bbauska wrote:I am fine with indelible ink as long as it can be verified that the person with the purple thumb is who they say they are.

Fair trade?

With early voting, absentee voting, extended voting periods that lasts for many days, and voters registered in more than one State, indelible ink is nice, but it won't solve the problem.

Doctor Fate wrote:

bbauska wrote:I am fine with indelible ink as long as it can be verified that the person with the purple thumb is who they say they are.

Fair trade?

With early voting, absentee voting, extended voting periods that lasts for many days, and voters registered in more than one State, indelible ink is nice, but it won't solve the problem.

Exactly why I said those would no longer be possible except in rare cases, such as Military, or specifically requested ballot prior to election.

Doctor Fate wrote:

bbauska wrote:I am fine with indelible ink as long as it can be verified that the person with the purple thumb is who they say they are.

Fair trade?

With early voting, absentee voting, extended voting periods that lasts for many days, and voters registered in more than one State, indelible ink is nice, but it won't solve the problem.

True. How does ID address fraud in absentee voting, or being registered in multiple jurisdictions?

It would indeed be hard to use it to detect fraud in early voting, but there is a lot to be said for keeping it to a single day for voting in person (not least that early voting returns and polling can sway later voters).

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

bbauska wrote:I am fine with indelible ink as long as it can be verified that the person with the purple thumb is who they say they are.

Fair trade?

With early voting, absentee voting, extended voting periods that lasts for many days, and voters registered in more than one State, indelible ink is nice, but it won't solve the problem.

True. How does ID address fraud in absentee voting, or being registered in multiple jurisdictions?

It wouldn't.

It would indeed be hard to use it to detect fraud in early voting, but there is a lot to be said for keeping it to a single day for voting in person (not least that early voting returns and polling can sway later voters).

Actually, it would help in early voting. They do keep meticulous records, so once you voted that would be that.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

bbauska wrote:I am fine with indelible ink as long as it can be verified that the person with the purple thumb is who they say they are.

Fair trade?

With early voting, absentee voting, extended voting periods that lasts for many days, and voters registered in more than one State, indelible ink is nice, but it won't solve the problem.

True. How does ID address fraud in absentee voting, or being registered in multiple jurisdictions?

It wouldn't.

It would indeed be hard to use it to detect fraud in early voting, but there is a lot to be said for keeping it to a single day for voting in person (not least that early voting returns and polling can sway later voters).

Actually, it would help in early voting. They do keep meticulous records, so once you voted that would be that.

By "it" I meant indelible ink.

Of course, I do wonder at the meticulous records when counties also have more voters than adults. It is the same record-tampering isn't? Are you saying that in addition to checking ID they will also need to record it?

danivon wrote:Of course, I do wonder at the meticulous records when counties also have more voters than adults. It is the same record-tampering isn't? Are you saying that in addition to checking ID they will also need to record it?

The poll workers go through and mark every single person who comes in to vote.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:Of course, I do wonder at the meticulous records when counties also have more voters than adults. It is the same record-tampering isn't? Are you saying that in addition to checking ID they will also need to record it?

The poll workers go through and mark every single person who comes in to vote.

Yes. Usually by a single mark or strike against that voter's line on the register.

Should they also record details of the ID used?

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:Of course, I do wonder at the meticulous records when counties also have more voters than adults. It is the same record-tampering isn't? Are you saying that in addition to checking ID they will also need to record it?

The poll workers go through and mark every single person who comes in to vote.

Yes. Usually by a single mark or strike against that voter's line on the register.

Should they also record details of the ID used?

No.

I could eventually see that ID being swiped and the info stored digitally.

“It’s something we’re working on all over the country, because in the states where they do have voter ID laws you’ve seen, actually, elections begin to change towards more conservative candidates,”

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2016/ ... -voter-id/

that was one very one-sided piece to say the least. I read it and saw nothing more than partisan drivel, nothing more. And Liberals want to complain about Fox News?

tom

that was one very one-sided piece to say the least. I read it and saw nothing more than partisan drivel, nothing more. And Liberals want to complain about Fox News?

Was Freemans quotation inaccurate?

Or should we not take Demint at his word?

freeman3 wrote:“It’s something we’re working on all over the country, because in the states where they do have voter ID laws you’ve seen, actually, elections begin to change towards more conservative candidates,”

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2016/ ... -voter-id/

So what?

What's the opposite? "In states where they don't have voter ID laws, elections tend to produce more liberal candidates."

So, why would that be? Because voters who are ineligible vote Democrat!

Fate

Because voters who are ineligible vote Democrat!

If they are ineligible they don't vote...
But if they were able to meet the eligibility requirements, i.e. photo ID, it is indeed likely that they do vote Democrat. Because there is a a direct correlation between extreme poverty and an inability to get the required photo ID . And extreme poverty and voting Deocrat.

The Demint quotation is an admission that the correlation was well understood when the laws were drafted. And that the intended effect was the disqualification of primarily Democratic voters.

rickyp wrote:Fate

Because voters who are ineligible vote Democrat!

If they are ineligible they don't vote....

You're so funny! You pay no attention to American voting, do you? http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/De ... 30371.html

More than 6,000 dead people are registered to vote in Nassau County and records show about 270 of them actually voted after their deaths, according to a Newsday analysis of voter registration and federal death records.
The paper reports dead registered voters in Nassau County account for nearly 25 percent of the 26,500 dead people registered to vote statewide.

Clerks claim it's all human error. Maybe, but they adduce zero evidence.

And, we'll always have Chicago. http://www.salon.com/2016/02/14/electio ... legendary/

But if they were able to meet the eligibility requirements, i.e. photo ID, it is indeed likely that they do vote Democrat. Because there is a a direct correlation between extreme poverty and an inability to get the required photo ID . And extreme poverty and voting Deocrat.

And, being dead and voting Democrat.

The Demint quotation is an admission that the correlation was well understood when the laws were drafted. And that the intended effect was the disqualification of primarily Democratic voters

The only "disqualified" voters were those who were indeed not qualified. If you don't have an ID, you can vote provisionally. So, there's no excuse--unless you're stupid.

I'm not sure why you think the article on Demint was slanted Tom--what he was said was clear. The Republican Party likes voter ID laws because it helps them win elections. They don't care about voter fraud...that's a made up concern. I guess it's admirable in a Machiavellian sort of way, but what's depressing Republican voters seem to actually believe the party line about it being about voter fraud. You guys don't really believe that stuff, do you? I guess it would be impolitic for a Republican voter to admit that voter ID laws was about reducing the votes of minorities likely to support Democrats, so I guess it would be difficult to own up to it. But to keep repeating the fraud mantra when it's clear that getting voter ID laws in 33 states was a tactic of the Republican Party to lower Democratic voting ...I don't get it. Again, no one here actually believes the line about fraud, right?