Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Explain to me the Voter ID Debate

Of course the registered Dems in Del Norte don't answer the door or mow the lawn. They're all up tending their grows....

Are you sure about that? I know in Alaska you have to provide proof when you apply for an absentee ballot, if you don't then your application doesn't get processed and you don't get to vote.

Since we never have anywhere near 50% of the registered voters cast a ballot, the idea that 2,000 try when only 1,000 exist isn't going to happen. The Dems make sure the undocumented get to vote to increase the percentage of their vote and it still never gets to any "Full" level.

Some places, like MN., you can show up with a dozen+ 'friends' and 'vouch' for them... Laughable..

Rife for fraud...

1) There are states which allow same day registration, basically show up, register to vote, and then vote. Some without producing any ID. Wikipedia says:


2) There is always the issue with trolling the obits for people who died in the last 6 months, then showing up and voting as them.

[video:youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=9-uVhhIlPk0[/video]

Another cockroach seeking America's destruction reveals itself.

Thanks, this helps to put some perspective on the issue. I ws surprised that it was a problem because I assumed the registration process was similar for most states.


So, I really didn't get what the big hubbub was about. Amazing that North Dakota has no registration whatsoever!

Don't they have to at least check their ID to verify their age?

They all voted using Absentee ballots.

Typical Stupid Democrat answer

If you are to dam stupid to get a ID to vote , then in my opinion you are to dam stupid to be voting anyway.

Ricky D. said, " Like dead people and illegals." My maternal grandfather died in 1945 and the family knows for a fact that he was still voting in 1960! Of course, this was in Cook County, Illinois, where voting is done "early and done often"! Obammy's training grounds, too!

Oh, just little non-important things like dead people and out of staters voting dimocrap. Nothing YOU would really be concerned about. Remember several years ago when Washington state voted for governor and many counties had more people voting dimocrap than what even lived on the county in question and Pres. Bush asked the AG to investigate and was told that since the state's AG was a dimocrap he didn't really give a flying [bleep] and would never prosecute any dimocrap for stealing an election. So, Bush fired 7-8 AGs over the country and the press and dimocraps went apoplectic. Problem he was well inside his legal authority to do so. Dimocraps and press were not concerned that when Clitman took office he fired all of them over the entire USofA thouh it took him quite a while to fill the spot with hand picked dope smokers.

Sensibilities need to be put to the whole process of voting, I don't have a problem having to show some form of ID. The problem is what some states are trying to do is going beyond ID to what form of ID is valid, like college ID's used to be fine, as long as the name on the ID is registered what's the deal?

States are trying to exclude demographic groups that will predominately affect one party's voters.

One state was saying you had to bring several forms of ID, many of which people don't have. Also many people do not have a home in their name, they may be room mates or rent a room from someone and they then don't have the "right" ID.

I think it was Texas bringing an interesting combo of what was valid ID while allowing a concealed weapons permit. The idea isn't to keep certain groups from voting, it's to prevent voter fraud.

Meanwhile there was a district race not to long ago that was within 8000 votes (a lot when there were only 60,000/80,000 voters total) where the county clerk reveals three days into the count that her computer mysteriously "lost 8000 votes" that were there, she swears it. Her computer somehow lost these votes and she expected by the gravity of her position as the county clerk that these votes were to be counted. This county whose workers and government were predominately of one party ran on the premise that there was nothing at all wrong with considering these 8000 votes to be as good as the gospel.

I have a problem with redistricting, disqualifying tens to hundreds of thousands of votes, changing eligibility, disallowing military service voters, these are all tricks that have gone on throughout the last three presidential elections, and it's a far greater problem than the individual voter fraud that is not nearly as significant a problem.

Quite frankly I never have trusted a computer system to tally and track votes, any computer used for voting can be monkeyed with to alter percentages of votes.

We need a hard count system and the ability to correctly vet registered voters with ID, not ridiculous forms of ID and proof of where you live.

Every state/locale has different election laws, some more fraud proof than the others. Voter registration rolls are purged for deaths and people no longer living in the district at different intervals, some might not be updated for decades. In a rural area like where I live it's not much of a problem, the election workers generally know everyone in the district and can recognize them on sight, it'd be pointless to try and vote as someone else where I live. However, take a big city like Chicago with many times the voters per voting district and the natural movement in and out of district means that you're virtually guaranteed not to know the people working the desk at the voting place. It would be extremely easy to walk in and vote as Bill Smith knowing that Bill died last year and the rolls haven't been updated. Same thing with people who have moved out of the district. Signatures are a joke, just wrap your hand in gauze and explain that you have to sign left handed because you broke your thumb yesterday. The last signature they have from "Bill Smith" might be from 1969 also, signatures change over time.

When called on the issue the Democrats always claim there's little proof of voter fraud. Of course there's little proof, the system now is specifically designed so you can't track fraud, that's the whole point of making voters show an ID! The claim that ID's are a hardship is bull, everyone has an ID nowadays, especially minorities who have to have one to get on government benefits.

All of the excuses from the left against voter ID laws are complete bunk and show their true colors. The only possible reason someone could be against showing an ID to vote is because their group is benefitting from vote fraud.

Well stated.

it is and has been the law most places. the idea that a minority voter who has to show an ID to register for welfare, cash a welfare check, buy a six pack of beer, board an airplane, open a bank account, buy antihistamines, check into a hospital, drive a car, or do countless other things should be somehow specially inconvenienced by doing the same thing to vote is so laughable no serious person could buy it.

the bipartisan committee appointed by congress to study voter fraud issues recommended it....there is no rational argument against it...other than, it makes voter fraud harder, and the democrats thrive and depend on voter fraud.

That's what I am thinking. Austin is probably the most lax of all. "Sanctuary City" , I really don't care for electronic voting we have here.

I've said it several times in the past few weeks but if you have concerns about voter fraud become an Election Judge and challenge those who you have reason to believe are voting illegally.
In MN ANYONE at all can challenge the validity of a voter. These ballots are not counted on election day but are instead placed in a separate box for Provisional ballots to be scrutinized by a bipartisan board to ascertain their validity.

Become an Election Judge and see the process from beginning to end and do your bit to prevent voter fraud.

As to Rednecks assertion that registered voters can vouch for others that is indeed true but if he were an Election Judge (or even merely a citizen) in MN he'd have every right to challenge those vouched for voters and if these voters were found to have committed voter fraud both the voter and the voucher would be subject to whatever penalties the law provides for said crime.