Identifying yourself consists of nothing more than "My name is Joe Blow." That is not verification. Verification consists of providing evidence to substantiate your claim that you are indeed Joe Blow. Do you understand English? If so great, let's try it again. I'll speak slowly for you. What............... voter.............. VERIFICATION.............. methods..............do..............you...............support?
I'm sorry, but you're going to have to either provide a quote to back up your previous assertions or apologize for making them. I mean it's not like you said it once and then stopped, you've continued to lie over and over again. I already told you this, so what's the confusion?
Let us begin with signature matching.
Bravo for a real answer. You're already being far more honest than fskimospy and for that I applaud you. Signature matching would be a good start. I'd urge a secondary method as well with something like that since signatures sometimes change over time, maybe signature matching and utility bill. The appropriate combinations could be negotiated out once you agree on the basic premise that a non-zero level of controls should be in place.
Yes, you just repeat the propaganda you read.
To clarify, what seems to someone like this is different than people who think, even though the word might be spelled the same.
blah, blah, blah ...........................
So it's as I thought. Your idea is more expensive than the status quo, you can't/won't articulate what the problem is with the status quo, and you're fine disenfranchising current voters because you think they are to lazy to vote and deserve it.
Of course a lot of those who "let" themselves be disenfranchised did so because those "free" IDs require birth certificates with their married names and as poor seniors they no longer have the means or money to travel back to their birth states and spend the time getting the updated birth certificate to get the free ID they've never needed before to vote.
The courts agree with me that strict identification as implemented in several of those states and more every day is illegal.
A "patriot" such as yourself may remember, "no taxation without representation." How do you justify that to yourself?
When you're basically being accused of being too ignorant/stupid to argue properly, a full demonstration of the fact is a terrible strategy.
I'm tired of talking to idiots.... Bye
Merely re-asserting falsehood doesn't make anything true other than for those highly susceptible to propaganda.
We've been through this before in discussions in which you have participated.
Fact- The incidence of in person voter fraud is so low as to be insignificant. Other than love of authority, that's the only possible justification for strict voter ID.
Fact- Getting a free ID card can be a big problem for some people because it's difficult to obtain the required documentation.
Fact- NC Repubs have done their homework to identify voters unfriendly to their cause & to structure the system to exclude them. That's poor people in general & poor black people in particular. It's fundamentally dishonest & discriminatory. It's Unconstitutional. Similar measures in other states are the same.
Even if you believe none of that to be true, what image of White America do you want to present to the rest of our citizens & the world? In their eyes, do we live up to our ideals of egalitarian democracy, or not?
Put yourself in the other guy's shoes, see how it looks from there.
Because you refuse to answer a straight question. Beyond the first election when a voter registers and is required to verify identity per Help America Vote Act (unless grandfathered in), do you support verifying voter identity in subsequent elections or voters who never verified identity to comply with HAVA per an exemption? If no then you proved my assertion. If yes, then what means are you willing to accept to perform verification?
This is not hard. I gave asserted that you believe that a one-time/valid forever verification is sufficient with every subsequent election for that voter subject only to an identification standard (e.g. current California law). "My name is Joe Blow".
So here is your golden opportunity to refute that assertion. Just say you do not support one time only voter verification and what means you would use to perform verification. Do that and I will gladly apologize for misrepresenting your beliefs. Something tells me that I will not need to apologize however.
I disagree with everything you said.
What about the signature matching? Hmmm?You don't need a sting operation, you just need to talk to people enough to know people that they are registered but don't actually vote. Campaigns that poll potential voters could do this as well, and I'm not sure how extensive public voting records are, but those may also help identify people that don't actually vote.
I could 100% vote 3 times. Stop by my polling place in the morning, then to my friend's place who doesn't vote, then back to mine after work with new poll workers to vote for my neighbor who doesn't go to the polls and doesn't get absentee ballots. If there were 50 people that could safely vote 2-3 times you would have over a 100 fraudulent votes with zero evidence.
And the risk is 0%. Do you know what happens if you show up and claim to be someone that already voted? They hand you a provisional ballot and tell you to fill it out. No cops, no detainment, not even an official report. Worst case scenario somebody after the fact investigates the provisional ballot and discovers it may have been an attempt at fraud with no way to identify the person who tried. Of course, that may vary in other states.
I, for one, want every eligible citizen to vote & am not afraid of the outcome if they do. I have faith in Democracy. You know, the American way & all that.
There's a really simple way of fixing this. Simply offer some easy way of obtaining proper id at the polling places when they vote, I seriously doubt anyone is going to double down on committing felonies with a photographic and possibly fingerprinted record of their crime. Check with your GOP policy reps to see if they support that kind of thing.
As has been posted numerous times in these various threads 4% of the population or 600,000 people in Texas as found by the courts do not have appropriate ID.I did articulate it.
And they can't .... is a bull shit argument.
If you are too lazy to get an ID card that is provided free... It's on you. How many voters do you actually think don't have a form of ID.
Note: I am not discussing winos and drug addicts that aren't going to vote anyway.
The status quo is effectively non strict ID. It allows an average of 0 fraudulent votes. (0.000001%) cast.Identifying oneself ("my name is Joe Blow") is not an acceptable standard, that's my point. If you do absolutely nothing to validate that claim beyond the first time (which might have been decades ago)
We get that you are opposed to strict ID. Can you please advise if you are likewise opposed to non-strict and if so why?
The status quo is effectively non strict ID. It allows an average of 0 fraudulent votes. (0.000001%) cast.
So I'm for it. Why would I want to spend more money and disenfranchise more voters for something else?
As has been posted numerous times in these various threads 4% of the population or 600,000 people in Texas as found by the courts do not have appropriate ID.
As has also been posted numerous times an investigation has shown 31 confirmed cases of fraud in 14 years or over 1 billion votes cast or about 0.000001% are frauds that voter ID laws could have stopped.
So you want to disenfranchise 10,000's of votes in my state alone to prevent an average of 0 fraudulent votes?
As as has also been posted many times the elderly minority voters are disproportionately affected. Those "free IDs" aren't free when you are elderly and no longer drive but have to get to the DMV. When you do get there you find out you aren't eligible for the free ID because you grew up in a rural area in the 30's and don't have a birth certificate or the the birth certificate doesn't have your married name on it. Oh, you have to go in person back to your birth state to get the certificate. Wow so lazy.....
So common sense tells me you are either uninformed, willfully ignorant, or approve of disenfranchising American voters so your side can win.
Which is it? (The last one is the one the law makers who wrote these laws admit is the reason by the way).
Ah. Don't go away angry.You need some violin music in the background.
Bravo for a real answer. You're already being far more honest than fskimospy and for that I applaud you. Signature matching would be a good start. I'd urge a secondary method as well with something like that since signatures sometimes change over time, maybe signature matching and utility bill. The appropriate combinations could be negotiated out once you agree on the basic premise that a non-zero level of controls should be in place.
I didn't realize that there ever were any states that don't engage in signature matching. Do you know of any?
Ah. Don't go away angry.
I'm not going anywhere. Nor am I angry.
What gave you that idea?
Of course not, you are a self professed troll for the sake of trolling.
You never add much to a thread, you just want to rant.