http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10002.html#a0=1

There is no charge for a Social Security number and card.

Should be suitable for both voting and porn, IMO

While I'm sure it probably has occurred in a few places, I find it difficult to believe that the practice of bussing in loads of fraudulent voters is very common. Postal voting is far easier to abuse if you want to engage in voter fraud. Why go the trouble of bussing people in who have to pretend to be someone else when you can just apply for absentee ballots and mail them all in advance ?

This whole issue seems like a storm in a teacup to me. It's not unreasonable to demand ID, which is easily obtained for a low cost. But at the same time it's not really likely to have a significant impact on fraud because you can't demand that people send in their ID when they request an absentee ballot, so any fraud that might have existed will simply switch to that method.

For the record I don't buy the racism argument btw. How incredibly patronising toward black people to assume that the colour of their skin makes it more difficult for them to follow basic and very simple rules before voting, or that being black means you can't afford to spend $20 on an ID card.

Sass, I absolutely agree with everything you said. Get rid of absentee unless id is shown in advance. There should be zero reason anyone cannot make an election if it is important to them, regardless of color.

Do you think perhaps we've strayed somewhat from the issue of who will win the chance to face off with Obama? Perhaps the question of regulation for voting belongs in a new thread.

By the way, I saw a reference to the primaries on 24 April. 5 Northeastern states. 4 should be a lock for Romney. The 5th is Pa, which is similar to Ohio and Michigan in terms of electorate but where Santorum has to win really, being his old Congressional seat.

Does this mean we have 6 weeks to go before a the race is run?

Brad, absentee ballots have a purpose. Serving overseas in the military? Confined to bed due to a long term illness? Working in a job where trips out of State are common, or where you could have a 12 hour shift?

There are reasons why a committed voter may not be able to get there in person, and to disenfranchise them based on a generalisation that they're just too lazy is a going against the spirit of democracy.

6 weeks would still be less that 2008 between Clinton/Obama.

bbauska

6 weeks would still be less that 2008 between Clinton/Obama.

The key difference being that, Democrats were genuinely enthused about their field of candidates. (even edwards) If Hillary had won, Obama supporters would have immediately lifted her banner. republicans seem a lot less enthusiastic.
Another measure of enthusiasm would be the huge turnout for the Dem primaries then, versus Republicans now....

regarding ID.
Shouldn't it be photo id? Otherwise what good is it in avoiding voter fraud?
The idea that voter fraud is affecting election outcomes, which is the only real reason to spend a lot of time and effort to squash it, is somewhat ludicrous. How many polls could someone visit in a day to vote? Especially if there lineups of any kind. I mean that would be one determined fraudster...

It should be photo ID, of course.

Who cares if it affects outcomes. If it is wrong, it is wrong. This sounds like letting a murderer off trial because the victim was dying of cancer. The murder did not change the outcome. Really?

danivon wrote:You don't even need to do that, ARJ. Apparently there's this thing called the 'internet' where some helpful souls have put pron up that can be viewed for free and without ID. Of course, I've not investigated this too thoroughly...

Well, this isn't entirely accurate Dan. Most internet porn sites nowadays, including free sites, use some kind of Adult Verification System to see anything more titalating then chicks in bikinis. At least from what I have read.

By that I assume you mean a button that you have to click confirming that you're 18 ?

Archduke Russell John wrote:Well, this isn't entirely accurate Dan. Most internet porn sites nowadays, including free sites, use some kind of Adult Verification System to see anything more titalating then chicks in bikinis. At least from what I have read.

I'm not going to put any links on to show how easy it is to see far more than that with no 'verification', no 'asking to confirm your age', no 'warning of adult content', nothing.

In 15 years of (ahem) browsing, I've never once given any such site any details about myself, and it has not presented any issue in terms of what I can view. I just avoid those that do want info because I'm concerned about potential phishing and fraud, and because there's no point in paying for something you can get for free.

Back to the matter in hand...

Time has an article on the [urlhttp://swampland.time.com/2012/03/08/mitt-romneys-high-cost-per-vote-17-14/]relative spending of each of the four main rivals [/url]for the nomination:

TV spending (by candidate's campaign and supporting PACs):

Romney: $33.5M / $10.43 per vote
Santorum: $4.4M / $2.14 per vote
Gingrich: $6.9M / $3.89 per vote
Paul: $3M / 3.33 per vote

Total campaign spending:

Romney: $55M / $17.14 per vote
Santorum: $5M / $2.54 per vote
Gingrich: $16M / $9.05 per vote
Paul: $29M / $31.55 per vote

That Santorum value for money, huh?

Here's the key effect of all this expensive campaigning:

When the Wall Street Journal/NBC News survey asked last summer which party should control Congress, a slim 46-42 percent plurality of women said it should be the Democrats.
But in a survey released Monday, compiling polling since the beginning of the year, that figure had widened considerably to a 15-point advantage for the Democrats, according to polling by the team of Democratic pollster Peter Hart and Republican Bill McInturff. Fifty-one percent favored Democratic control; only 36 percent wanted to see the Republicans in charge

Obama is currently running 4 points ahead of Romney in head to head polling by Rasmussen..... That lead is going to be pretty hard to chip away at if 52% of the electorate has asumed that your party doesn't have their interests at heart.

The problem ricky is that a recent Gallup poll shows that 50% of American's think Obama's Presidency has been a failure. Don't you think it is going be hard to get relected when 50% of the people think you have been a failure?

I think Fabio Capello's reign as England manager was a failure, but that doesn't mean I'd want to replace him with Steve Kean.

Apologies for the possibly inappropriate analogy but I think most people in this thread understand it.