I stand corrected. He may have broken the law by shooting video. Nearly all states prohibit conduct that intimidates voters, interferes with their exercise of the right to vote, or disrupts the voting process. Election officials may take the view that photography or videography runs afoul of these laws. District of Columbia regulations: 1-1001.12: "No one shall interfere with the registration or voting of another person, except as it may be reasonably necessary in the performance of a duty imposed by law." 1-1001.09.a: " Voting in all elections shall be secret. " LINKhttp://www.flickr.com/groups/dcphotorights/discuss/72157608264220420/
It's more like asking why we should install facial recognition technology on our front doors, since if someone really wants to burgle our house they can bust in a window. You acknowledge the inconvenience of making a fake ID but there is also cost associated with make a real ID (excluding the actual price of the ID). There are lots of things you can do in this country if you're willing to lie to someone, but they're illegal and you have to stiff penalties if caught. Sending in people to physically cast fraudulent votes is time consuming, expensive and risky. How many of these would you have to do to influence most elections? The end goal here is to make it more difficult for people to vote. There's no statistical evidence that voting fraud is having a major impact on elections.
No. Your logic was "people can make fake IDs, so why check IDs at all"? You saying your logic would extend to facial recognition on doors is silly. I don't know what you mean. The cost of going to a government office and getting it? Who cares about "most elections"? A thousand fake votes here and there can make a big difference in some elections. The end goal is to ensure that voters are all voting legally. Excluding illegal votes will make it more difficult for some people to vote, no doubt, and even some legal voters may be inconvenienced, but it seems a reasonable price to pay to help ensure votes are legitimate. #1: How could there be? When no identification is needed, how can illegal votes be captured properly? #2: Voter fraud is having a major impact on the perceived legitimacy of elections. Without legitimacy, the whole thing falls apart. Voter fraud alone won't cripple the system, but it definitely will chip away at it. Ed O.
requiring ids will UNDOUBTEDLY stop more people from legally voting, than it will stop from illegally voting, yall can disagree if you really want to, but seriously...common sense
Does it stop more people from drinking alcohol legally than it does stop people from drinking illegally? And does that matter? Ed O.
Locking the door is a convenient way of securing your home and it's something we do on a daily basis. It doesn't prevent burglary but it deters it. How many homes are built without locks on the front door? Facial recognition also deters bulglary but how many homes come with this technology? Right, also taking time off from work. Try living the rural south for a while. Again, sending in people to physically cast fraudulent votes is time consuming, expensive and risky. Who has those kinds of resources? It inconveniences some more than others. You're OK with that? Nobody even knows if this is a problem or not? We're just passing these laws just in case? When was the last time we had an issue with the legitimacy of elections?
Election Systems & Software Inc. under the McCarthy Group. founded by campaign treasurer to Chuck Hagel. McCarthy is a partisan democrat?
None of that is relevant to my analogy. You're extending it unnecessarily. The only people that don't need to worry about taking time off of work are those who don't work because they're rich or they are unemployed. People who have nothing but time on their hands. Who has time to, say, occupy Wall Street? Of course I am. Buying a car or crossing the street or eating ice cream inconveniences some more than others. Nothing in life is exactly equitable. Lots of people know it is a problem. This video articulates the problem. Too often. It's why these laws are being passed. Ed O.
The benefit of the status quo outweighs the cost. The benefit of the current system is that millions of poor people won't vote if it makes it easier for the government to track their locations. If you don't understand the feelings of poor people, I recommend you try it for a few years. The cost of change is the trouble and effort created for no gain. It is improbable that a large number of organized voters in one jurisdiction, who possess a list of registered voters they know won't vote in this election, each secretly votes under one of those names, careful not to use the same name twice, necessitating some formal bookeeping structure. This hypothetical situation is unknown in history except when a local mafia has controlled the city's politics and vote verification. Tammany Hall machines are now gone in this country. If any new one arises, it will be easier to report it to the FBI than to verify every vote in the nation forever. It's interesting that those opposed to more government regulation and bureaucracy are opposed only as long as it regulates business owners, not the poor.
That it is somehow harder for poor people or certain races to obtain state ID than it is for you or I is absurd. My 83 year old mother who has never driven a car, lives out in the boonies and has no internet managed to get her passport all by herself. I have had photo ID for most of my life as have all of you. Most people in Mexico and Canada also have it. It's about as common as anything else in life. You don't even have to speak english to get one. Unless you're saying poor people are all retarded, I just don't see your arguement as credible.
When Gore beat Bush. But then they threw out some votes, counted others twice, counted some for the wrong candidates, then let the right-wing scotus hand Bush the keys to the white house. If you don't think that election and it's treasonous manipulation didn't have a huge negative impact on our country then I guess you missed 2 wars and a depression.
Voter fraud wasn't an issue in that situation though. I've been out of the states for a while but I can't recall a single time an election was called into question because of voter fraud.
The ID card seems a lot like a poll tax. But people do have to be legit and register to vote. Maybe the solution is to give people a card when they register that they can trade for a ballot.
It's a bogus issue, created by Republicans to decrease Democratic votes. Similar practices were the poll tax, IQ tests slanted toward trivial facts that whites tend to know more, requiring that voters be landowners, gerrymandering rural districts in proportion to their livestock populations, etc. Rich conservatives have active imaginations due to idle time. To stop the poll tax, Democrats had to push through a Federal constitutional amendment in the 60s.
Why not dye people's fingers like they did in Iraqi elections? It's cheap, reliable and convenient. Of course people without fingers could abuse the system...
