voter-fraud-convictions-131782928.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted June 2, 2012 Author Share Posted June 2, 2012 Check-out the 2008 Wisconsin Minnesota senate race that ultimately saw Al Franken "win." Fixed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 Voter fraud is not non-existant. http://www.foxnews.c...ta-study-finds/ http://www.prnewswir...-131782928.html Nixon knows. He lost to Kennedy by 450,000 votes in Chicago and the state of IL by about 4,800 votes total. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 Fixed. Thanks. Have Wisconsin on my mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 Nixon knows. He lost to Kennedy by 450,000 votes in Chicago and the state of IL by about 4,800 votes total. And I am sure every Nixon vote was squeaky clean! ROFLMAO. How people love to see one side of the equation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted June 3, 2012 Author Share Posted June 3, 2012 And I am sure every Nixon vote was squeaky clean! ROFLMAO. How people love to see one side of the equation. So you admit that there's fraud on both sides, yet don't think we should have voter ID? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts