text:
Voters in southern Massachusetts will vote on a non-binding ballot question this fall on a hotly debated topic: Whether a government issued ID should be shown before someone is allowed to vote.
Mansfield Board of Selectmen Vice Chairman Olivier Kozlowski made strides recently in establishing the ballot question in some of Bristol County's districts. The initiative will be on the district ballots in the first, fourth and sixth Bristol districts as a non-binding vote to show support for voter identification. Support for such a requirement, Kozlowski said, is designed to help minimize voter fraud.
Kozlowski worked with Peter Sacks at the Massachusetts Attorney General's Office to work on the language of the bill. The ultimate approval, even after possible support, would be up to the Attorney General. And the ballot question will essentially put out feelers for support of the bill.
Last year, several supporters tried to get a full state proposition on the ballot for this November, but the Attorney General's Office rejected the bid to require government ID for voting in Massachusetts, saying the cost of procuring a legal photo identification disenfranchises many voters.
What do you think? Should Massachusetts require voters to present ID when at the polls? Will this prevent voter fraud, or does it disenfranchise some law abiding citizes?
11:13 am on Friday, August 31, 2012
Of course you should have to produce an ID when you vote. The cost of having an ID? Who are they catering to with that?
8:57 am on Saturday, September 1, 2012
It is only fair to make sure the voter is the one who is registered. In a close election, it could matter who the real winner is.
Marta Moussa
12:10 pm on Tuesday, September 4, 2012
If there's going to be a voter ID bill , let's talk about the government (state or federal) co ming up with a national ID for those who do not have a driver's license.at a nominal fee. If you're going to require an ID for voting at least come up with a method for providing an ID for those who will need to apply for an ID. There have been studies done that most voting fraud has nothing to do with actual voters.
White Tundra
4:29 pm on Tuesday, September 4, 2012
...this question truly goes to the bigger controversy of illegal immigrants being able to vote. As far as I'm concerned I say NO FREAKIN WAY! Your not supposed to be here in the first place!!! You don't pay taxes you have no voice in our country...PERIOD!!!
11:19 am on Friday, August 31, 2012
I think using an idea is not a bad idea..."the cost of prcuring a legal photo identification disenfranchises many voters".? that is crazy. You should have an ID!
White Tundra
5:02 pm on Tuesday, September 4, 2012
do you realize that when you sign for any ID you are actually signing a contract with the gov't to play by their rules...it's unconstitutional. It's trickery and underhandedness... In other words when you place your signature on your license you are actually signing a contract with the gov't to obey the laws that surround the rules that surround it. However, this is a rabbit hole I don't think anyone here is ready to go down....and very difficult for most to understand.
11:20 am on Friday, August 31, 2012
You need an ID for just about everything, how many people do you know that do not have a photo ID. This is a small price to pay to ensure that only eligble voters participate in our elections.
White Tundra
5:04 pm on Tuesday, September 4, 2012
A gov't issued ID is actually a contract...most don't realize that.
Reverend E. Raleigh Pimperton III
11:21 am on Friday, August 31, 2012
Of course, unless you wish to encourage unauthorized votes by non-citizens.
Reverend E. Raleigh Pimperton III
11:37 am on Friday, August 31, 2012
I think it's a waste of government resources. Voter fraud is an overplayed issue and this is just another time wasting government bureaucracy. Whoever gets the contract to produce extra IDs will be happy, I'm sure. There has, afaik, never been a known case of voter fraud that having an ID could prevent.
I'm far more worried about the electronic voting machines, especially knowing how easily they can be manipulated. Voter ID won't prevent a motivated group from committing fraud that way. Seems like this is a distraction from that issue.
Joe Smith
3:27 pm on Thursday, September 6, 2012
The November 2112 votes are being counted where? Not in the U.S.A.!
This should be the real issue...
Vicki Fortin
11:37 am on Friday, August 31, 2012
there should be some kind of proof ID wise, but not necessarily a "government issued" ID as that just seems to be another way to make us get an ID even if we don't want one and pay the $$ for it.I know the majority of the voting population have drivers licences or passports, but what about those that choose not to travel or dirve? Voting is a right that we shouldn't have to pay for. I have heard the arguments, we need an ID to buy alcohol etc. but those are priviledges, not rights. Find a way to verify residency without us paying more $$ and I am all for it.
Hacim Obmed
7:16 pm on Friday, August 31, 2012
Without an ID card you cannot get on an airplane, buy cold medicine, drive a car, buy alcohol, open a bank account, or enter a government building. The list goes on and on. Without nan ID you just cannot survive in the modern world. So a person needs to be able to prove they really are who they say they are before they vote. It is no different than any of these other things where you need ID. If you are an honest person then there is nothing to worry about and it won't cost you a dime.
ed shreenan
11:40 am on Friday, August 31, 2012
An ID should be an absolute must. It would ensure a fair and just vote and election. The fact of "poor" people and others being disenfranchised is a crock. The state laws mandate a fair and valid election process. By not verifying peoples ID we as legal citizens and taxpayers are being subjected to voter fraud by illegal aliens and others who have no business voting. This to me is Disenfranchising the honest people.
Dave Gray
11:40 am on Friday, August 31, 2012
This ought to be a no-brainer. Unfortunately, Mass politicians, especially our esteemed Attorney General (think Fells Acres), don't seem to be in possession of a brain between them. You know, I used to be a registered Democrat, but clearly this is simply a ploy to keep a large portion of their "demographic" voting. In case you missed it, Massachusetts has turned into a welfare state.
11:51 am on Friday, August 31, 2012
The only way to eliminate cost as a factor in disenfranchisement is to ensure there is NO cost: (a) no cost to apply in Massachusetts (b) no cost to apply for any required back up material, such as a certified w/seal birth certificate from Massachusetts (c) the Commonwealth of Massachusetts reimburses for the fee that other states required in order to obtain a birth certificate and finally, (d) methods are put into place to support alternative methods for those individuals who do not qualify for the release of a birth certificate from other states, such as the state of New York, which requires either photo identification (ironic) or 2 items of the following: utility bills in your name for your residence or a government agency issued letter dated within 6 months of application. (Think about people who are married, and the utilities are in the spouse's name... no proof available to even APPLY for a birth certificate).
So, all in all, because the ability to vote is a right, a right which must not require purchase or poll tax, if we can determine that there is a way to make it all entirely without cost to the voter, then cost would not be the driver in disenfranchisement.
Then we can deal with the other factors, such as dealing with what happens if birth records weren't kept or don't meet the state's requirement, and that the name isn't something like "Baby Boy Johnson", as has certainly been done for birth certificates in the south, in the past, etc.
9:27 pm on Friday, August 31, 2012
A right for a citizen. That's the key here. This condition IMO, disengages the cost aspect of the issue. If you do not maintain an artical of such significance, your simply irresponsible.
11:02 am on Saturday, September 1, 2012
Jason, there's nothing in the constitution, so far as I know, which outlines that a citizen has a responsibility to maintain an article proving citizenship. I'm not a constitutional expert, but, if you are, and you can point to where your statement of responsibility to prove you're a citizen is, I would welcome the education. Given that mandated filing of birth certificates and, ahem, photo identification, didn't exist when the constitution was written, this seems to be a modern interpretation.
2:58 pm on Monday, September 3, 2012
KGV, your saying its ok to be irresponsible. As far as modern interpretation, sure. Seems lots of "groups" are doing the same for whatever their cause maybe.
Do you need ID to get wic benefits?
Social security?
A bank account?
Cash a check at western union?
Jus' sayin.
Mike Babish
11:56 am on Friday, August 31, 2012
I would need more information:
- How much would it cost to enforce such a law? (i.e. What is the additional cost to train election officials and to audit that they are really checking voter IDs?)
- Is there any evidence of voter fraud? (i.e. How big is the problem that this would solve?)
- How many people would be unable to vote because of this requirement? (i.e. How many citizens would be unable to afford a government issued ID?)
- Do the costs and potential downsides outweigh the benefits?
Without that information, I'd lean towards being conservative and leaving the system unchanged (and not spending more money!)
Daniel DeMaina
12:09 pm on Friday, August 31, 2012
Hey Mike—I posted an article about evidence of voter fraud below. Regarding how many people would be unable to vote today if such a law were in place, The Brennan Center for Justice says that "as many as 10% of eligible voters do not have, and will not get, the documents required by strict voter ID laws. For some groups, the percentage is much higher:" http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/policy_brief_on_voter_identification/ ... worth noting that the center openly advocates from a liberal perspective.
Mike Babish
4:49 pm on Tuesday, September 4, 2012
Daniel, I tend to agree with you. From what I have read, the cure sounds like it would be worse than the disease.
My basic point is that I *could* be convinced of a need for a Voter ID law if it could be demonstrated that the benefits outweigh the costs. So far, no one has successfully convinced me of the need for one, and my impression is that the costs (both financial and in terms of disenfranchisement) would be significant.
Kevin N
12:00 pm on Friday, August 31, 2012
I really like the sweet old people who volunteer to check in voters and I appreciate their time in the election process. However, I doubt that I would have any trouble getting past them with a fake ID. Requirements for voting are silly and would not prevent any type of voter fraud, they would only slow down the process and keep a few registered voters from participating because they are dumb enough to forget their ID at home.
Daniel DeMaina
12:05 pm on Friday, August 31, 2012
Thanks for the good discussion so far, everyone. Some articles on this subject from around the nation if you're interested:
Federal court strikes down Texas voter ID law: http://seattletimes.com/html/politics/2019027211_apustexasvoterid.html
National Study: Voter impersonation a rarity at polls: http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/news/us/voter-impersonation-a-rarity-at-polls-national-study-finds-648821/
This one is an opinion piece by conservative author Reihan Salam, but he provides a fairly even-keeled argument: http://www.nationalreview.com/agenda/312318/voter-id-conversation-reihan-salam
robert wilson
12:07 pm on Friday, August 31, 2012
Yes, I believe that ID's should be shown when voting. It wouldn't even be a minor inconvenience.
Kevin Mac
1:12 pm on Friday, August 31, 2012
I think we should ask Kevin McDonald to put something together and present it at his next meeting with the town. He knows what is best for everyone.
White Tundra
3:55 pm on Tuesday, September 4, 2012
1:55 pm on Friday, August 31, 2012
Should it be done? Probably. There has to be a way to make sure that the vote is valid. There just have to be certain safeguards to make sure the process is efficient and covers all citizens.
Should it be done now? Absolutely not. The notion of passing ID laws this late into the election year is clearly an attempt to help a certain party, regardless of the law's validity. If it was to be done, it should have been done months (possibly even years) ago to make sure everyone was aware of and had time to respond to the laws.
2:10 pm on Friday, August 31, 2012
How is this even up for discussion. Anyone who is against ensuring that only eligible voters vote obviously has alterior motives. The cost of a state ID is only $25.
2:32 pm on Friday, August 31, 2012
Voting is meant to be free. Anyone who wants to make poor people pay to vote obviously has ulterior motives.
Mark L.
2:51 pm on Friday, August 31, 2012
$25 is nearly half a day's wages at minimum ($8.00/hr) wage... it's an even bigger bite for anyone who's unemployed. That's a lot to ask to solve a problem that we don't really seem to have. I'm reasonably certain that the fraud rates we're talking about are well within the natural margin of error for the process as a whole. It's doubtful that voter ID would have a statistical impact on voting accuracy, it would however, probably have an impact on eligibility. I can't see where it's worth it.
Mary Edwards
2:33 pm on Friday, August 31, 2012
Supposed voter fraud is today's version of "the sky is falling, the sky is falling." There has been one instance of voter fraud in this state since 2000. The national numbers aren't much higher. See http://votingrights.news21.com/interactive/election-fraud-database/
Donal Waide
2:47 pm on Friday, August 31, 2012
I find it amusing that we waste time and resources over something like this (how many instances of voter fraud has there been?) yet we still have dodgy ballot boxes (yup hanging chads are still a possibility). Put the government's election budget money to good use and spend it on something that makes a real impact on voting.
Aron Levy
4:34 pm on Tuesday, September 4, 2012
What it comes down to is that we need to repair the old mechanical voting machines.
But no one seems to want to do that.
Jamie Michele Gertrude-Belle
2:55 pm on Friday, August 31, 2012
No, you should not have to pay to vote. If you do any sort of research, the amount of illegitimate voters is sooooooooooo tiny that it's a ridiculous argument!!
Also- I've been dirt dirt dirt poor and barely scraping by and that $25 that everyone seems to think is such a small fee, when you are fighting to scrape together bus fare etc, $25 can go a long way. It can be used to purchase something else besides the privilege of voting. Because that's what it will become, a privilege to those that can afford to pay vs the RIGHT that it currently is.
If your argument is going to be 'well then let's just have free voter ID' that will single out a lot of people from voting. Those that may have a questionable past that are afraid getting an ID card will flag them in the system and cause them to be easily tracked down. Yes, if you did a crime you should do the time HOWEVER statistically speaking, such a thing would alienate a large voter population and that's not right.
Jamie Michele Gertrude-Belle
2:55 pm on Friday, August 31, 2012
And I'm not just talking about armed robbery or something like that but child support issues and so many other things that people don't seem to be stopping to think about how there would be consequences and ramifications for such a law.
Not everyone has photo ID (MA state license etc) and those that don't have ID aren't always shady. I lived in Boston for 5 years before I got my ID (once I moved to Melrose and needed a car) before that, I never found the need for one. I don't write checks, not all landlords require license for renting, etc.
It seems people take their own lives and experiences into consideration when they jump to say 'well but it's THIS EASY to do it, anything else is an excuse!'. Stop and think first because people go through a lot of things that you may not ever consider because it just hasn't happened to YOU.
9:11 am on Tuesday, October 30, 2012
Jamie, and others; how can you say voting fraud is minimal? No one checks the voter polls against death records and those who've moved out of the town. What's to stop anyone from coming in and voting as someone they knew recently passed or moved? No one would ever know since polls are not cross checked. I'd suggest voter fraud happens more often than you think.
Also, how do you buy cold medicine, open bank accounts.
3:49 pm on Friday, August 31, 2012
Jamie, I bet you don't think anyone's abusing welfare either.
Daniel DeMaina
4:07 pm on Friday, August 31, 2012
This is a little off topic, but regarding welfare abuse: Hard figures aren't really easy to come by, but the closest I've ever seen to those numbers was a 2002 report by the U.S. Department of Labor that concluded "$580 million of the $2.45 billion in total UI overpayments for 2001, or 1.9% of total UI [unemployment insurance] payments for that year, was attributable to fraud or abuse within the UI program:" http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-107hhrg82682/pdf/CHRG-107hhrg82682.pdf
So, $580M isn't anything to sneeze at, but even if you want to say that 1.9 percent isn't accurate and the number is double or triple that, at most you're looking at 6 percent, which doesn't seem like a high rate of abuse. Again, $580 million isn't an insignificant amount of money lost to fraud.
5:16 pm on Friday, August 31, 2012
From Mass.gov:
For Immediate release - August 23, 2012
State Auditor's Office Identifies More Than $5.5 Million In Public Assistance Fraud in FY12
Bump releases report on Bureau of Special Investigations' cases
Boston, MA - In a fourth quarter report issued today, State Auditor Suzanne M. Bump said examiners with the office's Bureau of Special Investigations (BSI) found evidence of $2,806,252 in fraudulently obtained public assistance benefits and services, bringing the fiscal year 2012 total to $5,542,310.
Auditor Bump said BSI examiners completed 2,031 investigations during the fourth quarter, identifying 546 people defrauding the state of welfare, food stamps, childcare services, health care benefits, public housing or cash assistance.
"These investigations act as a deterrent to criminals and help agencies and vendors better manage public assistance programs so that benefits are available for those who need them most," said Auditor Bump.
BSI examiners work with dozens of state agencies to document fraudulent activity. When cases are completed BSI either prosecutes the cases or refers them to the appropriate public benefit or law enforcement agency to recoup fraudulently obtained funds.
The report highlights several cases that have led to criminal charges.
Daniel DeMaina
5:26 pm on Friday, August 31, 2012
Excellent MO, thank you for finding that and bringing it. I can't seem to find how much that $5.5M equates to in terms of a percentage of welfare abuse, as the Department of Labor did in report I cited above, although according to the Herald this represents a 25 percent increase in cited fraud over 2011: http://bostonherald.com/news/regional/view/20220823bump-y_road_for_welfare_cheats_scam_report_coincides_with_event_on_success_stories
Again, it's a little off topic here, but more information is always better than less.
4:07 pm on Friday, August 31, 2012
MA Taxpayers gave $93M to Illegal Immigrants for ER Care in 2011. They gave another $68M to the Kennedy Family (as if they can't afford it) for a Museum for Ted. Anyone telling you we can't afford voter ID's is someone who is for voter fraud!
7:58 pm on Friday, August 31, 2012
You can be against wasteful spending in more than one arena, not everyone is a democrat or a republican :).
8:05 am on Saturday, September 1, 2012
if you are illegal and you go to the ER you automatically get MassHealth
see last qualification scenario. Nothing is free, we are paying for this. I say yes to a voter ID. If my mom has to present a picture ID to get chemo than yes, so should voters.
Melissa Gleaton
4:08 pm on Friday, August 31, 2012
there is nothing preventing any person, organization, party, etc. from obtaining a registered voting list from any town and seeing who has not been voting in the last several elections, and then having people go in claiming to be Bill Smith at 123 My Street. That is a valid concern. You can say it DOESN'T happen, but you have no way of knowing if it does. The possibility is there, and the opportunity is real. We need to safeguard against it. The majority of people in the world don't rob banks, but we still have security systems in place to help prevent it.
Sean Czarniecki
6:52 pm on Friday, August 31, 2012
That's also how I feel about it - I go in and tell my street name, then often just point out who I am for them - "Yeah, that's me." If I know my friend will not be voting, I could easily vote again later that day....and no one would ever know. I agree that the money thing needs to be worked out (other states have proposed solutions), but it pains me to be able to vote without producing an ID.
Don Ordway
4:56 pm on Friday, August 31, 2012
I would be surprised if a single A Republican voted against voter ID
Steve Meuse
5:21 pm on Friday, August 31, 2012
I don't see any issue with someone needing some sort of identification. You could bring a license, passport, birth certificate, ss card, etc. If you're eligible to vote you'd have at least one of these anyway.
Aron Levy
4:37 pm on Tuesday, September 4, 2012
What if you choose not to drive, choose not to travel, have lost your birth certificate and Social Security card, and are unable to afford replacements?
This is stinking of poll taxes...
6:44 pm on Friday, August 31, 2012
I don't think anyone has mentioned this above, but studies show that 25% of African Americans in the US do not have a valid photo ID, and many elderly, poor, and students do not have ID either. In Pennsylvania alone, the voter ID law would affect approximately 700,000 people, all to "fix" a problem that isn't happening. Even in court, the people trying to pass this law in Pennsylvania admitted that there were no cases of voter fraud in the state on record.
I agree with the people above who say it shouldn't cost to vote. I had to get a birth certificate for my son recently and it was $50 to get a copy from the state. Then there's the cost of the ID itself. You may not think it's a big deal, but for some, it is.
8:13 am on Saturday, September 1, 2012
this isn't Pennsylvania, this is a much more put together state. All these folks you mention above do have some sort of ID here. As for your sons birth certificate cost, you got it from the city hall in the city he was born right? not the state. Yes they charge to make copies, I have gotten a replacement myself my parents misplaced it.
You need your birth certificate for some applications so keep it in a safe place.
Joe Veno
7:12 pm on Friday, August 31, 2012
Everyone should have to show an ID to vote. If it is a case where the elderly can not afford $25 to buy one, They should get one for free. it could be good for 5 years just like your drivers license. That amounts to $5 a year.
7:21 pm on Friday, August 31, 2012
Watch how easily dead people can vote in NH.
After this video was released, NH passed a new Voter ID law requiring voters to have photo id's before voting. This law goes into effect on 11/1/12. Voters who don't have a photo ID can get one free by presenting a voucher from their town/city clerk or the Secretary of State to any NH DMV office that issues identification.
8:00 pm on Friday, August 31, 2012
I think it might be cheaper/easier to just require a bill, bank statement, or voter registration card from the clerk than to just pass out free IDs.
7:47 pm on Friday, August 31, 2012
This is such a solution looking for a problem. My entire adult life I've heard the plea for more people to vote so, if anything, the problem is voter apathy not voter fraud. By the way, the courts in Ohio just turned back the law blocking early voting. Even in Texas the court overturned the voter id law because of the effect on the disadvantaged. If you are too poor to have a car and don't drive you don't have a license. My son will be starting driver's ed soon and it will cost over $750. I understand you can get a state-issued id but again, if you don't drive how do you get to the registry without incurring even more costs?
8:17 am on Saturday, September 1, 2012
that is an easy question if you are "poor" than you qualify for the ride and it will cost you a few bucks to be dropped off and picked up. Or if you are on masshealth standard it will be a completely free ride to and from. This is why i feel that there should not be any excuse for a voter ID law here. We take care of the poor in the state.
8:39 pm on Friday, August 31, 2012
I just love it! The data compiled over many years by both Government and private agencies involved with civil rights show that voter misrepresentation at the polls is practically non-existent, yet some people on this string STILL want to require IDs to be able to vote. These people should go out more often on Sundays, because they are totally oblivious to the social and financial realities of this country.
The real reason for this is that Government-issued photo identification requirements have a disproportionate impact on minority voters, but that's OK with the Republicans, since their constituency is with the 1% and certainly not with the minorities.
Here are some facts:.
- In the United States, 25% of African-Americans do not own a photo ID.
- In Missouri, the Secretary of State identified nearly 240,000 registered voters who are mostly elderly, disabled, poor, and minorities, who also lack a government issued photo ID.
- In Wisconsin, the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee did a study of voting-age citizens in 2005 and found that 55% of African-American males and 46% of Hispanic males lack a driver's license (for females, 49% and 59%, respectively)
Etc, etc…
But I guess that for the people who still insist that a photo ID is the prerequisite to exercise one's basic democratic right facts do not matter. Only their prejudices and political views are important, even though they violate the democratic ideology they pretend to embrace.
8:19 am on Saturday, September 1, 2012
what do you mean by "go out more on Sundays". I don't understand that terminology.
10:44 am on Saturday, September 1, 2012
How can we let you exercise your 'basic democratic right' if we don't even know who you are? Maybe you are 'exercising' MY basic right...maybe someone elses. I just don't see whey asking everyone to have an ID is seen as so sinister.
I told my kids to get their license even if they didn't want to drive, just for an ID.
You put out some %s of people with no ID, what was the point of that? Why don't they? I think they should...and not just for the voting aspect...I think we really need to get a handle on who's who around here, and that they are who they say they are...this isn't the old 'wild west' anymore.
Flash an ID and go vote...why are people so afraid of that?
Daniel DeMaina
9:08 pm on Friday, August 31, 2012
A comment on this article has been deleted for violating our Terms of Use, which state in part, "Without limitation, you agree that you will not post or transmit to other users anything that contains Content that ... is threatening, harassing or that promotes racism, bigotry, hatred or physical harm of any kind against any group or individual."
The Terms of Use can be read here: http://winchester.patch.com/terms
9:40 pm on Friday, August 31, 2012
Local post offices could process Voter ID's.They take passport photos and process passport applications already.
8:21 am on Saturday, September 1, 2012
post office just processes the application they dont take the actual photo. You take the photo somewhere else fill out form and stick pic on the application and mail it at the post office. the PO is short staffed I don't think they would be able to handle all this traffic.
10:25 am on Saturday, September 1, 2012
Cindy, some post offices do in fact take the actual photo. The photo for my passport was taken at the post office in downtown Boston.
12:16 pm on Saturday, September 1, 2012
Cindy no offense but the PO is NOT short staffed. They are the largest employer in the world with upwards of around 700,000 employees. They are just incompetent.
David Marsters
6:47 am on Saturday, September 1, 2012
It is so easy to get a phony license, so it would be also easy to get a phony ID. Pay the price you can get anything on the black market.
Kathleen Simone
7:07 am on Saturday, September 1, 2012
Voter fraud is virtualiy non-existent in the United States. The claims that a voter ID law is necessary to prevent fraud is an alarmist scare tactic, a distraction from the real problems we are facing as a country. At the same time, there are many people who live their lives without a government-issued ID. Most of these people are poor. Some of them are just young. I personally didn't have an ID until my early 20's. I didn't get my driver's license as a teenager, I had my childhood bank account for years, and I wasn't a drinker.
7:57 am on Saturday, September 1, 2012
Agree agree agree. Those of you who want this, does this mean that all past elections should be voided b/c of fraud? Hooray, no Scott Brown! No Mayor McGlynn! No Father Drinan or Tip O'Neil!
Where's your birth certificate? I have no idea where mine is.
Have a license? You probably are older, own a car, and don't live in the core of a city.
My wallet was stolen when I was eighteen. I was barely able to scrounge together enough materials to get a replacement. I ended up bringing my high school yearbook in to the DMV. Which btw, doesn't prove that I'm a citizen or anything beyond knowing where my yearbook is.
"Stamping out voter fraud" has the same appeal -- and level of urgency -- as does "Stopping the outer space invasion." Is it a good idea? Sure! Is it actually happening? No. Does it therefore make sense to devote limited government $$ to stop it? NO.
12:17 pm on Saturday, September 1, 2012
When my father was alive he was a registered Republican. Now that he has passed he's become a registered Democrat.
Kevin N
8:15 am on Saturday, September 1, 2012
This is another irrelevant wedge issue to help people choose Democrat or Republican without looking at the fact that neither party represents any large number of Americans. Special interest and the super rich control the two parties that stick together to destroy any additional competition to keep this a two horse race.
How many people could show up and pretend to be a registered voter that they know won't vote? Enough to impact a national election? Not a chance.
8:26 am on Saturday, September 1, 2012
raymay, that happened to me too losing my license when I was younger. I had to bring in my birth certificate and a picture ID. since my picture ID was misplaced I was able to use my yearbook bc the timeframe was acceptable. So the DMV is not wrong, you show birth certificate and a picture ID (yearbook picture) we should of had a passsport to avoid all this.
8:51 am on Saturday, September 1, 2012
TWO THIRD of Americans do not have a passport! (which means that they couldn't even fly to Canada ;~)). A new passport cost $135, and to get a passport, one needs: A New Passport Application, Proof of U.S. Citizenship, Proof of Identity, Passport Photos, Intent of Traveling. Now, that's simple, and everybody should have one!
8:39 am on Saturday, September 1, 2012
In June, Pennsylvania House Majority Leader Mike Turzai listed off a number of legislative accomplishments. "Voter ID, which is going to allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania: Done." Nuff said...
8:51 am on Saturday, September 1, 2012
The amount of of voter fraud in this country is negligible, this is just designed as an extra hurdle before the voting booth. I'm more concerned with what happens after I cast my vote, with the electronic voting machines and all. . .
10:07 am on Saturday, September 1, 2012
Got any hard stats to support that? I think voter fraud in urban areas is a lot more prevalent than you think.
10:55 am on Saturday, September 1, 2012
Billvill -- did you read the main page on the website you shared?:
It's headline:
Despite the push for strict voter ID laws in a charged partisan and racial debate, the most exhaustive study ever of American election fraud reveals the rate is infinitesimal. Since 2000, a time when 146 million Americans were registered to vote, News21 found 10 cases of in-person voter fraud, which only photo ID laws would prevent. That would be about one case for every 15 million eligible voters."
10:58 am on Saturday, September 1, 2012
Yes, I read it all and I think that what statistics they've discovered are just the tip of the iceberg.
11:45 am on Saturday, September 1, 2012
Election fraud is usually not people voting as someone else, it's others cheating the system, like this case: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2009/03/kentucky-e-voting-fraud-manipulated-voters-not-machines/
Voting ID would have done nothing to stop this. The fact that we are working to pass this IMO makes people complacent about voter fraud because we will be "reassured" it cannot happen to us. Hey, we check everyone's ID, right?
Committing fraud by lying about your identity at the poll is frankly a waste of time and the amount of effort it would take to enact is a lot more than it would be to simply hack the machines or manipulate the ballots after the fact.
Electronic voting machines are also easy to hack: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/24/us/computer-voting-is-open-to-easy-fraud-experts-say.html
5:01 pm on Saturday, September 1, 2012
People like billvill cannot be convinced by facts: they have made up their minds and nothing can make them change. Their brains are not being used to think.
2:26 am on Sunday, September 2, 2012
Even on the site billvill posted there was only one case of voter fraud in Massachusetts in 12 years!!
7:36 am on Sunday, September 2, 2012
Do you seriously think a blue state like Mass is going to readily admit to voter fraud?
Aron Levy
4:42 pm on Tuesday, September 4, 2012
It's all a big giant conspiracy! Just like how Ron Paul won the last three elections!!11!1
Parker White
10:02 am on Saturday, September 1, 2012
The US Constitution clearly states;
"The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax."
By requiring an ID that has a cost is a form of tax, even if for political purposes it is called a "fee".
The objective of these laws is to ensure that fewer people vote. Over the centuries we have seen various tools to limit who can vote. These range from literacy tests, poll taxes, certification of residency, and property ownership.
How hypocritical for many implementing these laws to claim the mantle of being people who purport to be constitutionalists.
10:47 am on Saturday, September 1, 2012
I don't agree the 'objective of these laws is to ensure fewer people vote', if anything it is for transparency. If you think having an ID is a tax, would you support it if a government issued ID was free to all who asked?
11:48 am on Saturday, September 1, 2012
The cost of setting up such a system (to pass out free IDs for all) is comically high. Given how much wasteful spending we do already, I can see how the government might not see it as a big deal, but if people are rarely, if ever, committing voter fraud in this way, why should we waste money chasing bogeymen?
Shouldn't we be preventing the methods voter fraud is actually done in...?
Nameless Conservative
7:53 am on Sunday, September 2, 2012
Billions of tax payer dollars are wasted every year on fraud occurring within such programs as EBT cards, disability income and medicare. I am inclined to think that anyone who says it would be a 'waste of money' to pay the extremely low cost for the incredibly small segment of the population who has no GI photo ID - is hiding their true agenda.
David Lucas
11:42 am on Saturday, September 1, 2012
This is a great topic, Dann. Without completely weighing in on whether we SHOULD require ID, i.e. whether the required cost of a Constitutionally guaranteed right is worth the integrity of the voting system, let me say this regarding the evidence of fraud, nationally: The article which you posted earlier by Mr. Salam, which I would advise everyone who weighs in on the issue to read, explains exactly why no reliable study has ever been made on the percentage of likely fraudulent voters. Simply put, you cannot make an accurate study, or even a good estimate, without running a controlled experiment - i.e., one where undercover fake voters present themselves to vote, and then the experimenter counts how many of them get caught versus how many get away with it. Even then, the study is not very accurate, for other reasons. In each national study so far, the voters who were examined are only those voters who have been complained about as being fraudulent. In other words, if you get away with fraudulently voting and no one complains, then you're not counted as a fraudulent vote! And complaints about fraudulent voting are ALWAYS politically-based, by both parties.
One last piece of food for thought: Most cities and towns require a minimum license fee of $100 for a firearms identification card and/or license to carry. Isn't that a Constitutional right?
11:50 am on Saturday, September 1, 2012
Ah, but the 2nd amendment does not say that you can bear arms without paying any tax, the voting amendment does.
12:07 pm on Saturday, September 1, 2012
The argument that voter fraud is not too bad or is negligible is ludicrous. One fraudulent vote disenfranchises ALL voters. Currently its only Democrats that have been caught registering dead people via ACORN or stuffing the ballot box's in Chicago. Or intimidating voters in Philadelphia.
Democrats professing we don't need an ID better hope to God some opposing party doesn't start their own ballot box scam.
1:32 pm on Saturday, September 1, 2012
Sigh, no it is not democrats.
Here is a case of republican voter fraud: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/08/31/1126475/-Republican-paid-voter-registration-operation-linked-to-fraud
Indiana secretary of state, a republican, was convicted of six counts of voter fraud: http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/02/04/418963/indiana-secretary-of-state-convicted-of-voter-fraud/
A republican candidate in Arizona dropped out amid questions about who was mailing in ballots on behalf of his long-dead girlfriend: http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/07/31/612911/republican-arizona-voter-fraud/
12:25 pm on Saturday, September 1, 2012
Democrats have no problem with voter fraud but are bending over backwards to prevent our sons and daughters who are in harms way from voting. Shows where their minds are at.
12:38 pm on Saturday, September 1, 2012
Daniel, yes I am referring to Obama's lawsuit. How dare he. Any attempt to stymy or put an extra burden on our sons and daughters in harms way, right to vote, is reprehensible. Especially in light of his and his parties every attempt at voter fraud (ACORN for one) and not prosecuting voter intimidation. Dishonorable!
Daniel DeMaina
12:39 pm on Saturday, September 1, 2012
Mark, have to jump in on this one—I take it you're referring to the Obama administration's lawsuit about new Ohio voting laws that modified in-person early voting regulations. Saying that this is an attempt to prevent those who serve in the military from voting is factually untrue: http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-08-07/fact-check-obama-ohio-military-voting/56859922/1
Daniel DeMaina
12:42 pm on Saturday, September 1, 2012
Well, again, this is not at all an attempt to stymie or prevent military personnel for voting. That is unequivocally 100 percent false. Here's the article again: http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-08-07/fact-check-obama-ohio-military-voting/56859922/1
Wind Dummy 25
12:27 pm on Saturday, September 1, 2012
US citizens have the rights, also the duty...Laws and fees go along with being a US citizen. You want to enjoy these rights, participate in all process, then raise your hand. Get your papers and all are welcome. The melting pot bubbles for all. If you have a green card your almost there. If you have nothing, 0 rights to participate...And why should you. I can't vote in Canada for example. I'm not Canadian. Show your license what's simpler than that. The reason less than 40% of US voters don't vote is there to lazy. Most illegals want nothing to do with voting anyway. Oddly some would have them to vote twice, dead or alive. What's up with that.
12:35 pm on Saturday, September 1, 2012
You need an ID to use your credit card at the local mall, to cash a check, to buy beer. And someone thinks it's in-American to require one to vote for our elected officials? It's too easy to steal a person's identity - esp at the polling place. The books are wide open!
It should be a requirement!
5:07 pm on Saturday, September 1, 2012
Wake up, Linda, that is precisely the point: a large number of people have no credit cards and no bank accounts. They have no driver licenses because they do not own a car.
12:45 pm on Saturday, September 1, 2012
I absolutely agree that you should have to show an ID in order to vote. My daughter is registered in Tewksbury for years now and has never voted. Whose to say that someone comes up to the desk, gives her name and address, and votes for her.
Aron Levy
4:49 pm on Tuesday, September 4, 2012
And who's to say that someone DOESN'T do that?
This is a solution in search of problem. And that problem is that the folks most affected by this issue would be voting for the Donkey.
Poor folks and minorities in general aren't terribly fond of the Grand Old Party.
Carole McGillicuddy
2:02 pm on Saturday, September 1, 2012
It's all very well for us in our affluent suburbs to speak of getting an ID with such ease.. However, there are people who do not live near a registry, do not have cars and work hand to mouth in other parts of the state and country, so if we are to require an ID, we need to provide a way for people to get them without it costing a day's pay and transportation costs to get to the place of registration.
Daniel DeMaina
2:51 pm on Saturday, September 1, 2012
I don't believe that's correct—EBT cards do not have a photo of the owner on them: https://service.hhs.state.ma.us/ier/jsp/consumer/LoginServlet?Application=ConsumerFS
... and correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think I've ever seen a T pass with a photo on it. (Is there a program for free MBTA passes? I know they have reduced fare programs, but I hadn't heard of people receiving them for free.)
2:56 pm on Saturday, September 1, 2012
There are reduced fare cards, but they're mostly for students, the disabled, and the elderly, I don't believe there is a reduced fare card for those who are poor. It's the TAP program: http://www.mbta.com/fares_and_passes/reduced_fare_programs/
You can't get reduced fare if you are poor.
2:14 pm on Saturday, September 1, 2012
I cannot remember the last time I used an id to use a credit card. You don't even have to sign if you spend less than $25 but that is beside the point. Poor people don't have credit cards or checking accounts. That is why check cashing companies are all over poor neighborhoods!
2:15 pm on Saturday, September 1, 2012
so, here is a good senario.
i go and vote, my neighbor who works here, goes thru the motions of street, name, first name, and crosses me off..
i go back an hour later, with same neighbor working there, and i use my other neighbors name and address, who is registered and does not vote, address and name, and the voter person working there who knows me, can't challenge me? would that be correct?
jason st
4:21 pm on Saturday, September 1, 2012
I don't think they could challenge you, which is why I think that implementing a semi-permanent ink on one's index finger to show that they have voted is a better method, no paying for a special ID card required.
I could procure any number of falsified IDs with the names and addresses of registered voters and vote as many times as I pleased.
Kevin N
3:54 pm on Saturday, September 1, 2012
They should also require an ID to buy alcohol and tobacco and then no one would be able to get those products until they reach a certain age.
4:44 pm on Saturday, September 1, 2012
thanks meggle...so i understand that the people crossing off names, are not to challenge anyone that they know, who vote more than once....nor is anyone at the polls to challenge anyone they know who voted twice.
well, this seems to be an unfair way to vote to me, when a person can vote more than once at the polls. i am in favor of voter identification.
why would a particular party object to that?
Tom Jeffords
4:47 pm on Saturday, September 1, 2012
What's with all the hatin'? Can't we all just get along?
5:25 pm on Saturday, September 1, 2012
I am adamantly opposed to voting ID card. As it is now, only about 40% of the American electorate bother to vote in a presidential election (it's even worse for senatorial and local elections). Most of the people who bother to vote, according to some on this string, must be voting twice or more, and that should be their right for taking their precious time to go to the polls. Furthermore, if IDs are required, it would show the true number of voters and the whole world would laugh at us for wasting the supposedly greatest form of government (many people die everyday for that right, you know).
11:20 am on Sunday, September 2, 2012
You actually believe this or are you just writing to stir the pot? "that should be their right for taking their precious time to go to the polls"? really? step back and see what you wrote. If even one person voted fraudulently (neglible number according to some), that votes nullifies mine, so yes, I'm upset about it. So the fraud number is actually double...the number of fraudulent voters, and the number of true votes they void. Why are you so adament about any form of abuse? Do you have a limit to it? If only 40% of people vote, so be it..that's another mountain to climb. At a minimum, we should know the votes cast are legal....no? You're happy knowing some might not be? As long as people vote, who cares? wow.....
5:54 pm on Saturday, September 1, 2012
so, i guess if i went to vote, and my name was crossed off, indicating that i already voted, and i didn't, what could i do?
the argument for voter id's is overwhelming, isn't it?
6:41 pm on Saturday, September 1, 2012
If you found your name was crossed off, you should go to the authorities. It's not that there's nothing you can do, voter fraud is a criminal act and verifiable cases have been persecuted, it's just that in most of the cases where fraud was committed, a voter ID requirement would be nothing more than a small speed bump.
There are better ways to verify people aren't voting twice and (like I mentioned before) it would be incredibly easy to simply have a few fake IDs and vote as much as you'd like.
But if you really want to chase this issue, what do you think about requiring an ink-stamp like many other countries do, in order to prevent double-voting?
Wind Dummy 25
9:39 pm on Saturday, September 1, 2012
There seems to be a political party that looks sideways at voter cheating but claims unfair. Then this party makes it difficult for service people to vote. One party champions illegal activity at voting stations, then attempts to use the power of the US government to confound champions who have no voting stations.This is suspect, and should stop. Better us use of efforts would be to promote citizenship.
We can always use more tax payers.
Daniel DeMaina
10:50 pm on Saturday, September 1, 2012
If by "then this party makes it difficult for service people to vote," you're referring to the Obama administration's lawsuit about new Ohio voting laws that modified in-person early voting regulations, as stated above the assertion that this is trying to make it difficult for service people to vote is demonstrably false: http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-08-07/fact-check-obama-ohio-military-voting/56859922/1
Re: promoting citizenship, this is a little off topic as we're talking about people who are already citizens, but that aside, even President George W. Bush had trouble on that front (http://reut.rs/QbKlJr). On that note, this PDF flow chart shows how difficult it is to become a U.S. citizen (disclosure: it's from Reason, a libertarian magazine): http://reason.org/files/a87d1550853898a9b306ef458f116079.pdf
Don Ordway
9:40 pm on Saturday, September 1, 2012
Voter ID is nothing but a political football. It shouldn't even be a question. After working this issue for several years I am convivced that if the Secretary of State was a Republican it would have passed without delay years ago. Passing should be painless and simple. Voting is the most important act most people will perform. If we allow corruption in the voting booth to continue it will not be long before we have corruption everywhere. We must start taking voting serious. As creativity grows our methods for enforcement must grow. This must be passed imediately stop making everything so complicated. We throw away billions of tax dollars every year certainly we can afford this mandatory need. Our future depends on acting responsibly. This is the place to start. I'm sick of my vote being cancelled by someone that is not a citizen or has never paid taxes in this country.
Kevin N
11:07 pm on Saturday, September 1, 2012
Don - The part you have right is that this football should not be a question.
Voters should be more outraged by the two frauds that we have to choose from in November than worrying about ID's at the polls. Voting requirements are used by dictatorships, not in "free" countries.
Nameless Conservative
8:06 am on Sunday, September 2, 2012
The only two groups of people against having an ID requirement are thieves and idiots. The idiots are relatively easy to spot and the rest, already predisposed to dishonesty, simply lie about why they do not want it, even right here on this comment board.
Concerned Citizen
12:47 am on Sunday, September 2, 2012
Kevin - you are so right on - for years there have been tactics to keep people from voting.In the early 1960's people died because they taught illiterate people to write their names to meet the requirement to vote. In parts of this country believe it or not some citizens do not have a license or ID. Plus voter turnout is so low now I don't know what effect required Ids might do to further lower it.
Don - I agree about it becoming hard to become a citizen. I have Irish friends (one is a PHD!) who are trying to become citizens - working here on Visas for 5 plus years but somehow need to be here 5 more to get to start the process. And that's Ireland. When I think of folks born in food poor or warring countries, I think Thank God we was born here.
Richard Foscarota
4:09 am on Sunday, September 2, 2012
Of course you should show an ID. if you have nothing to hide there should not be a problem.
Daniel DeMaina
9:07 am on Sunday, September 2, 2012
Folks, this had been a relatively civil debate up until now, with strongly worded arguments but people generally avoiding base level attacks. Refrain from that and we'll be OK; stray from that and we'll have to moderate the comments more stringently.
Reverend E. Raleigh Pimperton III
9:25 am on Sunday, September 2, 2012
Republicans should have to present three forms of picture ID to vote while Democrats should have to show none. That could pass in Massachusetts.
Reverend E. Reverend Pimperton III
Tom O'Brien
9:30 am on Sunday, September 2, 2012
The argument that requiring an ID 'disenfranchises the poor and minority voters' is such nonsense it's laughable. To me, it means that they must want anyone to vote, registered or not, citizen or not. Voting is a sacred right and needs to remain as such. I don't think there are many people in today's world who can live without some type of ID, since you need it to buy cold medication, pick up many prescriptions, take a Greyhound Bus, etc. Of course, they need to ask for the ID when people register, as well, that's the key. I also think it's nonsense that there is no voter fraud. It's just too hard to catch and prove.
12:17 pm on Sunday, September 2, 2012
It means they've read the constitution and you can't have any kind of poll tax in order to vote.
Also, there is fraud, and it wouldn't be prevented by presenting ID. In one case they just had a person go in and change the vote after someone voted on an electronic machine. How does this law address that?
Paul Rotondi
11:06 am on Sunday, September 2, 2012
Some one came in the dead of Night and taped an Obama sign over my Romney Sign at my cottage in N.H. And your not worried about Voter Fraud?
11:24 pm on Sunday, September 2, 2012
haha..that's hilarious. dont get mad get even, pay it forward, do the same..lol
12:16 am on Monday, September 3, 2012
That's not voter fraud, that's a practical joke, and a sorta hilarious one. Personally, I'da keyed your car*, so count your blessings.
*It's a joke, people. Unbunch your panties.
Charles Towne
9:37 am on Monday, September 3, 2012
Actually, it's no joke but a crime. If the opposite was done, it would be a hate crime.
Aron Levy
4:54 pm on Tuesday, September 4, 2012
Charles, it is obvious you have no idea what constitutes a hate crime.
And far be it from me to attempt to educate a proud simpleton such as yourself!
Don Ordway
11:14 am on Sunday, September 2, 2012
Look around at a divided America and ask yourself; is this is a noble goal? If the American people fail to place the country before party we will share the misery equally. Ideas should mean something. Emotions led us into this downward slide, we must think our way out of it; or face the consequences, which promise to be very unpleasant for years to come.
Reverend Pimperton has it correct. We must unite, have the laws of the land imposed on everyone equally.
Wind Dummy 25
11:38 am on Sunday, September 2, 2012
If anyone proposes legislation to combat voter fraud, Democrats will loudly scream that the proposal could "disenfranchise" some voter, somewhere. We must ensure, they argue, that voting is easy and accessible to every single voter. Every voter, that is, except the men and women of our military.
Make no mistake, the Democrat lawsuit is intended to disenfranchise some unknown number of military voters. The judge should reject it with prejudice.
The lawsuit seeks to restrict military voting.
This is the history, and happened before, last election, the election before etc. You can spin this with legal speak but it has a clear history DNA. http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/obama-campaign-lawsuit-seeks-to-make-military-voting-more-difficult/question-2856893/
Daniel DeMaina
11:50 am on Sunday, September 2, 2012
Sorry, but this is still 100 percent false. The lawsuit seeks to "[restore] in-person absentee voting on the three days immediately preceding Election Day for all Ohio voters."
In other words, service men and women under the Ohio law are allowed to cast in-person absentee ballots in the three days leading up to the election, but civilians are not. The lawsuit seeks to extend the ability to cast in-person absentee ballots on those three days preceding the election to all Ohio residents, including civilians. It in no way curtails the right of service men and women to do so.
The article you linked to leaves out any of those details and instead simply says that it seeks to restrict military voting, but doesn't explain how. Because it doesn't.
7:21 pm on Sunday, September 2, 2012
@ Daniel DeMaina
I am amazed at your patience with all the know-it-alls who actually thinks their fantasies are reality.
Daniel DeMaina
9:09 pm on Sunday, September 2, 2012
Humpback, I find that if I dispassionately stick to the facts while maintaining a sedulous respect for the opinions of others, eventually a productive dialogue is possible without having to resort to name-calling or negative characterizations of others. (Ahem. Nudge nudge, wink wink, say no more squire.)
Cornelius Cob
11:42 am on Sunday, September 2, 2012
The issues of our time are very complicated: the world economy, Iran, Climate Change, ... If someone is not able to get up and get a photo ID, do you really want them voting? I would argue they should just stay home.
Daniel DeMaina
12:15 pm on Sunday, September 2, 2012
We seem to be veering off into accusations of one side or other of this debate, instead of focusing on the facts. Let me try to provide a summation of the arguments from either side to reset and refocus the discussion.
Those opposed to voter ID laws argue:
- Voter fraud is rare, according to studies: http://bit.ly/OngaQw
- As many as 10 percent of eligible voters in the U.S. do not have the documents required by voter ID laws and ID requirements fall hardest on people who have traditionally faced barriers at the polls: http://bit.ly/M0ipUq
- The issue is non-partisan because Republicans have also been implicated in voter fraud cases: http://indy.st/Ul5OAu and http://bit.ly/QtDBcs
- Amendment XXIV of the Constitution states that the right to vote "shall not be denied or abridged ... by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax," which means the government cannot require to buy something in order to vote: http://1.usa.gov/cAuM0q
Those in favor of voter ID laws argue:
- Voter fraud is hard to identify, lessening the impact of those studies: http://on.wsj.com/QbhRiJ
- Obtaining the proper documents to meet a Voter ID law's requirements costs little to nothing and are easy to obtain. (Note: Pennsylvania's Voter ID law waives cost of obtaining an ID card: http://bit.ly/HsprhG)
- There are obvious flaws and loopholes in the system, so why wait until actual fraud happens and fix the problem now?
Daniel DeMaina
12:17 pm on Sunday, September 2, 2012
I'd also like to point out these two well-written op-eds debating for and against Voter ID laws from the Christian Science Monitor:
The conservative case against voter ID laws: http://bit.ly/Ul8gH7
Voter ID laws are inherently reasonable, not racist or Republican: http://bit.ly/OU7WcJ
1:13 pm on Sunday, September 2, 2012
But then all those busloads of winos that the Democrats round up every election and ferry about from polling place to polling place could only make one trip! Whyever would we want to do such a thing? Wouldn't it hurt the economy to put all of those ward bosses & party loyalists out of work?
Daniel DeMaina
1:17 pm on Sunday, September 2, 2012
... annnnd there goes my attempt to refocus the discussion on the facts. :) #kerplop
Kevin N
1:36 pm on Sunday, September 2, 2012
Can anyone explain how an ID is difficult to fake for someone interested in stealing an election? Bouncers at nightclubs go out of their way to find a punk with a fake ID they can exert power over and yet the bars are full of underage kids. The sweet elderly volunteers are great for volunteering but would not be difficult to fool with a fake ID.
2:22 pm on Sunday, September 2, 2012
So you're advocating elimination of ID requirements for nightclubs because they're too easy to fake? Or is it only elections that you feel should be wide open to chicanery?
Wind Dummy 25
2:40 pm on Sunday, September 2, 2012
Dan, how are you going to protect DEPLOYED troops from having there votes included is my contention. Conus (state side) troops can vote normally. I myself had an absentee ballot in 08 sent back to me, from the town for insufficient postage all the while knowing and stamped, that mail postage is waived from war zones (except parcels). This was an official ballot form slightly over the normal APO size limit is all I could figure. Thus my vote would never count even if I rushed it out of my FOB to Kabul, and on at my expense with limited time. The DOD goes through hoops to ensure deployed troops get the means to vote in any election only to see these ballots returned for obtuse reasons.(mostly blue states BTW. Meanwhile a dead persons vote from some graveyard in Illinois is counted twice.
Do not tell me that voter fraud is not an issue or has been for a long time. My family has to get the ballot, put it in another package and send it to me at expense.
In 2007, the US Election Assistance Commission reported that more than 70 percent of military ballots in 2006 election were not counted. In 2008, thousands of ballots arrived late, were never sent or simply never arrived. This Ohio BS is just another layer of problems stuffing or stifling votes. Creating voter apathy is just another way to roll. The way I figure it I should be able to vote 3 X's this November. yes it wasn't isolated.
Daniel DeMaina
2:51 pm on Sunday, September 2, 2012
OK, I hear what you're saying here. First, let's be clear: I did not say that voter fraud is not an issue—that's not anywhere in any of my comments above. With regard to the Ohio lawsuit, I'm pointing out that saying it restricts voting is incorrect; actually, it intends to expand early voting.
Deployed troops are a separate issue from the Ohio lawsuit, and I frankly don't know that much about it, so I'll have to read up. Thanks for sharing that article and your own experience, I appreciate that. I don't think you'll find anyone that opposes making it as easy as possible for servicemen and women to vote while deployed. A quick search turns up this Military.com article that says the Military Voter Protection Project "blames the Department of Defense for foot-dragging on absentee voter reforms that were enacted after the last presidential election:" http://mnstr.me/QT5Zns ... definitely something to watch going forward.
Regarding absentee military ballots "returned for obtuse reasons, mostly blue states BTW," do you have any articles you can point out that illustrate your assertion?
One update I just saw on the Ohio lawsuit: A judge ruled in favor of the Obama administration, ordering the three days of early voting be restored for all the state's residents: http://buswk.co/QT5rxW
Kevin N
2:46 pm on Sunday, September 2, 2012
George - I am saying that if kids without much to gain other than access to a club can fool trained bouncers who are itching to be tough guys then groups that have a powerful political office to gain could easily get by elderly volunteers. I do not think there is much voter fraud taking place through false identities but if you believe that there is a widespread conspiracy to steal elections by using the name of a registered voter who does not show up to the polls then you should realize that ID requirements are useless. Perhaps you would be happy if we required a sedula.
Wind Dummy 25
3:15 pm on Sunday, September 2, 2012
I must mow the lawn Dan, but this good! However quickly,there has been issues in NY, IL, Cal, Va, Fla. granted that some are back & forth color claims on some of these states. The most egregious being Cal & NY...If you must vote early just do an absentee ballot like most. I had to during the recent gas blower wars as I was away. Also a suspicious time? Summer one vote ballot what up with that. But compromise should be king on that one hopefully... Signal you later...Happy Labor day to all!
5:19 pm on Sunday, September 2, 2012
It's a voter suppression effort cooked up by the Republicans.
Reverend E. Raleigh Pimperton III
6:43 pm on Sunday, September 2, 2012
Better check under your bed every night... there could be a Republican under there.
Reverend E. Raleigh Pimperton III
7:39 pm on Sunday, September 2, 2012
Why stop at a lousy ID card to be able to cast a vote. Why not go back to the original idea of the founding fathers which, until 1850, allowed only adult white male property-owners to have the right to vote (about 10 -16% of the total population). Maybe while we're at it, we should abolish the 15th Amendment which would solve the problem of the African-Americans who do not have driver licenses, thus no IDs.
Finally, a literacy test for voting, such as the one enacted in Massachusetts in 1857, would be a good idea.
Jim Morse
9:03 pm on Sunday, September 2, 2012
You don't have to look too hard to find voter fraud and there is a case under investigation right here in Massachusetts and the perp appears to be a Republican!
10:16 pm on Sunday, September 2, 2012
This type of voter fraud has nothing to do with voter IDs.
Wind Dummy 25
9:24 pm on Sunday, September 2, 2012
Or Independents...That's the trouble with you guys it's always someone Else's fault. You just can't wait for things to evolve. We live in a primitive world, very lucky to have what we have. Very lucky...And it's slipping fast. There's not a large enough mirror to fit your big egos in, you have been dulled and spoiled by hopium...Perhaps you should stop looking for boogie man under beds, and take a good look at what thou has wrought. Rules are for Republics, not monolithic societies. None of you would not survive what you envision. You give the impression that you have 0 ideas how to protect fragile basic freedoms. It is more valuable than you can possibly imagine. It's as simple as a one citizen one vote. If you fudge that one...Well get use to soldiers in our streets. Unity not diversity. We need Athenians as well as Spartans to survive. Or have we forgotten this basic of rules.
Jim Morse
11:08 pm on Sunday, September 2, 2012
Quas, you are correct. I am in favor of Voters showing ID's and new voters registering by mail already have to show an ID the first time they vote so I don't see what the big deal is.
Do I need to attach identification to my voter registration form?
Yes, if you are registering to vote for the first time in Massachusetts. Because of a federal law, the Help America Vote Act of 2002 passed by Congress, if you registered to vote by mail on or after January 1, 2003, you will be required to show identification when you vote for the first time in a federal election since registering by mail in 2003, or you can send in a copy of your identification with your voter registration form.
Acceptable identification must include your name and the address at which you are registered to vote, for example: a current and valid driver's license, photo identification, current utility bill, bank statement, paycheck, government check, or other government document showing your name and address. If you send in a copy of your identification with your mail-in voter registration form, it may not be returned to you.
If you do not provide such identification, the Help America Vote Act of 2002 requires that you may only cast a provisional ballot which will be counted later, but only after your eligibility to vote has been determined.
11:38 pm on Sunday, September 2, 2012
In this case it looks like a lot of documents are valid verification, it doesn't just require a picture ID, which is what a lot of people are arguing for.
Still...all of these are easily forged if you want to vote as someone else...
Parker White
11:19 pm on Sunday, September 2, 2012
I'm hearing a lot of the professional "talking points" being restated here. Too bad. Not sure you realize how your are being influenced to support someone's end.
Want to "demonstrate" a case for voter fraud to further your end? Simply submit tens or hundreds of obviously (or not so obviously) fake absentee ballots. Once discovered you can point your finger and say "hey look, fraud. We told you so. Now is the time for new laws and regulation to prevent this scourge."
The goal is to get as many people to vote lawfully, correct? If IDs are going to be used, stick to the constitution and avoid taxing people by making it free. Also, make the ID as easy as possible obtain. However, I think you would find those who are offering up these new voter ID laws completely against 24th amendment or making it easy since the true objective is not authenticity but preventing participation.
Nameless Conservative
9:05 am on Monday, September 3, 2012
I'm fine with government providing ID's at no charge because the comparative amount of taxpayer money it would cost virtually nothing compared to what things like welfare, SSDI and EBT FRAUD are costing us which are liberal programs enjoying huge support by illegals committing those the crimes and, not surprisingly, the very same people who want to throw the vote to continue access to them.
Jim Morse
11:48 pm on Sunday, September 2, 2012
Here's a breakdown by state. Thirty three states already have Voter ID laws in place.
Parker White
11:52 pm on Sunday, September 2, 2012
Keep in mind when someone or some group would like to create cause for certain ends, the motives need to be understood. You can often find these private organizations resorting to what is called "false flag" operations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag
They create fake issues or situations to prove an end. These private organizations are funded by people who want certain outcomes. If you knew just how many PR organizations and lobbying groups practice this on the public you might begin to think differently about motives of what you are hearing on a range of issues. It is often subtle and repetitive propaganda over a long time horizon. For example, do you really think that any new oil drilled from public lands or tar sands is going to stay in the US? That is the narrative, drill here and it will make us energy independent. Sounds nice, we generally like the concept of being energy independent. However, the truth is that the companies involved with oil extraction will sell it in a global market to those who will pay the highest price. So this drill, drill fallacy is propagated over and over by people who know full well that it will do nothing to ensure energy independence. Anyone who questions drilling must be cast as against energy independence.
Same for Vote ID laws, if anyone against them make sure you label them as wanting fraud rather than someone feeling voting is inalienable and we should look with great suspicion on those who should put conditions on us.
Nameless Conservative
9:01 am on Monday, September 3, 2012
"That is the narrative, drill here and it will make us energy independent. Sounds nice, we generally like the concept of being energy independent. "
No, YOU are creating a false narrative, a straw man, to prop up and knock down. No one ever argued that US oil does not go on a world market! Let's hear you refute the fact that the more oil we produce here - the less subject we are to extortion by OPEC oil and oil from commies like Chevez. We have enough energy reserves in these USA to be a net EXPORTER of oil/gas/coal. So now tell us why being a net exporter is not a better position in a world market?
12:09 am on Monday, September 3, 2012
Meh, I'm betting that the majority of people whose panties are bunched at the idea of a non-citizen sneaking a vote in have never given a moment's thought to the idea of Diebold counting all the votes. Typical case of faux-news induced misplaced hysteria.
Jim Morse
12:16 am on Monday, September 3, 2012
Diana, one of my friends emailed my this story today and asked me to do a story on it. I did some searching and could not really find anything current. http://www.dailypaul.com/201888/flashback-2008-new-hampshire-recount-sham
12:39 am on Monday, September 3, 2012
If you want some real crazyness, check out the Wikipedia article on Premier Voting Systems: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premier_Election_Solutions and the article on electronic voting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_voting#Documented_problems
It's strange that we haven't heard anything current, especially given that there were a number of serious flaws discovered before 2008.
12:55 am on Monday, September 3, 2012
I found a recent example of electronic voting machines being tampered with, from this year: http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/8/82018.html?1335479847
Of interesting note is that the people investigating this on that forum seem to have been denied relevant information because it's a "trade secret"!
Nameless Conservative
8:47 am on Monday, September 3, 2012
Nothing could be further from the truth, fraud is fraud. Electronic/computer voting should be BANNED forever. There's absolutely NOTHING to guarantee that your vote is counted when it becomes something basically no different than a light switch that anyone can flip anyway they want with hidden software.
Even punch card voting machines are ripe for fraud. Massive fraud was evident in PBC FL in the 2000 election. The double-punch error rate was TEN TIMES that of the average punch card rate of other FL counties. 19,000 ballots had double votes for Gore and Bush or Gore and Buchanan in democrat controlled districts while, of those SAME ballots, double votes in the local races numbered less than a 1000. Apparently the voters were ~selectively~ confused. It was obvious democrats reamed through stacks of ballots for Gore after the polls had closed to nullify all votes for Bush or Buchanan. (Buchanan's running mate was Ezola Broussard Foster .. a black female. So don't even try to tell me he was no factor in PBC!)
Nameless Conservative
8:48 am on Monday, September 3, 2012
The kicker was the TX telemarketing phone call that went out in early afternoon targeting seniors to 'innocently' tell them to be careful about the PBC ballot - it might be confusing. Demographic information for retired people shows that they all tend to vote EARLY in the morning to avoid the later PM crowds when working people arrive. The call was a ruse. The people they targeted were most likely to have already voted, the purpose was not to warn them - it was to put doubt in their minds and get them to start complaining to reporters conveniently already in PBC and create the 'stupid FL senior voter meme'. TOTAL BUNK!
Punch card and computerized voting machines are MUCH more prevalent in democrat voting districts for one a reason - it's easier to change your vote to what they want.
Wind Dummy 25
2:32 am on Monday, September 3, 2012
Dan here is one blurb from Virginia Fairfax County...Not sure if DOD is negligent in getting troops to vote, there just providing a service as directed. It is however low priority over there, like bathing, kidding...Usually an adjunct at the end of a mission brief (reminders) but still plenty of time to act. Signs on a latrine door, bunkers or dining facility. Again plenty of information and instruction.
My experiences was that most all were eager to vote. But 1st you need a ballot? Still on my own experiences, 1st time no ballot, second time after making extra special arrangements, ballot arrived a few days before the election. 3rd time I had it delivered as early as possible by my wife in a package and sent it right back only to get the ballot returned to me a month after the elections. Last I heard the DOD has limited powers over USPS. And USPS has nothing to do with county or who ever is responsible for absentee ballots. So it looks like military citizens wishing to vote are now blamed for apathy? Or is it total capitulation to corruptions, or plan old ineptness. Either is disgusting.
Question, If your in the precinct, why would someone need an extra 3 days? To make a physical mark? Is someone crawling to a poll or what? Why not just get an absentee right? Make sure your ballot/vote is in stupid early, safe and then counted once when its time.
Nameless Conservative
9:11 am on Monday, September 3, 2012
Just the fact that Obama's "Fast and Furious" AG, racist Eric Holder, routinely sues every state that tries to keep elections honest - says everything anyone should need to know to convince them why we need a photo voter ID law in every single state.
Jim Morse
9:20 am on Monday, September 3, 2012
From today's Drudge: You need an ID to get NEAR the DNC in Charlotte.
9:28 am on Monday, September 3, 2012
There's no constitutionally protected right to attend the DNC, though. Also, Drudge. I'm certainly not accepting it as a credible source, and I'm certainly not clicking on it to see if it's otherwise sourced because I don't want computer syph.
Daniel DeMaina
10:34 am on Monday, September 3, 2012
A little off topic, but nonetheless: The areas near national political conventions have become police states in recent election years. The RNC spent $50 million in taxpayers dollars to essentially militarize local police officers: http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/story/all-50-million-federal-funding-security-visible-last-week-tampa
The DNC? Again, $50 million in taxpayer money from the feds: http://bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view/20220903media_get_vip_treatment_in_nc
Overall, "Federal taxpayers could be on the hook for more than $136 million to cover the cost of the major political parties' presidential nominating conventions." http://marylandreporter.com/2012/08/29/conventions-cost-federal-taxpayers-as-much-as-136-million/#ixzz25PwA0DJe
I'm somewhat expecting to see protestors in a cage outside the DNC again, à la Lindsey Bluth in "Arrested Development."
Joe Gray
9:34 am on Monday, September 3, 2012
I have no problem presenting an ID to vote. If I can't get behind the steering wheel of a car, out of a liquor store or onto an airplane at Logan airport without one, then I should expect to be turned away as required by law at all the above mentioned places. Voting should be no different.
9:37 am on Monday, September 3, 2012
You don't have a constitutionally guaranteed right to do any of those things. Seriously folks... the Constitution. You may have heard of it, but if not go look it up. It's important.
Joe Gray
9:42 am on Monday, September 3, 2012
The constitution does not require this. That's right. But the LAW is the issue. The constition argument is off base here. We are talking about the LAW. The article above asked the question about whether a LAW should be passed, not about any kind of constitutional change. Besides, the Federal constition allows the States to pass their own LAWS.
9:46 am on Monday, September 3, 2012
Within certain parameters, yes it does. There is currently considerable argument as to whether this should be one of those parameters, you may have noticed. Perhaps actually reading the Constitution would give you a better idea of whether this should be one of them. I'm going with "No", given that whole poll tax thing.
Joe Gray
9:56 am on Monday, September 3, 2012
Haven't read the whole constitution and not going to, unless someone holds a gun to my head or a class/project requires it. So please stop asking. I have enough bosses at work. We'll just agree to disagree. :-)
10:07 am on Monday, September 3, 2012
I'm going to ask anyone who expresses an opinion on the constitutionality of anything whether they've read the Constitution, because that's pretty relevant to the worth of their opinion. Try not to take it personally.
Charles Towne
10:18 am on Monday, September 3, 2012
I've read it and can't seam to to find where the phrase "separation of Church and State" is, where it says that a mother has the right to destroy her offspring, where it talks about two guys with gotees can get married, where pregancy is considered a disease and healthcare insurance should cover methods to prevent it or terminate it...
Daniel DeMaina
10:24 am on Monday, September 3, 2012
Charles: Watch it. We're veering way off topic and into some questionable territory. We're talking about Voter ID laws.
Joe, as I quoted and linked to above (http://1.usa.gov/cAuM0q), the Constitution states, ""The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax." So some people argue that requiring the purchase of a government issued photo ID constitutes a poll tax and is therefore unconstitutional.
However, as I also pointed out above, Pennsylvania's Voter ID law waives cost of obtaining an ID card for certain people: http://bit.ly/HsprhG ... in part, it says, "$13.50 fee for acquiring an Identification Card will be waived for individuals completing the Oath/ Affirmation Voter ID form. All identification documentation is still required to obtain an Identification Card as follows:
- Social Security Card
AND One of the following:
- Certificate of U.S. Citizenship
- Certificate of Naturalization
- Valid U.S. Passport
*Birth Certificate with a raised seal
- Two proofs of **residency such as lease agreements, current utility bills, mortgage documents, W-2 form, tax records"
So the question now is: Does that waiver then negate the unconstitutionality argument?
Daniel DeMaina
10:25 am on Monday, September 3, 2012
As an aside Charles, and again we're off topic here, but separation of church and state is in the 1st Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."
Joe Gray
10:40 am on Monday, September 3, 2012
Hi Daniel: Very wordy and interesting reply. But you're asking me about constitutionality, when I'm ill equipped to descend into such an arcane debate. So, I'll stick to the original question in the article above about what the local county officials should do. I have no problem with them trying to pass such a law. Just taking a side, whether others feel it is fluffy or not.
Daniel DeMaina
10:43 am on Monday, September 3, 2012
Joe, if you think that's wordy, you should see me on my bad days. :)
I appreciate you voicing your opinion. I was only trying to clarify the constitutional aspect of this discussion, (which, to be frank, I don't find all that arcane): i.e., here's what the constitution says, here's how one side is interpreting it, but here's how at least one state's Voter ID law seems to address that interpretation.
Charles Towne
10:47 am on Monday, September 3, 2012
Trick question. The phrase "separation between church and state" is actually in Jefferson's Wall of Separation Letter. I won't post any links to it.
Daniel DeMaina
10:54 am on Monday, September 3, 2012
Oh indulge me—it should be apparent by now that I *love* links. :)
I'll do it: http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html
Nameless Conservative
11:20 am on Monday, September 3, 2012
Diana - We all have an OBLIGATION to keep elections honest or our Constitution become a worthless piece of paper. Do you disagree with that?
11:55 am on Monday, September 3, 2012
I believe that we need to do it in a way that's Constitutionally sound, or the Constitution becomes a worthless piece of paper. Thoughts?
3:26 pm on Monday, September 3, 2012
Daniel, That is the "Establishment Clause" and has nothing to do with separation. I find it comical to see atheists twist themselves in pretzels to explain a Creche on a town common is promoting or establishing one religion. There is no Constitutional requirement for the government to separate from religions. They simply cannot establish "The Church of America" nor punish anyone for observing or not observing their religious beliefs.
Daniel DeMaina
4:07 pm on Monday, September 3, 2012
Bob, again we're off topic here, but it's a good discussion. Forgive me for reposting, but this discussion also happened below and so I'm moving it up here for the sake of cohesiveness. The phrase "separation of Church and State," as you probably know, comes from a letter written by Jefferson that directly correlates that phrase with the Establishment Clause. Jefferson wrote (link further below):
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."
My comment that you replied to was merely to point out that the phrase itself explicitly refers to the Establishment Clause. However, in cases such as the one you point out, a Creche on a town common, there's still ongoing debate on what exactly constitutes an "establishment" of religion, which is why we see the debate come up repeatedly in court cases and so forth, such as Everson v. Board of Education.
Charles Towne
9:35 am on Monday, September 3, 2012
Could photos be added to EBT cards? Then you would have "free" IDs.
Daniel DeMaina
9:39 am on Monday, September 3, 2012
This was discussed above Charles, but I believe it may be a mistake to assume that everyone without a government issued voter ID also has an EBT card. To wit, the photo accompanying one of the two CS Monitor op-eds I linked to earlier: http://bit.ly/Ul8gH7
9:43 am on Monday, September 3, 2012
That was beautifully and diplomatically phrased, Daniel. I'll take it just a step further in an attempt to avoid further confusion. It is absolutely, unequivocally and rather dunder-headedly wrong to think that every poor person is receiving EBT or other government-funded benefits.
Nameless Conservative
11:53 am on Monday, September 3, 2012
People receiving government assistance, (not including entitlements here, SS medicare and unemployment are NOT 'government assistance') should forfeit their right to vote until they get off the assistance. Whoever is getting hand-outs can always be expected to vote to continue receiving them at the expense of those providing them.
11:58 am on Monday, September 3, 2012
You're pretty selective about the Constitutional principles you concern yourself with, aren't you Mike?
1:48 pm on Monday, September 3, 2012
This will be one of the few times you will hear me say this, but denying people who have done no criminal act the ability to exercise one of the fundamental rights of our republic is quite possibly one of the most authoritarian and un-democratic things I have heard.
We live in the United States of America, not the Soviet Union.
Mike G.
5:51 pm on Monday, September 3, 2012
Everyone hates government assistance..... until they or their families find themselves on it one day.
Charles Towne
9:58 am on Monday, September 3, 2012
One arguement being made is that cost would prevent some from obtaining a valid ID. I presented one option to provide free IDs. I never said it would cover all cases and didn't mention "poor" people.
Parker White
10:00 am on Monday, September 3, 2012
Joe Gray, can a state pass a law that denies the freedom of the press? Passes a law that tells you that you must be a Catholic? Right, they can't. The Constitution is the law of the land by which other laws are derived. A Voter ID law that says only white people who own 10 acres of land would not be legal because the Constitution says it is. Every state, as a condition of being part of this country, agrees to uphold the Constitution and view it as taking precedence over all. When state officials are sworn into office, they take an oath to uphold the Constitution. So yes, states can pass laws, but not if it violates the supreme law of the land.
If you want to learn some more about the Constitution, you can read about it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution#Federal_relationships
Joe Gray
10:07 am on Monday, September 3, 2012
Hi Parker. It seems that your implied definitions show that over 30 states are breaking Federal constitution or something to that effect. Many states have passed laws requiring voter ID. Those states laws are still standing. Which circles me back to not understanding why this is being dragged into a Federal constitutional area of debate, when the article above clearly wants opinions on whether MA should pass such a law. We disagree, obviously. I'll say "yes" and hold back from shoveling out random links that no one is going to click on and follow ayway. Might be a spam trick to make me see an ad for broomhandles or something. :-)
1:50 pm on Monday, September 3, 2012
30 states require voter ID, but most of those don't require a photo ID. You do not have to pay to present the identification that they require. In most cases, it can be as simple as a bank statement, paystub, or signed affidavit from the city/town clerk.
Requiring a photo ID that one has to pay for is an entirely different beast.
Parker White
6:27 pm on Monday, September 3, 2012
As Meggle indicated, not all states require a specific type of photo ID. In some states getting the new photo ID is no small task. For example, in Texas to get a driver license I need to OWN a car. Per The Texas DPS:
"Present proof of Texas vehicle registration and liability insurance on all vehicles you own"
Almost any photo ID will require you to show a SS card. If you do not have your social security card you can't get any form of ID, license or personal identification. If you do not have a SS card, a replacement requires either a U.S. birth certificate or U.S. passport as proof of citizenship. Don't have your certified birth certificate (copies are usually not accepted)? This means you need to get a replacement birth certificate. Usually this will cost about $30-$100 depending on the state you were born. What are the requirements to get a replacement?
Either the following forms of valid photo-ID:
* Driver license
* State issued non-driver photo-ID card
* Passport
* U.S. Military issued photo-ID
Two (2) of the following showing the applicant's name and address:
* Utility or telephone bills
* Letter from a government agency dated within the last six (6) months
LOL, the irony. The IDs I dont have are required to get the document that enables me to get the IDs I don't have. You only hope is showing utility bills. However, if those are in someone else's name, then you are screwed.
Charles Towne
10:08 am on Monday, September 3, 2012
I don't know how Diana defines "poor". Actually, many of the EBT benficiaries I see at the supermarket appear to be better off than most. They don't have money for food, yet have money for tattoos and body piercings. Then they load their brand name groceries - no generic or store-brand for them - into some pretty nice vehicles - paid for by the rest of us through some government program that rewards you for having illegitimate children.
Maybe, she means all the phonies in Reading living paycheck to paycheck so they can drive big SUVs, living in a house they can barely afford, maxing out their credit cards on expensive vacations keeping up with the "Jones". Now that's "poor", but they probably have a valid ID. Hey, but the "free" full-day daycare, I mean Kindergarten, will help.
10:15 am on Monday, September 3, 2012
I'm not sure how you define "poor" either, but having noticed how you define "hate crime" I'm guessing your definition is, well... questionable.
Daniel DeMaina
10:19 am on Monday, September 3, 2012
Charles, to qualify for SNAP benefits that are issued through EBT cards, households must have a gross monthly income no higher than 130 percent of the poverty line and a net monthly income no higher than 100 percent of the poverty line: http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/applicant_recipients/eligibility.htm ... I believe that's what Diana is referring to when she says "poor."
1:55 pm on Monday, September 3, 2012
It might surprise you, but people can get both tattoos and piercings before falling on hard times. Also, when I was wild and young(okay, I've only been "corporate" for two years...), we just DIY'd it, as horrifying as that might strike some, it's also free ;P.
But honestly, since my friends and I did our time as wage-slaves in food service to drag ourselves through college, we've mostly just seen pretty average looking people coming through with EBT. Of course the pierced ones stand out to you, but they stand out in pretty much any situation.
Nameless Conservative
11:36 am on Monday, September 3, 2012
OT - Just to set Daniel straight, the phrase "separation of church and state does NOT appear anywhere in the Constitution and the first clause of the 1st Amend does NOT mean the same thing - not even close. Leftists routinely take the separation phrase out of context from a letter Jefferson wrote in reply to a Baptist (?) minister who implored Jefferson to make the USA a Christian nation by law. In contrast, the 1st Amend PROHIBITS CONGRESS not school teachers, (the ONLY branch that is ~supposed to be~ afforded Constitutional power to ENACT LEGISLATION), from making laws (not prayers - which they still have before sesssion) in regard to promoting any given religion OR infringing upon our right to exercise any given religion. If Congress is so prohibited then the other two branches have ZERO authority as well but that didn't stop leftist activist judges from prohibiting school prayer and they were not only magnificently wrong but injured everyone's civil right to freedom of religion.
Daniel DeMaina
11:45 am on Monday, September 3, 2012
Mike, we're still off topic here, but you mention the context of Jefferson's letter (http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html). So, here's the context:
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."
You'll see that the context is specifically Jefferson saying that the 1st Amendment builds a wall of separation between church and state. Obviously your interpretation is different than Thomas Jefferson's when you say that the 1st Amendment doesn't mean anything "not even close" to separation of church and state, since that's exactly what he's saying, but on the other hand, you're absolutely correct that the 1st Amendment also protects the government from infringing upon citizens' right to exercise any given religion.
Wind Dummy 25
12:13 pm on Monday, September 3, 2012
Good one...
So after one persons review, there looks like there ARE many ways to prove who you are at the polls. just need competent peeps to check them...It should be free for the undefined poor who won't vote anyway but cost the people living in Reading with big cars and lavish vacations living day to day to pay for them. EBT cards are cool, but no religious overtones while voting. Get the unreliable machines that count them tuned up, get political subliminal s banned from tweaking the process.The constitution the original blue print, is apparently irrelevant. And my beef that deployed soldier votes can be discarded...My quick count looks like 3-1 for voter ID. America, "err" Massachusetts, home of the Adams boys..."We can do this"
Mike G.
12:51 pm on Monday, September 3, 2012
Interesting approach to debates here.
Throw out an opinion that's presented in a way that makes it seem like fact --> get challenged by opposing view --> ad hominem attack --> repeat of opposing view --> throw up hands and leave debate with another ad hominem attack.
Kids, take note.
Joe Viglione
1:27 pm on Monday, September 3, 2012
Where did that "Phil" troll come from and why is he disrupting threads?
Public Access Producer
1:29 pm on Monday, September 3, 2012
Voter Fraud is negligible. They say maybe 10 instances across the entire country. There's no money in it because the GOP hasn't found a way to pay off people to fake it.
3:41 pm on Monday, September 3, 2012
One major question was in Minnesota that allowed Al Franken to become the 60th vote for Obamacare. Very interesting facts about felons voting and the vote was decided by @300 votes.
I am 100% for a federal voter ID law and 100% for a federal ID which would be required for voting and employment. They can make them such that they are virtually counterfeit proof. These would be given out and will include a ID number like your license.
Wind Dummy 25
1:36 pm on Monday, September 3, 2012
Hey this isn't shop lifting PAP. Voter fraud comes in all forms is the point...At least read a few post before you bleat... Negligible...Better word is closer to blatant. Check out the 1960 election, there still pissed about that one.
Wind Dummy 25
1:50 pm on Monday, September 3, 2012
Definitely must upgrade the term "voter fraud"...Sounds more like an insurance scam.
Voter identity theft...Or felonious constitutional theft of personal citizen rights.
Public Access Producer
1:54 pm on Monday, September 3, 2012
The illusion is that you have the right to vote. When a Supreme Court steps in and throws out the Florida vote so that George W. Bush won't be "irreparably harmed" they harm the entire country. Corporations and politicians hold on to power like a drug. The deceptive GOP doesn't even like its current candidate (Romney). It is stuck with him, and they know that without keeping voters away from the polls Romney has less of a chance. It's truly reprehensible because enough people won't come out and fight for their civil rights, their First Amendment rights, etc.
3:47 pm on Monday, September 3, 2012
PAP, Old news. No less than 6 VERY LIBERAL Florida newspapers ran recounts and in all cases BUSH WON! What was reprehensible was the Gore people trying to invalidate soldiers votes from over seas.
I agree with Romney. I am a conservative unenrolled and I don't know which way I will vote at this point. For Romney or write in Condi!
2:45 pm on Monday, September 3, 2012
A Raleigh-based group devoted to reducing the potential for voter fraud presented the N.C. Board of Elections on Friday with a list of nearly 30,000 names of dead people statewide who are still registered to vote.
"Since there is no voter ID law in North Carolina, anybody can walk in and claim to be anyone else."
4:19 pm on Monday, September 3, 2012
They will only be making phoney ID's Just like Handicapped Placards. If a law went through you can bet that the crooks will be pumping out cards by the thousands.
Jim Morse
4:27 pm on Monday, September 3, 2012
When I was a Democrat we were taught, "What To Campaign On."
We can't talk about unemployment, it's too high.
We can't talk about our approval rating, it's too low.
We can't talk about the deficit, it's too high.
We can't talk about the credit rating, it's too low.
We can't talk about taxes, they're too high.
We can't talk about the value of the dollar, it's too low.
We can't talk about gas prices, they're too high.
We can't talk about the budget, we have none.
We can't talk about the economy, it's in shambles.
We can't talk about electric cars, no one wants them.
We can't talk about energy - wind and solar don't work.
We can't talk about Israel, never been there.
Looks Like All We Have Is Smear. Source: FB photo, Author unknown.
And now that I'm a Republican we are taught, "What To Campaign On."
Source: BadLipReading
Public Access Producer
4:34 pm on Monday, September 3, 2012
"Old News" that the Supreme Court interfered in the voting process? Or "Old News" that the Jeb Bush/Katherine Harris controlled media wrote what they wanted you to quote? It was disgraceful, just as disgraceful as JFK allegedly stealing the election from Nixon. Votes must count. All this nonsense about "voter fraud" and dead people --- all 30,000 of 'em -allegedly registered to vote, blame the clerks who oversee this - and get paid to oversee it - and fire them. It's very simple. They want us all bickering so that the election can be riddled with inefficiency, like Republican voter machines that switch a vote from Democrat to Republican. Never talk politics or religion and Romney is giving us both - a candidate his own party despises and the "politics" of Joseph Smith thrown in to boot. Has it really come down to this?
11:44 am on Tuesday, September 4, 2012
LOL, On all of your conspiracy theories! Never happened! The legal votes were counted. The non-legal votes were not. Simple.
You really think Bush and Harris controlled the AP, Chicago Tribune, Chicago University etc.? REALLY? They are the ones who commissioned/did the recounts. Here is USA Today... "USA Today: George W. Bush would have won a hand recount of all disputed ballots in Florida's presidential election if the most widely accepted standard for judging votes had been applied."
LOL are you one of those "open minded" liberals? What about Harry Reid? He controls the Senate and is blocking so much legislation it is piled higher than the dome! Or is he OK because he is a D Joseph Smith follower?
5:04 pm on Monday, September 3, 2012
I think we should let all the Deceased People vote again.
Daniel DeMaina
5:26 pm on Monday, September 3, 2012
This thread is getting off topic again and getting a little trollish. Keep it on topic. We're talking Voter ID laws. Keep it civil and refrain from base level attacks and we'll be OK; stray from that and we'll have to moderate the comments more stringently.
Dave Gray
6:02 pm on Monday, September 3, 2012
Or, you could remove the thread altogether, since it has gone from ridiculous to absolutely absurd.
Daniel DeMaina
6:04 pm on Monday, September 3, 2012
I don't want to punish everyone, Dave, because of a few bad apples. I don't think the discussion was that bad early on; people may have had strongly worded opinions, but they were sharing ideas, links, debating, etc. I also just went through and found a number of people who had Patch accounts registered with invalid email addresses, which violates our Terms of Use, so those comments have been deleted and accounts suspended.
Daniel DeMaina
5:34 pm on Monday, September 3, 2012
Comments on this article have been removed for violating our Terms of Use, which state, "We ask that the e-mail address you provide when you register be a valid e-mail address for you." The Terms, agreed to when a Patch account is created, can be read here: http://winchester.patch.com/terms
Mike G.
5:45 pm on Monday, September 3, 2012
Counting down to the first agonized scream of "waaaah free speeeech".... 3.... 2........
A. Horch
8:16 pm on Monday, September 3, 2012
@Mike G.
Doesn't apply to forums. Owner/editor can delete anything he/she wants to. Wouldn't have many followers if not balanced, but Daniel seams reasonable.
Bill Gilman
9:10 pm on Monday, September 3, 2012
I've always found Dan to be rather reasonable. Aside from the whole hat obsession thing. :)
Mike G.
9:52 pm on Monday, September 3, 2012
I should have used my sarcasm/not-so-obvious-in-joke tag.
Daniel DeMaina
7:56 pm on Monday, September 3, 2012
Additional comments on this article have been removed for violating our Terms of Use, which state, "We ask that the e-mail address you provide when you register be a valid e-mail address for you." The Terms, agreed to when a Patch account is created, can be read here: http://winchester.patch.com/terms.
There was nothing wrong with the content of the comments—actually, kinda funny—but our Terms of Use are there for a reason and the same rules apply to everyone.
Cheryl Buono
9:20 pm on Monday, September 3, 2012
If for no other reason, it would get liberals all worked up :)
2:36 pm on Tuesday, September 4, 2012
Also conservatives and libertarians who actually follow the constitution :). This isn't exactly a left-right issue.
Wind Dummy 25
12:23 am on Tuesday, September 4, 2012
Big fish...
What crook can possibly make cake on stolen deceased folks names and phoney ID's on a presidential election, come on are you serious? What low life would chance something that crazy & despicable? The only possible player is who ever is worried and would do anything to try and tilt an outcome?? Some one with some experience in this sort of thing, but who? Someone would have to pay off these low brow crooks...Sounds positively seedy, and a truly desperate act.
OOps, my duh, now I get it.
Man it's like I had a Sears Tower fall on me there for a second.
david mokal
10:22 pm on Tuesday, September 4, 2012
Wind just a joke but many true words are spoken in jest it will happen again you can bet on that. More dirty deeds just like allways.
Public Access Producer
1:23 am on Tuesday, September 4, 2012
Back in Edgar Allen Poe's time (he died around October 7, 1849) people allegedly hired people to do that sort of thing, buy votes using a variety of names. From WIkipedia:: "ne theory, dating from 1872, indicates that cooping – in which unwilling citizens who were forced to vote for a particular candidate were occasionally killed – was the cause of Poe's death. [74]. With cameras everywhere these days it would be silly to even attempt it...unless your name is GOP hack Ann Coulter who was allegedly investigated for voter fraud. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/08/ann-coulter-under-investi_n_165007.html Oh, wait a minute...Republicans want to stop voter fraud, and one of the biggest Republican names is alleged to have done it!
Tom O'Brien
6:28 am on Tuesday, September 4, 2012
Noone seems to be talking about the best example we have of voter suppression. During the 2008 election, when black panthers in PA blocked a polling place and intimdated people into not coming in to vote. Despite video evidence and many witness accounts, our AG Holder has refused to press charges in this case.
And in reference to voting machines, I've long felt that the style we have in Somerville is the best of both worlds. Only the counting is electronic, and there is still a paper trail for hand-counting if necessary.
barbara Tardanico
11:15 am on Tuesday, September 4, 2012
No excuse to not enforce an uncorruptible voter ID. Those who gain by lax stadards are either non citizens who are here illegally, or criminals who are in hiding, while others sell theirs for drugs or booze. The so called studies are corrupt to support those who want to take over our country and dump the constitution. Yes, voter picture ID. It also could be used to discourage the fraudulent takers of welfare.
Wind Dummy 25
11:52 am on Tuesday, September 4, 2012
GOP hack Ann Coulter should be forced to take me to a lavish dinner and explain this mess. If it's reported in the Huffington Post it must be true, there so fair and accurate. This guy Dan Borchers sounds a little creepish. Christian conservative perspective? He have a web site devoted to chasing down Coulter> If this is fraud example or what, sounds like she voted in the wrong place is all.
I agree Barbara picture ID would go a long way to curbing all sorts of fraud. Isn't that a good thing? This is all confusing and simple at the same time.
Public Access Producer
12:30 pm on Tuesday, September 4, 2012
Voter Fraud committed by the GOP: Diebold had to change its name to Premier Election Solutions. "This suit eventually led to a victory for the plaintiffs against Diebold, when in October 2004 Judge Jeremy Fogel ruled that Diebold abused its copyrights in its efforts to suppress the embarrassing memos." Unbelievable. Blackwater changed its name to Academi, and Dick Bush and George W. Cheney didn't bother to change their names - along with Sarah Palin they were denied entry to the Republican National Convention. Those are the facts.
1:40 pm on Tuesday, September 4, 2012
PAP, are you Black Ops? Plane trails dropping chemicals? LOL. President GW Bush was invited and declined. He and his father did a nice video did you see it? Or was that fact not on your Alex Jones talking points list?
White Tundra
1:05 pm on Tuesday, September 4, 2012
2:28 pm on Tuesday, September 4, 2012
Don't criticize, Whitey, if it were not for these 3rd world voters, the polls would be a very lonely place.
2:30 pm on Tuesday, September 4, 2012
And with this cute example of stormfront-esque illogical FUD, this thread has officially flown off into the land of utter insanity :).
2:42 pm on Tuesday, September 4, 2012
Whitey is correct!
It's clear that the most basic understanding of law eludes a few of the people posting on this issue. They likely have little connection to, or understanding of, complex work or the need to work long hours of late. No citizenship, no vote - It's the law.
The weakness of the leftist argument has provided the 'takers' with the need to attack you personally. Hopefully they willl wander off to pick up their government benefits for those able-bodied between 18 and 65.
6:50 pm on Tuesday, September 4, 2012
No one has argued that non-citizens should be able to vote, and the argument you're referring to isn't "leftist", it's Constitutional. No poll tax. Period.
I don't really understand what long hours of employment have to do with anything, but you seem disturbed about it. Have you tried working smarter?
2:47 pm on Tuesday, September 4, 2012
"Counting down to the first agonized scream of "waaaah free speeeech".... 3.... 2........ "
You need to work the issues and not engage in ad hominem attacks. In any case, thank you for your insightful, thoughtful comments. Time to break out IQ tests for voting.
Daniel DeMaina
3:05 pm on Tuesday, September 4, 2012
Russ, I don't see anything in Mike G.'s comment about free speech that constitutes an ad hominem attack at all, especially considering he was replying to me. Ironically, you then make a subtle ad hominem attack yourself with "Time to break out IQ tests for voting," which likewise doesn't seem like it's working the issues. We've let a lot fly in discussion—we try to be as lenient as we can and allow people to air their opinions—but we're treading on thin ice here. Let's all be cognizant that there are people on the other side of these screen names.
Kevin N
4:49 pm on Tuesday, September 4, 2012
If the concern has tailed off into illegals voting then the argument for ID's is even less important. I hear constant complaints that non-citizens can get a drivers license so obviously they all have ID's to get into the poll. Citizenship should be checked when a person registers to vote and the non-citizens will be kept off of the registered voter list.
5:52 pm on Tuesday, September 4, 2012
Let's be realistic. Illegals are here in this country, by definition, illegally. The last thing they would like to do is to attract attention to their situations. Trying to usurp the system to add one of two votes for a candidate who couldn't care less about their situation? I have known some illegals from various countries and, believe me, this was the last of their preoccupations.
Wind Dummy 25
4:53 pm on Tuesday, September 4, 2012
3rd world NONE registered voters, it would indeed be a very lonely place... Agree with that! I dig legal 3rd world Americans.
4th 2nd 12th world non registered voters what's the difference. I agree with the majority and the law...Play by the rules of THIS land and then get behind your favorite candidate...I have 0 problems from folks trying to get shed of some horrid sh-- hole country, I've been to them. But freedom is not "err" free...Despite what some may invoke. There are a few rules. The process is a little tough especially if you don't know the language, but the rewards are great. You get to Vote, pay your share of taxes and welcomed into the club with back slaps, and big thanks for coming!!! Live a full American style life, or not. You will have the choice once your sworn in like everyone else....If not hit the bricks, sorry but you can't vote here. You shouldn't even PAHHK here actually. And if your caught stealing votes or misrepresenting ...Well you just better not, see...Or someone might give you the stink eye around here, see.
White Tundra
5:07 pm on Tuesday, September 4, 2012
Does everyone here understand the reasoning the gov't wants this...do you realize that when you sign for any ID you are actually signing a contract with the gov't to play by their rules...it's unconstitutional. It's trickery and underhandedness... In other words when you place your signature on your license you are actually signing a contract with the gov't to obey the laws that surround the rules that surround it. However, this is a rabbit hole I don't think anyone here is ready to go down....and very difficult for most to understand. However the gov't has us believing its really something else...EVIL DOINGS!!!
7:00 pm on Tuesday, September 4, 2012
I am confused, you were arguing for the law but now against it? You're subject to the same laws whether you have an ID or not.
Wind Dummy 25
7:06 pm on Tuesday, September 4, 2012
Don't vote and you have no say, AT ALL. Allow the no ID crowd to exempt the underground to ignore rules and watch more freedoms to disappear. Along with your comfort zone. Believe me I think government over stepped it's authority big time. But this is a good thing to do. Actually it's what it's suppose to do. As opposed to backing Real estate or student loans, or social issues. I don't even want them delivering mail or running trains. Local & Federals can keep a eye on it and keep A LEVEL FIELD and step in when needed, even then I'm worried what they may do.
This a peoples Republic and up to peoples to slug it out in debate. hopefully legally and civilly. It will be a rabbit hole if we get distracted.
7:12 pm on Tuesday, September 4, 2012
Totally UNREAL! Daniel, please turn off this string, it has become TOTALLY ludicrous.
7:20 pm on Tuesday, September 4, 2012
But quasi, it's a party! Pointy tinfoil hats for everyone! ;)
Wind Dummy 25
7:28 pm on Tuesday, September 4, 2012
Q can't hang...leave Dan alone he's having fun. Just tune out...It's your right.
Oh and vote legally! And your right, they don't vote, it's the legal voters that foul!
Reverend E. Raleigh Pimperton III
9:05 pm on Tuesday, September 4, 2012
Thank you for providing adult supervision for this unusually long string of comments. A nudge back to the subject at hand has been instructive.
In my case, I intend to vote early and vote often.
Your spiritual advisor,
Reverend E. Raleigh Pimperton III
Aron Levy
9:17 pm on Tuesday, September 4, 2012
How is that lazy and irresponsible? Also, what about the people who don't believe in banks, and therefore keep all of their money in their mattress? Yet anther case where an ID would not be needed.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Voter ID is a solution in search of a problem.
9:23 pm on Tuesday, September 4, 2012
It is Aron, it's lazy and irresponsible.
Voting is a Civic Duty.
You go ahead and keep your money in your mattress and try to buy a house. Get a loan to buy a car, try it I challenge you.
9:50 pm on Tuesday, September 4, 2012
Why would you always need a loan to buy a car? Just buy one with cash. I put about 10k down on one last week, but you can buy a beater for 2k. In plenty of places you can get a house for less than 100k. People do buy houses and cars with cash outright. Might sound kind of alien to you but plenty of born 'n' bred Americans live pretty off the grid.
2:55 pm on Wednesday, September 5, 2012
Dear meggle,
Voting is very much on the grid. Regardless of ID.
Good luck with getting off the grid.
Myself, being a dual car house hold, one of which was paid-in-full-cash-purchase, and being a property owner, I know the playing field and the game very well.
So let me inform you that when you whip out the that 100 grand to buy that house, I hope you have a very strong story about where that money came from. In these times with Gub'mint agencies designed to watch that sort of thing, you just may find your self very much under the magnifying glass, whether grid born or not.
Best of luck.
Aron Levy
9:27 pm on Tuesday, September 4, 2012
You seem to have mistaken the hypothetical with reality. I have several bank accounts (both private and business), a car, and an apartment.
Also, I've voted in every election in which I was able since I turned 18. Now spare me your pity moralizing, please.
Aron Levy
9:28 pm on Tuesday, September 4, 2012
Oh, excuse me. The car is a lease. So I don't *exactly* own it.
Josh Chace
9:56 pm on Tuesday, September 4, 2012
His point that you can't have all those things WITHOUT a state issued ID, so you essentially just proved his point.
People who keep their cash under a mattress (whom are probably 0.00004% of voters, are not likely to care to vote since nothing that happens affect their mattress) don't need to cast a vote, so who cares? This doesn't affect them.
I'm all for voter ID. If an individual wants to be a part of this country, they know they need to be identified as such, so this will not hinder anyone who votes regularly.
10:06 pm on Tuesday, September 4, 2012
You have no constitutionally guaranteed right to do any of those other things, but you do have a constitutionally guaranteed right to vote at no cost.
Seriously, if there's one thing I have zero patience for, it's the kind of "patriotism" that completely disregards the Constitution.
10:56 am on Wednesday, September 5, 2012
So electing not to participate in the sham that is our banking system should disqualify one from voting? It's also probably much higher than your little guess. Nearly 8% of people in the US -- that's 17 million people -- don't have a bank account. Voter turnout is already depressingly low.
Getting citizens to vote should be a major concern over bellyaching about a problem that arguably doesn't exist and requires even more government waste to do. You cannot constitutionally do this without passing out free ID to every citizen if you want to have photo IDs.
Wind Dummy 25
10:19 pm on Tuesday, September 4, 2012
Reverend E Brother you crack me up! If you can't be riveting be witty. Not that your not riveting. Quite the opposite.
Also if I may, "If you can't dazzle em with brilliance...Baffle em with b_ll sh_t"
Groucho Marx... Not the ruthless dictator, the funny one...
Aron how can you be so sensible with auto finance, but the other way (I'm just saying) on voting? I commend you for voting! There are way to many Americans in early graves water and land, that insist we vote. But we must protect the hive. And it's never ending ongoing very tough work being in the America biz.. Unfortunately, or not, nothing stays the same. And no one can be trusted. Not even Reverend E! Kidding, he's a man of the papal.
Wind Dummy 25
12:14 am on Wednesday, September 5, 2012
Correction Marx (the father of socialism) was not that ruthless or a dictator...But he had a mustache...Comparisons end there.
Grant Amnesty to Illegal Aliens
6:40 am on Wednesday, September 5, 2012
If we require ID's then how will illegal aliens get to vote?
1:52 pm on Wednesday, September 5, 2012
Showing ID to vote is common sense. Those who rail against it (such as the democrat party and the labor unions) are (for the most part) disingenuous -- they require ID to vote in labor union elections and to get into party functions, yet claim it is "unfair" to require the same in order to vote in other elections.
ANY vote cast by someone not eligible weakens the opinion of EVERY person who is eligible. If one really, truly believes in the "will of the people," then one must promote the idea that only those eligible, registered, and identified be allowed to exercise franchise.
Arguments on cost of ID are mostly specious -- the folks to whom this will be an "undue burden" already must have ID to buy cigarettes, alcohol, get money from their bank account, et cetera ad nauseum. Additionally, they are -separate- concerns, related to but not conjoined with the desire to prevent voter fraud. Another separate - and quite legitimate - concern is vote-COUNTING fraud. That needs to be addressed as well -- but it cannot be addressed by the same methods that will work for voter ID. That fraud occurs in a different part of the system, and must be addressed there.
Anyone who has read of the registration of tens of thousands of dead voters, "Mickey Mouse," warehouse-dwelling voters, etc. cannot deny that voter fraud exists.
Aron Levy
2:01 pm on Wednesday, September 5, 2012
Please show us proof that Mickey Mouse I-CMXLVIII voted for anyone, aside from the Micky Mouse Club itself.
1:58 pm on Wednesday, September 5, 2012
You don't have a constitutional right to vote in a labor party election, or to get into party functions, or to buy cigarettes, or alcohol, or have a bank account.
You DO have a constitutional right to vote at no cost.
Ad nauseum, indeed.
Aron Levy
2:01 pm on Wednesday, September 5, 2012
Solution in search of a problem party! Solution in search of a problem party!
2:31 pm on Wednesday, September 5, 2012
Actually the union's constitution usually provides a right to vote to all members in good standing...
3:03 pm on Wednesday, September 5, 2012
@ Bob: "good standing" means you PAID your dues to be part of the union.
Unions are a club, you must pay to play.
This is a non-starter relative to US elections.
3:30 pm on Wednesday, September 5, 2012
Jason, I know what unions are and the hows and why's. I am simply replying to Diana who said one does not have a constitutional right to vote in labor party elections.
Never said anything about US elections or cigarettes, alcohol or bank accounts either. You are reading too much into my post.
david mokal
2:24 pm on Wednesday, September 5, 2012
Just make sure everyone gets out and votes no matter who you like. I vote in ward one and been to the poles different times and very few are there. With all the knowledge you young men and women have get out there and practice your rights. Where there is Unity,There Is Strength !
3:03 pm on Wednesday, September 5, 2012
Please, get out and vote. If elections could change anything at all, they would have been cancelled long time ago.
Wind Dummy 25
4:37 pm on Wednesday, September 5, 2012
Diana did you mean to say that you don't need ID to buy butts or booze? In this state, in these current X's? I hope I read that wrong. Yikes CVS and the local packies may question that, I would...All have been stung and suspended then subsequently tested regularly...I'm a former booze merchant myself back in the roaring 80's-90's BC (before computers).
We had many checks and we tried very hard to establish a reputation as a tough challenge within the fake ID world (Boston back Bay). My old beef with fake ID's, and that was always the case not that we didn't check, is that the onus is on the merchant not the attempted fraud suspect. If they were successful, and something happened they always said "we got it there". Not "we are guilty of fraud". This is the rub, if reversed, and the attemptee was held responsible for fraudulent actions It would definitely trim attempts huge If caught. Of course the domain owner must be also be in the responsibility loop.
These fraudulent attempt to misrepresent, or encourage, there must be heavy consequences. Voting, under age, identity, etc.
These are the X's we live in.
Judy O'Brien
4:56 pm on Wednesday, September 5, 2012
Yes, ID should be required and of course there will be fake id's - we should crack down on the people allowing the fake ID's to be made...and be like other countries that require paperwork to be in the country....the end.
Daniel DeMaina
5:18 pm on Wednesday, September 5, 2012
A breaking twist on this debate: Today, the Justice Department gave the OK to New Hampshire's Voter ID law, which requires a photo ID, but allows those without a photo ID to vote after signing an affidavit that lets the state follow up with a letter in order to weed out any fraud: http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/05/justice/new-hampshire-voter-id/index.html
So, does this satisfy the Constitutional requirement that there isn't a poll tax? Is it sufficient enough to give the state the means to crack down on fraud?
8:11 pm on Wednesday, September 5, 2012
The affadavit is a stop-gap thing until 9/1/13, so as of 9/2, still unconstitutional.
Wind Dummy 25
7:46 pm on Wednesday, September 5, 2012
This is a good step and a decent compromise by NH Live free and wield a huge snow shovel...
Diana, was going with the everyday ID issues and how they can flip on responsibility. You know the creeping incrementallsm that has slowly compromised & eroded the Constitution.
Kevin N
10:21 pm on Wednesday, September 5, 2012
I still have no idea what an ID requirement will accomplish. This argument has spun off all over the place but there is still no reason for additional government taking of liberties. Non-citizens can get ID's but can not register to vote. Pretending to be a registered voter who will not go to the poll requires intimate knowledge of an individuals plans to not vote so would be impossible to do on a large scale. There is no legitimate need for this nonsense. We should focus on the frauds whose names appear on the ballots instead.
11:57 pm on Wednesday, September 5, 2012
A Democratic state legislator from east Arkansas, his father and two campaign workers pleaded guilty Wednesday to conspiracy to commit election fraud.
"In a nation in which every person's vote matters, protecting the integrity of the electoral process from those who seek to win office by cheating the system is critical," Assistant U.S. Attorney Jane Duke
"Voter fraud schemes such as that carried out in the 2011 District 54 race have the devastating effect of eroding public confidence in elected officials and disenfranchising voters."
7:35 am on Thursday, September 6, 2012
What was the scheme? Just going to the polls and pretending to be someone else? Most likely not.
Alan Leo
2:41 pm on Thursday, September 6, 2012
Quasimodo's right. The Arkansas case was absentee ballot fraud, not ID fraud. So why is there no GOP fuss about absentee ballots? Here's why:
"If lawmakers wanted to rein in fraud, they'd target absentee ballots, which are easy to misuse. But Republican lawmakers have made few efforts to restrict them because they believe that absentee ballots favor their constituents — middle-aged, middle-class voters with orderly schedules. They don't want to inconvenience conservative voters." — from the Atlanta Journal Constitution: http://bit.ly/TsdPE0
9:38 pm on Thursday, September 6, 2012
Voter ID wouldn't have solved this. They actually destroyed ballots and bribed people.
5:16 pm on Thursday, September 6, 2012
Today, I voted, without an ID, FOUR times. However, since I am a fair-minded fellow, I voted only once for each of the 4 candidates.
Wind Dummy 25
6:21 pm on Thursday, September 6, 2012
Absentee ballot fraud, is not ID fraud? Fraud - Fraud is a crime, and also a civil law violation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraud
Neither is acceptable...Is this an argument to justify two wrongs as something arbitrary? If Ms Tucker wants to call out an issue great! That's what good journalist are suppose to do. But she just ends up bashing the apparent opposite party of hers. Poor journalist. Folks in rural areas that can't get to a poll can use the absentee ballot. Just like old white guys do...All they have to do is register ONCE, and have a physical address. to receive the ballot. And half a buck to mail it. Or give it to Ms Tucker to deliver...
I'm sorry but there seems to be more excuses to not vote than to vote. I'd rather everyone has a chance to vote, but this is getting ridiculous. How do some of these folks find there shoes in the morning? I tried 3 x's to vote the last big elections, (I do locals also) and every time, during the big elections by absentee, I was 1/2 way around the world dealing with wars, and was able to vote. But of course they were never counted. Was I defrauded...YES I was, and I'm not good with that Ms Tucker.
Robert L Homeyer
9:16 pm on Thursday, September 6, 2012
It is not unreasonable for people to have to prove who they are. Once upon a time, everyone knew everyone and proof was not necessary. Times have changed.
9:45 pm on Thursday, September 6, 2012
The Constitutional prohibition on a poll tax hasn't though. Still a thing.
Elizabeth Forman
11:18 pm on Thursday, September 6, 2012
When you register to vote you should have to present some form of ID but not when you vote on an ongoing basis. You are already registered so it should be unnecessary.
Wind Dummy 25
12:03 am on Friday, September 7, 2012
So when its time to not vote anymore, do you show an ID at the pearly gates? Who's in charge of that list?
Do you know how many people don't vote on vote day. Who's in charge of that list?
Your leaving a bunch of stuff out there Liz F.
We have to many boxes unchecked which means that's a lot of potential issues stolen that's left on the table for the unscrupulous. Do you feel the trust? I don't not now not then, not ever. With the tightness recent years every vote is eyeballed. We all remember that guy with the bug eye looking at chads in Fla right .
Want some other cool examples? Here's an oldie but still relevant...After this your on your own to research.
Jim Morse
12:26 am on Friday, September 7, 2012
Wind Dummy, I looked up "The Battle of Athens," sometimes called the McMinn County War and on Jan 1, 2012 the state of Tennessee implemented a Photo ID to vote law!
Wind Dummy 25
1:06 am on Friday, September 7, 2012
Tennessee NH, wow...Wonder what that means for Misseschusetts?Jim that example had everything...Violence, brutality, schemes, patronage, personal gain, etc the works. I feel it is still relevant to present era politics. Much more subtle of course but the untrusted are still hard at work. What's very troubling is it's right in our face. However big phony voices and emotional razzle dazzle, mask the slight of hand. A bucket of cash also works, or the promise of.
9:00 am on Friday, September 7, 2012
To some there cannot be any hardship placed on anybody trying to exercise their 'right to vote' yet no hurdle is high enough for others trying to exercise their 'right to bear arms'.
10:55 am on Friday, September 7, 2012
Putting aside the significant differences between the language of the 2nd and 24th amendments and the fact that comparing them is a straw-man argument at best, why would we choose to impose any hardship on a citizens right to vote? The 24th amendment says that the right to vote "shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax". Surely the fee paid to the RMV is a tax? Now, if someone else is willing to pay this tax, fine. Maybe the RMV could have a free ID option at no charge. Just a thought.
Erik Royds
9:46 am on Friday, September 7, 2012
If the issue of having an ID to vote is cost, have the Super PACS pay the Registry of Motor Vehicles to create them. You'd create jobs and the rich would pay for the poor to vote. For those who say it's a problem because then you'd have to follow the rules like a contract, no kidding! This is America. There are rules. Follow them or leave.
Jim Morse
10:46 am on Friday, September 7, 2012
I've already said that I'm in favor of Voter ID. Here is another reason in favor of it that has not been mentioned anywhere is these comments.
10:58 am on Friday, September 7, 2012
Ah. So your firsthand observation of a process that worked fine is being disregarded in favor of a tiny snippet of not-information that reinforced your existing opinion. Okey dokey.
Jim Morse
11:07 am on Friday, September 7, 2012
I would hardly call 18 voters a "process." More like a very small and random sampling. Not one of the 18 had to show an ID so there is no way to tell if they were the actual people they said they were.
11:22 am on Friday, September 7, 2012
And I'd hardly call an overheard sentence a "reason" although I supposed I'd concede that it's a very (veeeeeeery) small and completely random sampling. No way to tell what the context of sentence was. For all you know, he was making a "vote early and often" joke.
Not all data is created equal; not in fact, and clearly not in the minds of people whose minds are already made up.
Wind Dummy 25
1:12 pm on Friday, September 7, 2012
Quick note about the voting processes on site...Many instances, not reported, is that folks not associated with poll people, hang around and sniff out voter trends. Either by asking the poll people acting as friends or outside at exit polling. If they notice trends that concern there interests, they report it on to more unsavory types who begin the tasks of, well that's when it gets wonderful. Do not be fooled by template answers. Poll workers generally do the specific grunt work. They are not trained to be counter spy finders.
4:31 pm on Tuesday, September 11, 2012
Wendy Rosen drops challenge to Andy Harris after allegations she voted in two states - baltimoresun.com
Oh no. That silly democrat.
Giving up a seat to the GOP. How smaht' is she...
Wind Dummy 25
6:43 pm on Tuesday, September 11, 2012
Democrats say voter fraud is virtually nonexistent, and describe voter ID laws as a pretext to make it more difficult for the poor, minorities and other traditionally Democratic-leaning groups to vote.
Gov. Martin O'Malley, a Democrat, commended the "swift and decisive action" of Democrats to demand Rosen's withdrawal.
"The action taken today by the Maryland Democratic Party sends a clear message to Marylanders — we will not tolerate any violation of election laws," Gov. Martin O'Malley, a Democrat said.
Out the other side of his mouth. We'll see right?
She apparently is not an illegal alien. This is the beef, the poor and illegal are not the big problem as led to believe. It's looks like the party itself.
7:46 am on Friday, September 14, 2012
Everyone will need a Drivers license or a Federal ID in 2014 or you will not be able to board a plane or enter a Federal Building. So why not use the ID for voting?? Florida has already complied. Here's what it's about----
Additional proof of identity documents are now required by the "Real ID" Act, passed by the United States Congress in 2005 as a result of the terrorist acts of September 11, 2001 when obtaining a drivers license. Florida implemented the law January 1, 2010. The new "secure identity" driver license is identified by a gold star in the upper right corner.
You ask: What are the restrictions and when will they become effective?
The most significant impact will be the ability to board airplanes and enter Federal Buildings. For those born after December 1, 1964, a valid "standard" Driver License can be used for the above until December 1, 2014. For everyone else, a valid "standard" Driver License can be used for the above until December 1, 2017.
8:00 am on Friday, September 14, 2012
OK Here ya go :-) Below is a link to the states that require voter ID's and those who don't. Massachusetts is one that does not require and ID.
Wind Dummy 25
3:30 pm on Wednesday, September 26, 2012
All true, but I think they could have made a better choice with the messenger? Holy _hit! That was hard to watch, credibility and message lost...I was more focused on what she was gonna say next. Man I've heard better language in a barracks! So out of place and o score for coolness. Was that a pubic service announcement? Terrible.
FID card may be the way to go actually. Photo, address and clearance with expiration. I have no problem with that idea at all. If you can't qualify for an FID card you probably shouldn't be voting anyway, because your a felon or illegal. Problem is it costs. But so does a drivers license and any other qualifying ID. Strange times indeed, but probably still necessary. We brought all this on ourselves. All for one etc.
Wind Dummy 25
9:20 pm on Wednesday, September 26, 2012
BTW I don't find Silverman all that shocking or creative in her attempt to draw attention to voter issues Her attempt was kind of sad and a cringing uncomfortable forced comedy...Carlin, Rickles, Lenny Bruce, Dick Gregory, Dennis Miller, even Roseanne Barr are and where very good at original funny shock political humor, it's all in the timing, she should practice more... Voter fraud in the U.S. deserves a way better venue than that.
10:28 am on Thursday, October 18, 2012
Why are we fixing an Issue that happens .0004% of the time? The extremely rare instances of fruad do not influence the outcome of elections. What it is ment to do is restrict voting. Poor people, Elderly people, people who do not have a drivers license will not vote. Some may find it more work than its worth and not vote. Every citizen has the right to vote and we should make it as easy as possible and encourage voting. Why fix a problem that does not really exist?
Its a BS scare tactic to control voter turnout!
9:16 am on Tuesday, October 30, 2012
RH : how do you know it doesn't happen frequently? Since when do they cross reference polls with updated active voter lists?
My mother passed this year, I was mailed to my address an absentee ballot from the MA Dem party in her name to my address. What would've stopped me from filling it out? How would anyone ever find out? I'm sure it happens all the time. I was so upset when I got it I threw it away, wish I kept it and contacted Galvins' office.
Aron Levy
9:30 am on Tuesday, October 30, 2012
Patricia, just because you're 'sure it happens all the time' doesn't mean it DOES.
Mistakes happen. And considering the rampant voter fraud coming from the GOP (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/voter-registration-fraud-gop-backed-firm-spreads/story?id=17370445#.UI_Vf5L9fgo / http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/decision2012/businessman-who-gop-cut-ties-with-at-center-of-voter-fraud-probe-in-florida/2012/10/01/28e27050-0bd1-11e2-bb5e-492c0d30bff6_story.html / http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/national/firm-hired-by-florida-gop-knew-weeks-ago-of-possibly-fraudulent-voter/1254517 / http://articles.latimes.com/2012/oct/01/news/la-ol-possible-voter-fraud-shocker-on-behalf-of-the-gop-20121001), I don't think you're really in a position to complain here.
If voter fraud is going to occur, it will almost always occur at a higher level than the polling place. As my illegal immigrant friends tell me, 'We are trying to keep our profile as low as possible. Why would we invite the potential of official scrutiny by trying to vote?'
As I've said time and time again, voter ID laws are simply trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist.
(But the GOP wouldn't know anything about that one, right? *cough* SHARIA *cough*)
3:40 pm on Wednesday, October 31, 2012
Aaron Levy still hasn't answered my question: how do you know it's not happening if they do not cross reference voter lists?
What would've stopped me or anyone from filling out the ballot sent to my deceased mom? Who would've known? You can't answer because there's no way of knowing.
john nowosacki
8:04 am on Tuesday, October 30, 2012
It is quite clear that voter fraud put Al Franken in office in Minnesota, and that in turn saddled the nation with ObamaCare. You have to show ID to get certain medicines at the drug store, buy liquor, fly on a plane, and even enter many places of business (I'm in a technical profession, and have to show ID just to visit many customers). Just try and visit your neighborhood school without showing ID.
It is not difficult to obtain ID. Every citizen has a right to vote, and every citizen also has a right to know their vote is not being cancelled out by someone who shouldn't be voting.
Aron Levy
8:10 am on Tuesday, October 30, 2012
Voter fraud put Al Franken in office? Care to provide us with proof?
Aron Levy
9:24 am on Tuesday, October 30, 2012
The burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused. John provided no evidence.
And I'm not seeing any evidence for Franken-related voter fraud from sources more reliable than WorldNutDaily. Try again Mr Mustelid.
Gene Pinkham
10:28 am on Tuesday, October 30, 2012
RH, where do you get that figure? Since Voter Fraud occurs using the Inactive Voters List. Those who votes have been stolen don't even know it.
Wind Dummy 25
11:07 am on Tuesday, October 30, 2012
Are you joking AL? That election was text book fraud, almost a "How To" or "Voter fraud for Dummies" go ahead and search < voter fraud Al Franken >, Were you out of the loop for those forgettable 9 months?
" But today, much of the dirty work is done by lawyers".
That should tease you enough to check. Try this one...Warning it will upset your stomach.
fatty arbuckle
2:27 pm on Thursday, February 21, 2013
if we had a national voter ID law, we'd have a different president in the white house right now!
Aron Levy
2:40 pm on Thursday, February 21, 2013
No, Fatty. We wouldn't. Barack Obama won fair and square. Get over it, loser.
Nameless Conservative
4:56 am on Sunday, February 24, 2013
Just the fact that democrats do not want voter ID is reason enough to demand it. Examples of rampant fraud are numerous and the valid reasons democrats give for their objection to stopping it are laughably vacuous.
9:30 pm on Monday, February 25, 2013
just the fact that the "smaller government" republicans are screaming for "MORE GOVERNMENT" to fix a problem that DOESN'T exist, is reason enough for reasonable, patriotic, real Americans, to ignore the tinfoil hat wearing, voter fraud creating, treasonistic, right wing criminals.
9:32 pm on Monday, February 25, 2013
why should we spend tax payer money to "fix" a problem that doesn't exist, except for in the minds of a few tinfoil hat wearing nutjobs?
Tom Jeffords
3:48 pm on Thursday, February 21, 2013
Did Fatty and Aron just wake up from a drunken stupor? The last previous comments on this issue were made on October 30, 2012!
Aron Levy
4:04 pm on Thursday, February 21, 2013
Oh, I know Tom. I got a notification that Fathead had replied in such a timely manner, and I felt the need to put him right.
Be well!
fatty arbuckle
11:11 am on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Moron Levy " put me right" i don't think so!
Ken A
7:01 am on Monday, February 25, 2013
Who wouldn't want a voter ID system in place and why? Makes no sense at all to not want to allow any fraud unless that's wanted.
Nameless Conservative
8:31 am on Monday, February 25, 2013
Everyone who wants voter ID explains over and over ad nauseum to people like you Diana that anyone who needs a valid photo ID can have one for FREE when they register to vote - NO COST, NO TAX! You can't get around that so you just ignore it sounding like a parrot, 24th! 24th!
Unless you actually want our elections to be rigged like some banana dictatorship, if you have some other solution in lieu of a photo ID then don't be shy - let's hear it
7:19 pm on Monday, February 25, 2013
Is that something that's currently true Mike, or something you imagine will be instituted in the wake of voter ID laws? I'm unaware of any existing program that provides free IDs, but I'm willing to be convinced.
In the meantime, on the (admittedly hardly ever, because I have things to do) occasions I worry about voter fraud, I worry more about who's counting the votes.
Ron Powell
8:37 pm on Monday, February 25, 2013
The Pennsylvania voter ID law, for example, provides free voter IDs. Here is a link that took me about 1.7 seconds to Google.
Wow. That was such hard work. It may take me upwards of 30-40 seconds to confirm that every state that has passed a voter id law makes a provision to provide voter identification for free. But who has that time?
9:25 pm on Monday, February 25, 2013
yes but who has more than a few seconds to comply with a law that is going to fix a problem that doesn't exist. oh that's right, republicans, that sit around all day, whining,on the internet, while real patriotic americans are out there, working hard to EARN a living.
Wind Dummy 25
6:57 pm on Monday, February 25, 2013
Was there was no better proof of voter fraud than than last elections foolishness?
9:21 pm on Monday, February 25, 2013
the only voter fraud we have seen documented, so far, is republicans, trying to fabricate instances of voter fraud. maybe we should require all republican to submit ID, since they are the only ones commiting these crimes.
Ron Powell
1:14 am on Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Kind of disappointing, Jon because this was just in the news. Like last week. Like, holy short term memory loss, Batman.
Ron Powell
1:16 am on Tuesday, February 26, 2013
8th Democrats charged with voter fraud in New York.
Ron Powell
1:17 am on Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Democrat admits he's voted four times already.
Ron Powell
1:19 am on Tuesday, February 26, 2013
One out of every five voters in Ohio actually ineligible to vote.
Ron Powell
11:03 am on Tuesday, February 26, 2013
That's not to single out Democrats. I could post examples of Republicans behaving badly, too. Democrats tend to add voters who don't exist; Republicans tend to disenfranchise voters who do. Either way, real voters are getting disenfranchised. Let's not live under the illusion that just because you belong to one political party that you cease being human. Humans are guided by convictions and influenced by emotions. Some people who feel very strongly about a candidate or an issue will justify stacking the deck to help a certain candidate or party to win.
Ron Powell
7:59 pm on Tuesday, February 26, 2013
More Democrats committing voter fraud
Ron Powell
8:00 pm on Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Jon, what happened to you? I haven't heard from you since I posted the examples of Democratic voter fraud, which you claimed didn't exist. Worried about you, bro.
Kevin N
1:26 pm on Tuesday, February 26, 2013
They should also require ID's to get into a bar. That way we would never again have anyone under 21 in a bar.
Wind Dummy 25
5:27 pm on Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Military Absentee Ballots Delivered One Day Late, Would Have Swung Election For Romney...
This argument is weak... I've experienced this many times and Never received an explanation or an answer.
Every time I voted absentee none of my deployed votes ever made it...This last one took the prize, and probably the most egregious and disgusting of them all.
I have not been served. Then lied to, insulted and then ignored. I have a feeling this military mess is not the only example of major MAJOR election fraud. The voters have been miss served. This surpasses corruption.
If your getting a smirk on your face when you read this you are the problem. If it pisses you off good. Support the ID at the ballot.
If a simple act like showing an ID we already have, that can be produced on request for proof who you are, and will help solve this BS, then do it.
Read more: http://www.duffelblog.com/2012/11/military-absentee-ballots-delivered-one-day-late-would-have-swung-election-for-romney/#ixzz2M2p4hhB0
Follow us: @theduffelblog on Twitter | duffelblog on Facebook
Gene Pinkham
5:32 pm on Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Jon, I guess you missed the Stat Smith Voter Fraud case.
Wind Dummy 25
1:32 pm on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
No kidding John?!... It did make light of a tough issue. Seems like the only way truths can get out. Got you looking which is what it was intended to do.
UPDATE: Duffel Blog link removed - satire. But read the rest.
Military votes have been confounded, many just dumped, delayed, ignored, uncounted, and the rest ultimately returned to sender for BS reason.
Ask anyone affected like me and people I know.
While it is true the site is satire, and funny by the way, it exaggerated and probably wouldn't have swung the election either way. But the fraud was real. Combined with the other frauds it is significant. Do the extra research. You'll be appalled.