Author Topic: "Voter fraud" laws could hurt Obama's chances at re-election  (Read 6912 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Sylvana

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1016
  • Gender: Female
Re: "Voter fraud" laws could hurt Obama's chances at re-election
« Reply #15 on: April 24, 2012, 04:56:04 am »
Lets not forget the transgendered voters who might no longer match their IDs and are unable to get new ones (some states require surgery for that).

Huh? A legal name change allows getting a new ID. (I got a new ID when I got my name changed 2 years ago.)

I think the issue is with the gender listed on the card. Though that wouldn't necessarily prevent someone from voting, assuming the people running the polls don't call the authenticity of the ID into question.

As a transsexual myself I use m old ID. It has my physical sex on it and although the photos don't match it is still a legal document with all the correct legal information. It is unpleasant having to bring it out and use it, but it gets though the legal hiccups. However, I admit, in the middle of transition during the process of changing documentation things can get complicated. Otherwise one must just assume the legal identity that the state sees in order to interact with the state. It is unpleasant, but that is just how the legality of it all works.

Offline N. De Plume

  • Mysterious Writing Implement
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1936
  • Gender: Male
  • Nom, nom, nom…
Re: "Voter fraud" laws could hurt Obama's chances at re-election
« Reply #16 on: April 24, 2012, 07:36:31 am »
There must be some kind of ID proof that everyone has that certifies they are valid American citizens?
There isn’t. The closest thing is a Social Security Card, which does not include a photo and therefore is worthless for any sort of match with the person actually carrying it. The most common photo id is probably state-issued driver’s license. But only people who actually drive have those.


There would probably be far more cases of voter fraud if IDs were not required.
Except there isn’t. That is kind of the point. The only fraud that is rampant is the fraud committed by people trying to get these id laws passed.
-A Pen Name

Offline Dantes Virgil

  • Bishop
  • ***
  • Posts: 242
  • Gender: Female
Re: "Voter fraud" laws could hurt Obama's chances at re-election
« Reply #17 on: April 24, 2012, 01:45:29 pm »

There would probably be far more cases of voter fraud if IDs were not required.
Except there isn’t. That is kind of the point. The only fraud that is rampant is the fraud committed by people trying to get these id laws passed.

I'm sorry, I'm not following -- except there isn't what?  Proof of voter fraud when IDs are not used?  For proof of that, one pretty much just has to look at the history of voting in general in this country.  :(  http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=%2FPSC%2FPSC42_01%2FS1049096509090246a.pdf&code=fc9e0baf31616c3a74f024857fd4885c  This article discusses the current debate on ID for voting in terms of the recent attempt by the Indiana legislature's move a few years ago to require ID for voting.  One of the things it notes is how widespread in-person voting fraud used to be, particularly after the Civil War.  It goes on to talk about other forms of voter fraud that developed as well as whether this time around the ID is an attempt at partisan politics (article concludes that it is) instead of its original purpose.  It's a good and fairly quick read, for a scholarly article.

One thing to consider is the legitimate issue lack of ID raises.  Setting aside the gag reflex we might have for it, since the Republican party brought it up, while ACORN in general was singled out and dogpiled on by the Republicans, their issues raises a fair question.  Some specific workers were arrested for falsifying registration cards, including registering dead people.  If someone did try to show up on behalf of a dead person, and ID was not required, how would you ever know fraud had been committed?  Honestly, I'm not sure why we need ID for most everything, including opening a Post Office box, but we wouldn't protect our vote with an ID.  As a modern problem, it's rare compared to other voter fraud forms, but it still does happen.

While it's true that most voter fraud now probably involves changing the vote on an electronic voting machine or failure to turn in registered voters (some officials in my home state of KY were arrested for that a few years ago and my student government president when I was an undergrad at UK committed voter fraud himself when registering undergrads), fraud is still fraud and should be stopped.  There's a thousand ways to screw with someone's vote.  I think even Anne Coulter herself committed voter fraud by voting out of precinct once and Mother Jones a year ago ran an article on Mitt Romney doing the same, lol.  Intentional or not, that's still fraud, too.

I also understand the worry about disenfranchisement and the cost for ID and such, and I support those worries.  But I don't think that's a valid argument for not requiring ID, just for making ID easier to get.  While IDs can be falsified as well, it's one of the few ways we have to know someone is who they say they are.  Do I think this is a Republican attempt at disenfranchising people by playing of fears of rigged voting?  Sure.  But I don't think the issue of ID itself is a bad thing to consider.