- Joined
- Feb 4, 2013
- Messages
- 28,659
- Reaction score
- 18,803
- Location
- Charleston, South Carolina
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
I didn't say a wide range of ID's, I said a wide range of government ID's meaning those government ID's where identify is actually verified before issuing.
State Drivers License
State Non-Driver ID
Military ID
Military Retiree/Dependent ID
Veterans Affairs ID
Passport
...
Those types of things. An employer ID from McDonalds or a School ID? Not so much.
>>>>
I didn't say a wide range of ID's, I said a wide range of government ID's meaning those government ID's where identify is actually verified before issuing.
State Drivers License
State Non-Driver ID
Military ID
Military Retiree/Dependent ID
Veterans Affairs ID
Passport
...
Those types of things. An employer ID from McDonalds or a School ID? Not so much.
>>>>
If the ID lacks address or is not exlusive then it is ueeless to prevent voter fraud by multiple voting.
So in other words absolutely no example of Democrat-controlled state governments creating voter id laws that "coincidentally" target exclusively Republican demographics, and in fact all you have are some Fox News/Breitbart bull**** stories targeted to easily frightened white people over the scaaaaarrrrry negroes. That's about what I figured.
If a Democratic state did what these Republican states did I would have the decency to condemn what was an obvious, undemocratic power grab more appropriate to some backwater Banana republic. Point is, have some goddamn decency. Scoring some little victory isn't worth sacrificing all of your credibility.
finger print identification would wipe out fraud and be absolute id for everyone for free.
The address component is part of the voter registration process when you get registered to vote in a given precinct.
When a person registers to vote in a given precinct, the clerks processing the registration should be required to (a) verify address, (b) verify citizenship, and (c) verify that the right to vote has not been removed via due process (or that it has been restored if previously removed).
The ID at the time of voting is to verify identity, not eligibility.
>>>>
I'd be fine with that. It would however require a rather large national database of everyone's fingerprints.
Now horror of horrors, imagine the CT nuts and where they'd take that notion.
"Attention everyone, before the 2020 election you must all have yourself fingerprinted by a registered government office within your state or you can not vote. Attention. Attention. We require your fingerprints to vote."
I'm sure that'd go over really well.
No.. not photo id.... it can be made so much of a hassle to get the id that it's a proven deterrent or those of little means. More people are being denied the right to vote than there is fraud making the cure worse than the disease. On the other hand... we have the technical knowledge where finger print identification would wipe out fraud and be absolute id for everyone for free.
Forget all the other crap that's typically rolled into such laws.
Boil this down to it's most simplistic, and verbatim question.
Should each person who votes, in any national and/or regional election, be required to verify their identity through a state approved photo ID card?
Nothing else is being asked or inferred here. A photo ID is all I'm asking about.
Yes or no?
FREE ID's ??? :shock:
Why free? :soap
How much does a legal state approved photo ID cost? At worst it's what, $20 ? And that's good for 4 years in most places?
And I believe a photo ID should be shown each and every time somebody votes.
If citizen Joe owns/rents residential property in multiple districts/states then what prevents Joe from registering (and voting) in each?
Would a drivers license, state I.d card, college i.d. Card, or passport be sufficient?
So in other words absolutely no example of Democrat-controlled state governments creating voter id laws that "coincidentally" target exclusively Republican demographics, and in fact all you have are some Fox News/Breitbart bull**** stories targeted to easily frightened white people over the scaaaaarrrrry negroes. That's about what I figured.
If a Democratic state did what these Republican states did I would have the decency to condemn what was an obvious, undemocratic power grab more appropriate to some backwater Banana republic. Point is, have some goddamn decency. Scoring some little victory isn't worth sacrificing all of your credibility.
The inaction by the Eric Holder Department of Justice and this administration over a clear violation of voting laws and has been filmed of members of The New Black Panther party intimating white voters and has been totally ignored by democrats. Is that example enough?
I doubt you and your irk could care less that things like that do happen.
What's to prevent it now?
Oh wait. it's against the law.
For example Virginia Code, Title 42, Chapter 10, § 24.2-1004 makes it a felony to vote in more than once in the same election. (§ 24.2-1004. Illegal voting and registrations)
>>>>
Nothing - thus the attempts to change the law. How would VA know if one also voted in MD, DC or any other state?
It's illegal to vote more than once and it's a felony - that's "Nothing"?
How do they know now?
You seem to be confusing voter registration, with showing identify when casting a vote.
Is this by mistake or on purpose?
>>>>
You seem to think that different ID would (should?) be required to register than to vote.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?