No, I dont think there is a difference between old or poor voters. I just didnt think to use both terms. I think it's silly to bus ANYBODY in for the purpose of bribing votes. If transportation could be provided in a completely unbiased way, without one party providing the service over another, that would be different.

If my 78 year old next door neighbor asked me to take her to the polls to cast her ballot for Rick Perry*, I'd still do it - but I might conveniently "forget" to make sure she had her photo ID.

In all seriousness, there's a huge "get out the vote" effort in my neighborhood, which happens to be predominantly African-American - and most of my neighbors are senior citizens. So yeah, the local churches always come around asking if we need a ride to the polls on election day - but it has never come with the condition that we had to vote for someone specific once we got there.

*Neither Miss Jean nor I really like Perry, but you never know...

@ the bold - This is what I've seen, too. It seems like amanda6035 may be referring to The ObamaBus or something going around picking up voters, but I've never seen something like that.

Quotation marks indicate quotations, not emphasis. Emphasis is indicated by italics (or underlining when an italic font isn't available).

In the context in which you used them, the quotation marks function as scare quotes (much like air quotes) and suggest that while these people are referred to as "poor people," we all know know we're not really talking about poor people.

I think the difference is pretty clear - it's who they vote for.

Churches have always been active in Black communities to get people out there. That is supposed to be neutral and in contrast to when Democrats and Republicans are the sponsors for these voting trips.

Howeverrrrrrrr, churches doing this is not always neutral. The Black Church is predominantly comprised of Democrats to the point where Black Republicans and Black Independents like myself are ostracized in a discussion of politics. I have heard Black pastors talk about politics (specifically supporting candidates and political parties) at the pulpit and the average predominantly Black gathering consists of people who do not want to meet Blacks who are not Democrats. Also, church members sometimes wear Democrat t-shirts (like those hideous Obama t-shirts that Black folks were wearing and NPHCers got for their respective orgs), etc. All of this is done with the assumption that the Blacks who are being brought to the polling stations are Democrats who will be voting Democrat--or, they are Blacks who can be "persuaded to vote Democrat."

Examples of things that happen: Busing students to vote

I am still in favor of organizations getting citizens active in the voting process. It is impossible for humans to be completely impartial and neutral. I simply want people to see these biases and find ways to address these biases.

This is also true of churches whose membership is predominantly white, and sometimes in favor of Republicans.

Exactly, such is one of the roles of religion as an institution.

This is particularly interesting for the Black Church because we are talking about the poor and disenfranchised which is disproportionately Black. The Black Church has always been a driving force (pun intended) in busing Black voters and giving Blacks the resources they could not access outside of the Black community. When people wonder why the average Black person is a Democrat despite the history of Black Republicans, it is not because the average Black person KNOWS that the Democratic party has done so much for the Black community.

I hadn't thought of the alcohol or tobacco purchasing point before, so thank you, MC. To the best of my knowledge, neither alcohol nor tobacco purchases are considered to be unattainable dreams of the lower socio-economic classes. In fact, I believe that those purchases often skew higher amongst those groups. So either 1.) ids can be procured or 2.) there is an illegal trade which needs to be clamped down upon soon.

I'm not sure I follow -- what do "unattainable dreams of the lower socio-economic classes" have to do with the fundamental right to vote?

Well, since that trade has been going on forever, don't expect to see too much effort invested in clamping down on it. Enforcement will likely remain primarily at the user end.

But this argument pretty much side-steps the basic question: Will a photo ID requirement solve or significantly ameliorate this supposedly big problem of voter fraud?

Here's another way to approach the question: By my count, 13 states require a photo ID of some sort to vote. (This includes South Carolina, which currently is precluded by the Voting Rights Act from enforcing its photo ID law.) Again by my count, 16 states have no id requirement, except for first time voters. Is there any evidence that voter fraud is more prevalent or more of a problem in the states that require no ID?

dun dun DUN

And the L&O gavel.

http://www.bradblog.com/Images/IowaC...toIDNeeded.jpg

Shocker.

I'm not surprised that a States Primary caucus would have leaner restrictions on voting but who's the schmuck that wrote this article? LOL

I'm pretty sure TSA won't even let you into the terminal let alone board a plane without showing some form of ID at the security checkpoint.

(blog)

Brad Friedman's bio

What is the reasoning behind primary caucuses having leaner restrictions?

The topic is requiring photo ID (usually a driver's license), not just any form of ID.

What TSA says about photo ID

Of course, what Brad Friedman says in his blog about purchasing cigarettes and alcohol without photo ID (driver's license) is legally inaccurate. However, it may unfortunately be the case that he has rarely if ever been required to show a photo ID (driver's license) when purchasing cigarettes or alcohol. He unfortunately will not be the first American to claim that. (Those of us who look younger than our years and also do not live in areas where smoking and drinking are religious pastimes cannot relate to not being asked for photo IDs for damnneareverything. :))

********

69% of 1,000 Likely Voters Surveyed say photo ID not discriminatory

Legally, those who sell alcohol and tobacco can be held liable for selling to those who are underage. So id may not be "required" by a salesperson, but they are playing the odds if they don't.

Maybe because it's a state level election that is for a political candidate, not necessarily an elected position. Maybe it was bad wording on my part...for example, I can only vote in the general election because I am neither registered as a democrat nor a republican, so in that regard primaries are more restrictive as to whom can participate.

I also wouldn't recommend showing up at the airport without photo ID unless you don't mind showing up 8 hours before your flight leaves or you don't mind missing your flight. I'm not too familiar with TSA but I've seen (a few times) people who've lost their passport detained 5-6 hours upon entering the country while DHS verifies their identity.


ETA- How about we join the rest of the world and get a photo voter registration card?

http://www.marestax.com/credencial.jpg

There are three places that are famous for the dead voters- NYC, Chicago and New Orleans. Do you live in one of those places? As for Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck, those are the dumbest memes trotted out by republicans every time they want to claim voter fraud. Read recent reports about they recall of Gov Walker in Wisconsin and the claim Mickey Mouse is single handedly trying to recall the governor, too. Easy fix...train your poll workers better, don't disenfranchise every voter without an ID.

Depending on the state it may be more onerous or expensive than in another. In AZ, you can get an ID and not have to renew it for 40 years!:D In Louisiana, for the same cost, you have to renew every four years.

This! If the poll workers can't even stop Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck from voting, how are they going to identify the fake ideas? Highly motivated vote fraud won't be stopped by IDs. We should, though, be concerned about the security of our electronic voting systems which are vulnerable to voting fraud.

I live in LBJ country - dead Texans have been voting for years.

While Mickey Mouse might seem to be a too obvious example, people successfully registering their pets to vote is another example. I would suggest that it may be that the tightening up needs to occur at the registration end of the voting spectrum. Currently in Texas you fill out the form and you are good. You are not required to send in any supporting documentation. Send it off and get your voter registration card back through the mail. Some states have same day registration - register and vote. Would those who oppose voter id oppose tighter registration requirements? It also occurs to me that the best analogy to requiring id for voting might be the requirements to buy firearms . The right to bear arms is a Constitutional right, but we have decided that it is not one without limitations.

I live in Chicago- we've been trying not to have dead Chicagoans vote for years.

Reading this thread has given me a huge headache. I have been one of the drivers for the "Republican bus" for several candidates in the past. If they are on your area list for a local election, you may call and give them a ride to the polls. However, there is no way to police how they vote! There are pollwatchers from both parties in every voting place to be sure of that.

Having been both an equipment manager and an election judge for the last several years, I want to say that Chicago really tries hard to be fair and run a strictly legitimate election process. There are a series of checks and balances in place. I myself have been sworn into the other party if there was a shortage/unbalance in the judges. You must represent the party that you are sworn into that particular election. If a person has voted within the last few elections, no ID check is neccessary in Chicago.

However, having photo ID's would be an excellent idea and head off many problems. Do I believe that college students should vote in their own areas? Definitely. Vote. College students should take their right to vote very seriously, as a very important part of their American citizenship.

The joke in Chicago, "Vote and vote often" is just a joke. Election days in Chicago have their own brand of insanity; but every attempt is made to ensure proper results. :)

Michigan implemented the photo ID requirement just before the Obama election and it was controversial at the time. They do offer the option of signing an affidavit that you are who you say you are if you don't have a photo ID to get around the disenfranchisement argument. I find it kind of ironic to say "You have to have a photo ID but if you don't, then just sign this paper". If the purpose is to prevent fraud, then it fails because if you're committing voter fraud, then you're not going to think twice about signing the affidavit. So what's the purpose really? It feels like a measure to intimidate people... to make it just a little harder for them to vote.

As a college student, I voted absentee. It wasn't tough to do here. The most disconcerting thing was that during the 2000 Gore/Bush debacle, some precincts openly admitted that they don't bother counting the absentee ballots unless they could make a difference in the outcome. I think the official records should be recording the exact number of votes.

Is this why the Iowa caucus does not require a photo ID? The Iowa caucus is supposed to be a big darn deal for the Republican presidential hopefuls.

I am a registered Independent. What you are saying here seems counter to what you said about primaries being more lenient. LOL.

Not recommending it is not the same thing as a photo ID being required.

That is wonderful for the polling places in your area.

A primary (and a caucus) is not an election -- it's a nomination process, where the party is choosing its nominees to run for election. While a state determines who is registered to vote, a party (at least under the laws of many if not most states) generally determines which registered voters may participate in its nomination process.


SWTXBelle, thanks for the explanation. I follow now.

As for this:

Quote:

Part of the problem is the inability to measure voter fraud. We hear about it only when it is discovered, but under the current system even finding it can be problematic. Unless there is a complaint, there will be no investigation. Unless it is obvious, who is going to invest the time and money into investigating it? Is the potential for voter fraud there? If so, how do we prevent it? So to me the basic question is - Given that in order to vote we have some basic requirements (age, residency, citizenship, criminal status), is requiring id as a means of establishing that requirements are met too much to ask? Obviously, many think it is. Time and the courts will tell.

Where I live, parties and candidates invest lots of resources having observers at the polls ready to challenge any voter they even think might not be eligible to vote. Voters are regularly challenged. I bet the same thing happens in Texas. I'm not at all sure the problem is undiscovered and undiscoverable.

Here's the thing: I'm not opposed to photo IDs per se. But I am opposed to dishonest discussion. If someone is promoting photo IDs for the purpose of combatting voter fraud, then I think it's more than reasonable to ask how extensive the voter fraud is (or isn't) and whether photo IDs will make any difference. Otherwise, at best we're adding a layer of red tape for elections officials that makes no real difference, and at worst we're keeping some people from voting who are eligible to vote. I'll admit it: I'm the skeptic who, when I hear someone warning of massive voter fraud and saying we must have photo ID to prevent it (and stirring up the populace to think voter fraud is epidemic), wonders where the evidence is and wonders what the real agenda is.

Well, actually I don't wonder what the real agenda is. I think it's pretty clear: Suppress the votes of people not likely to vote for "us," whoever "us" may be.

How convenient. :)

Political parties/politicians do a lot of things that are convenient.

Maybe. But it doesn't change the fact that primaries and caucuses are not elections. Primaries and caucuses are ways for more people to participate in nominations than can happen with a party convention. But no one is being elected to office -- they're being nominated to run as a party's candidate for elected office. ;)

I do not think I said primaries and caucuses are elections. But, the Iowa caucus process has been described as an electoral event in which delegates are elected. (I hate referencing wikipedia but it is quick and easy)

The Iowa primary was brought up because if voter fraud is a concern surely a big darn deal electoral event in which delegates are elected, in the process to nominate a presidential candidate, should require photo ID.

;) Who woulda thunk the actual presidential election was not happening in Iowa in a few days. Time flies!

I don't think I said otherwise. I was responding to PiKA2001who was responding to you. PiKA2001 did say it was a "state level election." ;)

LOL. Your response to my post about it being convenient was like you were trying to take away from the more interesting point.

Just having a midnight conversation.

The issue of dead voters is not an issue of individuals coming in and voting for dead relatives. This old methods of bulk voting for known dead voters. Mandating IDs won't stop this type of election fraud.

BOOMCHICKAWOWWOW?! I need to see your photo ID.

I missed this earlier. Federal law (The Help America Vote Act) requires a voter who registered by mail and is voting for the first time to show either a photo ID, some other government-issued ID or something like a paycheck, bank statement or utility bill. Similar forms of identification have to shown when one registers in person.

Maybe I don't have one. :p

Maybe not where you are, but then again, you believe dead people voting only happens in three cities. I also don't understand "This old methods of bulk voting for known dead voters" - I assume you mean it is an old method of having dead voters vote in bulk, or are you referencing some additional methods, plural?

If you have to show an id in order to vote you will be unable to vote for people other than yourself, unless you have a fake id.

FWIW, I was an election judge for years in Hays County. MC, it was before the HAVA was passed in 2002, so I was unaware of the first-time voter id procedure.

Two thoughts:

1.) Fake ids - If identification is too easy to replicate then that needs to be addressed. In this day and age it should be easier than ever to make a difficult to reproduce form of identification (I know the new passports include technology making it far more difficult to make fake ones.)

2.) As an aside - I hate the current primary system and wish we could go to one nationwide primary on one day instead of this long, drawn out process which puts too much power in the hands of certain voters.

What I mean by bulk voting is...dead people voting is a systematic vote like stuffing the ballot box. It wasn't a problem because people knew their dead relatives were still on the voting rolls and impersonated them to vote twice. Dead voters were a problem in big cities where political machines would identify large blocks of dead voters still on the rolls and stuff the ballot boxes using their names. It's why they now purge voting rolls of dead constituents. A couple of people voting for their dead relatives would be a minuscule issue. The dead people voting issue was not about that and, as I said earlier, wouldn't be helped by having IDs.


ETA: for what it's worth, a passport is a federal ID that the vast majority of Americans do NOT have. Saying that state level IDs should rise to the level of a passport on the level of security is ridiculous. Don't you remember the mandate after 9/11 that all states upgrade the security of their IDs and several states flat out refused. I doubt they'll change their minds for this issue.

"Ridiculous"? Rather subjective adjective, not to mention begging the question. Difficult? Maybe. Unlikely? Maybe. It all depends on how serious states are about insuring that their identification cannot be replicated. If fake identification is the problem that some on this thread have indicated then the question is, how big of a problem? If it is minor, then yes, the cost/benefit ratio will be such that it won't be worth the expense. If it is indeed a major problem, then a look at the cost/benefits will show that it would be something to pursue. Just because some states chose not to implement controls on their identification doesn't mean the idea is without merit.

Please note that the issue was raised by those who believe voters should not be required to show id in order to vote. The claim is that ids can easily be forged and often are. If that is indeed the problem, it can be remedied.

For what it's worth, HAVA also requires states to have centralized and computerized voter registration records that are regularly cross-referenced with other state-maintained databases, such as DMV and vital statistics. This means deceased people are regularly removed from the registration records, so the chances of a dead person still being on the voter registration lists (and therefore being deemed eligible to vote at the polls) is not nearly as great as it once was.

It is easier and it is done. Most states have incorporated a number of security features into drivers licenses, for example. But often, those security features require special equipment to "read," or they involve aspects that only a trained eye can recognize and distinguish from fakes.

Are we going to provide poll workers, almost all of whom are volunteers, with the necessary equipment or training to identify which IDs are real and which are fakes? If we are, then how do we justify the expense and trouble of that if we haven't first determined that voter fraud is an actual problem instead of an assumed problem and that requiring photo IDs will effectively address that problem? If we're not going to provide them with those resources and that training, then what's the point in requiring photo IDs to begin with?

Which is precisely the same question that goes for voter fraud: If voter fraud is the problem that some on this thread have indicated then the question is, how big of a problem?

I still say it's putting the cart before the horse to advocate a solution when we don't really know if there's a problem or if the solution advocated will effectively address that problem. That's especially the case when the proposed solution comes with problems of its own.

Since I raised the issue of fake IDs, I'll ask that you please not put words in my mouth. I clearly said upthread that I have no problem in theory with requiring photo IDs. But since a photo ID requirement can bring its own problems, and since I live in a state where currently no ID is required (beyond the first-time voter who registered by mail), I think the onus is on those advocating photo ID requirements to establish that voter fraud is more than an occasional (or anecdotal) problem and that requiring photo IDs will effectively address that problem.