I don't know about the DMV website, but you can register without a SSN in California. The DMV website might require it in order to prevent bots from hammering out thousands of fake registrations in minutes.Quote:
Originally Posted by gauchojake
Printable View
I don't know about the DMV website, but you can register without a SSN in California. The DMV website might require it in order to prevent bots from hammering out thousands of fake registrations in minutes.Quote:
Originally Posted by gauchojake
"Why can't you guys admit that the left's motives in fighting Voter ID laws isn't pure, and that they mainly want to avoid losing votes from people who are too lazy to get ID?"
Of course, the motives of the left are completely ones of self-interest. The difference between the left and right on this issue, and this is an important difference, the left doesn't want to make any changes to the the American tradition of voluntary voter compliance so they really don't need any reasons other than that there is no compelling need. Since they want to make drastic changes to voting laws, the right must make the case that drastic changes need to be made when it is clear that their only motive is to suppress minority vote. They have zero interest in the issue of election integrity.
What was the level of interest in voter security by the Republican Party when the average American polling place looked something like this? Dean Wormer has the answer.
https://youtu.be/NkCa49I6_xw
Its a lot of hoops for people to jump to, valid citizenship prime criteria fingerprinting ez solution.
Because we don't want to be like the country that literally everybody on planet earth hates?Quote:
Originally Posted by MrTickle
Like most videos put out by midget Robert Reich, this is misleading bullshit.Quote:
Originally Posted by MumblesBadly
Mumbles, do you really believe the insane statistics put out by this video?
For example, they claim they have studied the rate of voter impersonation. How? Let's say my buddy down the street, who votes in a different precinct, tells me that he doesn't bother voting anymore. I show up, say I'm him, and vote as him. Tell me how this is possibly detectable by an after-the-fact study. In fact, this isn't detectable at all without voter ID, even if you know it's going to happen. I could tell you, "Someone I know is going to commit voter fraud at XXXX precinct by impersonating his buddy", and you would have zero ability to figure out which person is doing it, even if you worked at the polling station.
Same thing with bogus registrations by illegal aliens. Once again, this is impossible to study, because you cannot determine who is a bogus registration without some sort of verification protocol at registration time.
Democrats love to pull the trick of claiming, "There are very few detected incidents of voter fraud", without letting you know that it's detected so infrequently because their own system makes it almost impossible to detect.
It would be like a store with zero inventory control or security procedures stating, "We have very few detected incidents of shoplifting", simply because they have no ability to detect such shoplifting.
Simply put, if you have a ridiculous voting system with zero security, you can't brag that you didn't detect incidents of abuse when such detection is impossible.
The "drastic changes" the right wants to introduce involve very basic election security.Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnCommode
Presently, in many states (including huge California), there is absolutely no security in the voter registration system, and it is prone to very easy abuse.
I still cannot understand the rationale for defending a zero-security election system. The fact that the left is dishonest about voter fraud statistics (see above post) should tell you that they aren't being honest about the entire situation.
Those “insane statistics” are based on research by non-partisan entities. So, yeah. I believe them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffLike most videos put out by midget Robert Reich, this is misleading bullshit.Quote:
Originally Posted by MumblesBadly
Mumbles, do you really believe the insane statistics put out by this video?
For example, they claim they have studied the rate of voter impersonation. How? Let's say my buddy down the street, who votes in a different precinct, tells me that he doesn't bother voting anymore. I show up, say I'm him, and vote as him. Tell me how this is possibly detectable by an after-the-fact study. In fact, this isn't detectable at all without voter ID, even if you know it's going to happen. I could tell you, "Someone I know is going to commit voter fraud at XXXX precinct by impersonating his buddy", and you would have zero ability to figure out which person is doing it, even if you worked at the polling station.
Same thing with bogus registrations by illegal aliens. Once again, this is impossible to study, because you cannot determine who is a bogus registration without some sort of verification protocol at registration time.
Democrats love to pull the trick of claiming, "There are very few detected incidents of voter fraud", without letting you know that it's detected so infrequently because their own system makes it almost impossible to detect.
It would be like a store with zero inventory control or security procedures stating, "We have very few detected incidents of shoplifting", simply because they have no ability to detect such shoplifting.
Simply put, if you have a ridiculous voting system with zero security, you can't brag that you didn't detect incidents of abuse when such detection is impossible.
In contrast, the commission Trump put together early in his presidency that was headed by Kris Kobach to supposedly investigate “massive voter fraud” was shut down in disgrace after awhile because they couldn’t find any substantial objective evidence of the voter fraud that Trump and the GOP has been hysterically claiming occurred.
So, seriously, dude. You are presenting a solution to a non-existent problem that serves to distract people from the greater threats to the soundness of our elections: voting suppression, *election* fraud, and voting machine count integrity.
Mumbles, you are avoiding the points I'm raising.
Explain how these studies were possible. I just explained very logically why such fraud is simply undetectable. Partisan or non-partisan, there's no way to study the level of voter fraud.
Obviously Trump lied/exaggerated about the "millions" of fraudulent votes, but this isn't about Trump. This is about closing an obviously huge security flaw.
I can't understand the rationale for using hackable, unverifiable voting machines that use code the companies refuse to keep on file with the state and made by companies that donate to Republican campaigns. Is this acceptable to you? The fact that Republicans will not allow voting machines to be verifiable should tell you that they aren't being honest about the entire situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffThe "drastic changes" the right wants to introduce involve very basic election security.Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnCommode
Presently, in many states (including huge California), there is absolutely no security in the voter registration system, and it is prone to very easy abuse.
I still cannot understand the rationale for defending a zero-security election system. The fact that the left is dishonest about voter fraud statistics (see above post) should tell you that they aren't being honest about the entire situation.
Every slot machine and video poker machine in Nevada and Nee Jersey (and every state, AFAIK) is run by software, and a copy of the code is kept on file with the state's gaming authority. The gaming authority runs random inspections, pulling machines and checking that the software actually installed matches the software on file. If it isn't, the company and the casino get fined and could lose their licenses. Why isn't the same required for voting machines?
I haven't looked into the voting machine situation, so I can't comment. If it's what you say, then yes, it's wrong, and should be reformed.
I am for fairness in voting with real security. I'm not interested in suppressing anyone's votes. At the same time, it is not fair to leave gaping holes in election security just so a tiny percentage of voters who have no ID (most of whom choose not to have it) can vote.
As I've said countless times, Democrats citing BS "studies" about the super-low level of voter fraud are missing the point. Not only are these studies impossible to be correct, but they don't understand the concept of security. Security exists to prevent bad things from happening. You don't leave security holes wide open with the justification that nobody is bothering to take advantage of it yet.
Just mind boggling to me.
I have never read this website before but the article is interesting. The website is allegedly a conservative one. Top 25 in fact.
Quote:
An ACLU fact sheet from May 2017 claims that 21 million Americans do not have a government-issued photo ID, citing a 2006 survey from the Brennan Center for Justice. About 11 percent of the 987 voting-age American citizens surveyed said that they did not have a current, unexpired government-issued photo ID. Eleven percent of the adult citizen population in the 2000 Census amounts to 21 million Americans.
Quote:
The Brennan Center survey also found that black Americans were less likely to have a current government photo ID – 25 percent lacked one, compared to 8 percent of white Americans, with an 8 percent margin of error. It also indicated that 16 percent of Hispanics lacked one, but the results were not statistically significant due to a low sample size.
Other national surveys have similarly found that millions of Americans don’t have government-issued photo ID.
https://www.conservativedailynews.com/2018/12/fact-check-do-millions-of-americans-not-have-government-photo-id/
So in summation, requiring ID to vote results in the stripping of Constitutional Rights for millions of Americans.
First off, it's a huge stretch to claim that a single poll of 987 people can represent the entire country regarding whether or not they have ID.Quote:
Originally Posted by gauchojake
Regardless, the more important question is why they don't have ID. Are they choosing not to get it? Are they wanted criminals or facing some other kind of legal action to where they're purposely avoiding it? Are they just lazy and not bothering to get it?
The important number is what percentage of people don't have ID and can't get it, not those who simply don't have ID.
Furthermore, even if we do have a problem where people can't get ID easily, shouldn't the solution be reform to where it's easier for them to get ID, rather than just dropping ID requirements for voting?
Honestly, if you're an adult with no ID, you're going to have a lot more problems in life than not being able to vote. Why hasn't there been much of an effort to help these people get ID?
I'll tell you why.
Because Democrats know a lot of these people simply don't want or care about ID, yet they still want those votes. Dems are afraid that if we solve the supposed "can't get ID" problem, then they won't have a decent defense to the voter ID laws being enacted.
Druff, neither of us likely has the expertise to critique the research methodology behind those studies, so I’m not going to play that game with you on that matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
The article cited multiple studies that all conclude that a significant number (millions) of Americans who are eligible to vote do not have a state/govt ID.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffFirst off, it's a huge stretch to claim that a single poll of 987 people can represent the entire country regarding whether or not they have ID.Quote:
Originally Posted by gauchojake
Regardless, the more important question is why they don't have ID. Are they choosing not to get it? Are they wanted criminals or facing some other kind of legal action to where they're purposely avoiding it? Are they just lazy and not bothering to get it?
The important number is what percentage of people don't have ID and can't get it, not those who simply don't have ID.
Furthermore, even if we do have a problem where people can't get ID easily, shouldn't the solution be reform to where it's easier for them to get ID, rather than just dropping ID requirements for voting?
Honestly, if you're an adult with no ID, you're going to have a lot more problems in life than not being able to vote. Why hasn't there been much of an effort to help these people get ID?
I'll tell you why.
Because Democrats know a lot of these people simply don't want or care about ID, yet they still want those votes. Dems are afraid that if we solve the supposed "can't get ID" problem, then they won't have a decent defense to the voter ID laws being enacted.
An ID requirement amounts to a Poll Tax.
Also I wouldn't be so sure that these voters necessarily vote DEM. Head to rural Kentucky and tell me that the people who are living in a camper by the river aren't waving Trump 2020 flags. Coal miners in Appalachia are voting Trump.
Regardless of how they vote, again, you are ignoring the WHY of the situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by gauchojakeThe article cited multiple studies that all conclude that a significant number (millions) of Americans who are eligible to vote do not have a state/govt ID.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
An ID requirement amounts to a Poll Tax.
Also I wouldn't be so sure that these voters necessarily vote DEM. Head to rural Kentucky and tell me that the people who are living in a camper by the river aren't waving Trump 2020 flags. Coal miners in Appalachia are voting Trump.
If you can get ID and choose not to, then any such consequences are your own problem. That's not disenfranchisement. That is a case of people voluntarily choosing to make themselves ineligible.
And if there are some who truly cannot get ID, then reform is needed to help them.
Leaving a gaping security hole in our elections is never the proper answer.
Unless you're Mitch McConnell and the GOP and its suppressing poor people and not, say, Russia.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffRegardless of how they vote, again, you are ignoring the WHY of the situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by gauchojake
If you can get ID and choose not to, then any such consequences are your own problem. That's not disenfranchisement. That is a case of people voluntarily choosing to make themselves ineligible.
And if there are some who truly cannot get ID, then reform is needed to help them.
Leaving a gaping security hole in our elections is never the proper answer.
Exactly, Americans don't really respect their politicians. They do respect their democratic institutions that have allowed them to live free for almost 250 years and somehow have survived in spite of the collection of nitwits that have often been elected to powerful positions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayjami
Besides, I don't think canine voting is ever really going to pass muster, even with dotty 80 year old poll workers.
Despite Trump's claims of "millions of fraudulent votes" (which I don't believe), and the despite the true fact that the 1960 Presidential election was likely decided via voter fraud, I'm not even so worried about voter registration fraud deciding future Presidential elections. It could happen, but it's not all that likely.
The bigger problem involves local elections.
In 1992, I voted in a county election which was actually decided by exactly one vote. It was actually pretty cool to think about the fact that I could have voted the other way and gotten the other guy elected.
Non-voter-ID states indeed have a gaping hole in security where local elections can easily be manipulated via such registration fraud.
As I've said many times, you don't leave a huge security hole open just because you believe nobody has meaningfully taken advantage of it yet. That's not how security ever works.
Unless you're Mitch McConnell and you block bipartisan bills regarding foreign interference.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff