Keeping College Students from Voting

[KSig RC]

For those in favor of IDs for purposes of ensuring things like "dead people/non-existent people don't vote" ... how does your state choose jurors?

A large number of states pull potential jurors from voter registration lists - has there been an epidemic of fictitious people being called for jury duty?

[SWTXBelle]

It's not so much that Iowa picks the president - it's that Iowa gets to decide who everyone else gets to pick for candidate. Just watch - after Iowa several candidates will be out of the running. Mind you, it's probably going to be candidates I want to see gone, but still - should Iowa have that much power in picking the eventual Republican nominee?

[AOII Angel]

I stand by my "ridiculous" statement. It's not an opinion. It is an observable fact as I previously gave an example. Having 50 states agree to change their individual state requirments to mirror a federal requirement when law makers in many of those 50 states hate the federal government is laughable. Wish in one hand...

[AGDee]

One of my textbooks last term was titled "The Hacker's Handbook." Since I was traveling for work, I had to haul my textbooks on planes numerous times. I never took that one on the plane or even in my carry on. It went into checked luggage. I didn't want to make anybody suspicious of me in any way. Reverse paranoia? Maybe, but I just read a different text book during my flights.

/hijack (pun intended...lol)

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by The Root Article

Marie Diamond of Think Progress is reporting that Thelma Mitchell, 93, will not be able to vote for the first time in decades because her old Tennessee state ID failed to meet new voter-ID regulations. Mitchell, who cleaned the state Capitol for more than 30 years, was accused of being an undocumented immigrant because she could not produce a birth certificate.

Mitchell, who was delivered by a midwife in 1918, never had a birth certificate. Mitchell told WSMV-TV that she went to a state driver's license center last week after being told that her old state ID from her cleaning job would not meet new regulations for voter identification.

Diamond writes:
A spokesman for the House Republican Caucus insisted that Mitchell was given bad information and should’ve been allowed to vote, even with an expired state ID. But even if that’s the case, her ordeal illustrates the inevitable disenfranchisements that result when confusing voting laws enable state officials to apply the law inconsistently.

http://www.theroot.com/buzz/93-year-...enied-voter-id

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

http://www.theroot.com/buzz/93-year-...enied-voter-id

A spokesman for the House Republican Caucus insisted that Mitchell was given bad information and should’ve been allowed to vote, even with an expired state ID.

What election was she denied her right to vote? It's my understanding that the TN voter ID law went into effect only YESTERDAY.

[DrPhil]

http://joybehar.blogs.cnn.com/articl...south-carolina

http://easley.patch.com/articles/s-c...eceased-voters

[AlphaFrog]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

http://joybehar.blogs.cnn.com/articl...south-carolina

http://easley.patch.com/articles/s-c...eceased-voters

Being a Carolinian, I saw this on the local news last night. There were also a significant number of votes (I don't remember the number they gave) from people who had moved out of state who "voted".

For those who said that it needs to be proven that a problem exists before legislating against it, does this qualify as a problem? Especially taking into account that Iowa was won by a MUCH smaller margin than this represents?

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

For those who said that it needs to be proven that a problem exists before legislating against it, does this qualify as a problem? Especially taking into account that Iowa was won by a MUCH smaller margin than this represents?

I don't understand why people say that there isn't any proof that this is going on. Even though there hasn't been a nationwide "audit" of voters (at least that I know of) a quick Google search will bring up page after page of investigations and actual convictions in pretty much every state so....what gives?

I'd like to know what the number of voters who don't have a photo ID is. I just find it hard to believe that someone is going to take the time to register to vote, show up to a polling location on November 8th to cast a vote, yet have never been able to get to a DMV to get a state issued ID. Yes I know I'm being very cynical here but our nations voting turnout have always left a lot to be desired and the disenfranchised, the poor and young adults traditionally don't vote with or without ID laws in place.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

Being a Carolinian, I saw this on the local news last night. There were also a significant number of votes (I don't remember the number they gave) from people who had moved out of state who "voted".

For those who said that it needs to be proven that a problem exists before legislating against it, does this qualify as a problem? Especially taking into account that Iowa was won by a MUCH smaller margin than this represents?

The Iowa "election" was a caucus and not an election. No one won anything other than the right to say they "won" the Iowa caucus. The number of voters is very small compared to the number of registered voters in the state and the results of the caucus don't even translate to real live delegates. It's like comparing apples and bowling balls.

Also, stating that out of state people voted, you don't know how many, but it was "significant" is pretty much a meaningless statement. Statistics allow us to quantify want is actually "significant" so that when you hear a number that may or may not sound impressive, someone can actually scientifically tell whether or not it is. Random numbers mean shit.

[AlphaFrog]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

The Iowa "election" was a caucus and not an election. No one won anything other than the right to say they "won" the Iowa caucus. The number of voters is very small compared to the number of registered voters in the state and the results of the caucus don't even translate to real live delegates. It's like comparing apples and bowling balls.

Also, stating that out of state people voted, you don't know how many, but it was "significant" is pretty much a meaningless statement. Statistics allow us to quantify want is actually "significant" so that when you hear a number that may or may not sound impressive, someone can actually scientifically tell whether or not it is. Random numbers mean shit.

I've never been in a state that caucused, so no, I don't know the specifics. However, the point remains the same, regardless of how you want to nitpik the details - according to the local news, enough dead and out of state "voters" to make a statistically significant difference "voted" in a recent South Carolina election. The Republican race is very tight. Small amounts of dead voters could change the outcome. Does that constitute a big enough problem to "disenfranchise people"? Where do we draw the line? Do we have to have an election where it is proven after the fact that the fraudulent votes in fact would have changed the election to actually say we have a problem?

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

However, the point remains the same, regardless of how you want to nitpik the details - according to the local news, enough dead and out of state "voters" to make a statistically significant difference "voted" in a recent South Carolina election.

And I've never known the local news to get it wrong or overstate the problem for the sake of a good story. But be that as it may . . . .

The Republican race is very tight. Small amounts of dead voters could change the outcome. Does that constitute a big enough problem to "disenfranchise people"? Where do we draw the line? Do we have to have an election where it is proven after the fact that the fraudulent votes in fact would have changed the election to actually say we have a problem?

What should be done is to approach the situation rationally, not with kneejerk reactions. Is there really a problem with "dead people" and out-of-state people voting? Then their names must be on the registration rolls. Requiring photo IDs won't help if they're on the rolls to start with. It's a reasonable "fix" if the problem is people who come to vote are claiming to be someone they're not, but it doesn't address the problem at all if the issue is that names are on the rolls that should have been deleted.

If dead people and out-of-state people are voting, then requiring photo IDs in response avoids the problem while making people feel better and think the problem is being fixed. You fix that problem by getting the voter registration rolls up to date and keeping them up to date.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

For those who said that it needs to be proven that a problem exists before legislating against it, does this qualify as a problem? Especially taking into account that Iowa was won by a MUCH smaller margin than this represents?

I'd imagine that you don't have much experience with caucuses - this is a good thing, because caucuses suck balls, but the very nature of it basically invalidates the comparison.

Also, the issue isn't that voter fraud doesn't exist, but rather that it would have to be pretty widespread to justify literally disenfranchising people.

[DrPhil]

New database of US voter fraud finds no evidence that photo ID laws are needed