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.