Stop the dead from voting

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

COD. Bring it to my front yard.

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

Personal responsibility applies regardless of age.

It's not that we don't get it... it's that we're disagreeing.

And who's sneering? We're saying just because she's old doesn't mean she should be exempted. See, there's this trait that some of us like to apply equally. It's called equality.

Nobody gets a special exception. Nobody.

You have gone off the rails with this stuff about how my great-grandmother didn't want to work for a living or pay her way through life and how it was nothing compared to facing combat in a war and she must not have any personal responsibility !

Again: I never ever said she should be exempt, or that there shouldn't be a law in the first place.

I said it might be difficult for some elderly people to get documents that they haven't been asked for in nearly a century, and that this is an issue that should be considered and addressed to help those who need help complying with the new requirement. I never said anything against having a law like this to verify eligibility and help stop fraud.

Get a fricken grip.

[Dan and Judy 614]

I think it is only fair that any dead people that have been voting up to now should be grandfathered in. They should not have to go get their picture taken. Let's have a little respect.

[slim 1,530]

You have gone off the rails with this stuff about how my great-grandmother didn't want to work for a living or pay her way through life and how it was nothing compared to facing combat in a war and she must not have any personal responsibility !

Again: I never ever said she should be exempt, or that there shouldn't be a law in the first place.

I said it might be difficult for some elderly people to get documents that they haven't been asked for in nearly a century, and that this is an issue that should be considered and addressed to help those who need help complying with the new requirement. I never said anything against having a law like this to verify eligibility and help stop fraud.

Get a fricken grip.

First of all, I live in Ohio. It's not impossible for your great-grandmother to get a picture ID without that document. It may be impossible for her to get a picture ID in the name she chooses but she can get a picture ID in the name she has on her current documentation.

Meanwhile, she can register with the board of elections in the name she has on current documentation and by the time election day rolls around, she'll have a picture ID that matches her voter registration and thus, she can vote.

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

First of all, I live in Ohio. It's not impossible for your great-grandmother to get a picture ID without that document. It may be impossible for her to get a picture ID in the name she chooses but she can get a picture ID in the name she has on her current documentation.

Meanwhile, she can register with the board of elections in the name she has on current documentation and by the time election day rolls around, she'll have a picture ID that matches her voter registration and thus, she can vote.

She lives in Ohio too. She has always lived in Ohio. So have her daughter and granddaughter, who were also with us when we went to the license bureau to get her photo ID.

I never said she needed a photo ID in order to vote in Ohio. She has always voted in Ohio without one. She needed a photo ID for other reasons. I gave the account of her getting the photo ID because it's an example of what some older people might face when trying to get one.

It is not an issue for her to try to register to vote in her maiden name or any other "name she chooses" - she always is registered in her legal name.

She has had the same legal name since her marriage in 1933. Her current documents - her voter's registration, her Social Security card, her insurance documents, bank statements, etc. - are all in her legal name (her married name.) But she has never had a photo ID before - never learned to drive, never had a driver's license.

It is the license bureau that specifically told us we needed a marriage document in addition to the other documents in order to get her a photo ID - I guess to link her birth certificate to her Social Security card.

So although she could vote without it, she could not get a photo ID without this marriage document in lieu of the license. This what was a bit difficult to get some 79 years later.

[slim 1,530]

It is not an issue

If it's not an issue... then why are you making it an issue?

I understand you're trying to illustrate the potential hardships elderly folks could possibly face. But, the fact of the matter is, even they are not caused undue hardship by attaining a form of identification in order to vote.

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

If it's not an issue... then why are you making it an issue?

Cutting and pasting snippets of my sentences out of context in order to try to distort my post and create a straw man to argue with. Naughty naughty.

What I actually said:

It is not an issue for her to try to register to vote in her maiden name or any other "name she chooses" - she always is registered in her legal name.

I understand you're trying to illustrate the potential hardships elderly folks could possibly face. But, the fact of the matter is, even they are not caused undue hardship by attaining a form of identification in order to vote.

Again, you are putting words in my mouth in order to argue with something I never said. Please go and re-read my posts, and try to do it in a calm tone. I never said that attaining a form of identification in order to vote was an "undue hardship." I said that changing the law to require a new piece of identification that was not required in the past might be difficult for some older people who might not have the resources such as my grandmother did to track down records from 80 years ago or more.

What is wrong with considering that older people who have proudly voted for decades under the old system might need some assistance with complying with this new law ? I really don't understand your hostility to my point, as if helping our senior citizens is some kind of challenge to the general idea of trying to stop voter fraud.

[Boiler 46,107]

If you are incapable of obtaining ID should you be allowed to vote?

[slim 1,530]

Cutting and pasting snippets of my sentences out of context in order to try to distort my post and create a straw man to argue with. Naughty naughty.

What I actually said:

Again, you are putting words in my mouth in order to argue with something I never said. Please go and re-read my posts, and try to do it in a calm tone. I never said that attaining a form of identification in order to vote was an "undue hardship." I said that changing the law to require a new piece of identification that was not required in the past might be difficult for some older people who might not have the resources such as my grandmother did to track down records from 80 years ago or more.

What is wrong with considering that older people who have proudly voted for decades under the old system might need some assistance with complying with this new law ? I really don't understand your hostility to my point, as if helping our senior citizens is some kind of challenge to the general idea of trying to stop voter fraud.

Because nobody needs special help.

If you are incapable of obtaining ID should you be allowed to vote?

Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner.

[Brother Hesekiel 2,236]

I got my first word processor in the mid-1990s. At that time I prominently stated that I will not need a computer in my lifetime! Oh boy, was I wrong!

The right to vote is among the most cherished ones, and it's also one of the most important ones. People need an accepted photo ID to buy a can of beer, to pay with a check or credit card at the supermarket or department store, to get a SS card replaced, to get a fishing or hunting or driving license, to cash a check at the bank. Times have changed. While I admit grandma who was born when my oldest car was made, even she might need some assistance getting things done at age 100. That might be getting the groceries home, climbing stairs, or getting a photo ID one time in her life. It may be a burden, and I do acknowledge that it is one, but it's not an unreasonable burden in order to exercise the right to vote.

Voter fraud is almost non-existent, presumably, but that's no reason to prevent it from happening at all. I'm fairly liberal, but I have no problem requiring a state or government issued photo ID when attempting to vote in person. I would actually take it one step further: I would require all registered voters to provide proof of U.S. citizenship before being able to vote again. Please don't tell me that this is such an outrageous demand. You guys get scanned and touched down at the airport by obese TSA drones, but you don't think it's reasonable to proof that you are indeed a U.S. citizen and the person that is on the Voters Registry roster?

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

I got my first word processor in the mid-1990s. At that time I prominently stated that I will not need a computer in my lifetime! Oh boy, was I wrong!

The right to vote is among the most cherished ones, and it's also one of the most important ones. People need an accepted photo ID to buy a can of beer, to pay with a check or credit card at the supermarket or department store, to get a SS card replaced, to get a fishing or hunting or driving license, to cash a check at the bank. Times have changed. While I admit grandma who was born when my oldest car was made, even she might need some assistance getting things done at age 100. That might be getting the groceries home, climbing stairs, or getting a photo ID one time in her life. It may be a burden, and I do acknowledge that it is one, but it's not an unreasonable burden in order to exercise the right to vote.

Voter fraud is almost non-existent, presumably, but that's no reason to prevent it from happening at all. I'm fairly liberal, but I have no problem requiring a state or government issued photo ID when attempting to vote in person. I would actually take it one step further: I would require all registered voters to provide proof of U.S. citizenship before being able to vote again. Please don't tell me that this is such an outrageous demand. You guys get scanned and touched down at the airport by obese TSA drones, but you don't think it's reasonable to proof that you are indeed a U.S. citizen and the person that is on the Voters Registry roster?

[Ban Hammer 13,548]

+1 for bob today!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Too bad that the SC dead voter myth has now also been busted. Each and every one of these "there's rampant voter fraud in this country" fairy tales turns out to be total garbage. Looking for a pattern? Well, this is one.

SC election officials push back on "dead voters"

NEW YORK - South Carolina election officials are rejecting the notion that people have voted hundreds of times using the names of dead people - a potential rash of voter fraud touted by proponents of the state's embattled photo voter ID law.

The The state election commission's findings is the result of a study investigating some of 953 votes allegedly cast in the name of dead voters over the past seven years.

The results are noteworthy because the Department of Justice recently rejected South Carolina's attempt to institute a new voter photo ID requirement aimed at curbing voter fraud.

The "dead voter" list was compiled by the state's department of motor vehicles last year as it tried to determine how many of the state's 2.7 million registered voters lacked a driver's license or another government-issued photo ID to determine how many would satisfy the state's controversial proposed voter ID law.

"We are relieved to find that in more than 95 percent of the cases we examined, there is no indication that votes were cast fraudulently," said Marci Andino, the election commission's executive director said in a written statement.

The DMV had found approximately 85,000 registered voters lacked a proper ID and also that around 37,000 registered voters were dead. Of the latter group, DMV Director Kevin Schwedo had said, votes have been cast in the names of 953 dead people in 74 different elections since 2005.

"Due to the size and scope of the task of examining every claim, the review was limited to 207 cases related to the 2010 general election," the state election commission said. "In 197 of these instances, the records show no indication of votes being cast fraudulently in the name of deceased voters."

Instead, the commission cited a bevy of clerical errors behind the records. For example, the commission called 91 cases "name recognition errors," such as marking a deceased "John Doe, Sr." as voting when "John Doe, Jr." actually voted. In 32 cases, poll managers "erroneously" gave people credit for voting when they hadn't, the commission said, while in 56 cases, voters the DMV thought were dead were actually still alive. There was "insufficient information" to solve 10 cases.

Andino vowed to "improve the quality of voter registration records and promote confidence in the voting system."

The attorney general's office commended the election's commission's work but did not buy its conclusion.

"As a prosecutorial office, we can't possibly pass the buck on any case having reviewed only 20 percent of the evidence," spokesman Mark Plowden said. "To give this state's election process the clean bill of health we would like, we can't simply rely on the review of some 200 of 950 records. That is unsatisfactory."

The voting records in question are still being investigated by the State Law Enforcement Division.

"When that agency's professional investigation is concluded, the state will have a final answer to this problem. This matter could potentially involve criminal activity," Plowden said.

DMV director Shwedo declined to comment.

Just two-and-half weeks ago, South Carolina sued the federal Justice Department for blocking implementation of the state's voter ID law, passed by a Republican-majority legislature and signed by Republican Governor Nikki Haley. Proponents say the measure will prevent voter fraud. Opponents argue voter fraud is rare and accuse Republicans of seeking to suppress turnout of minority, young, and elderly voters, Democratic-leaning constituencies more likely to lack a state driver's license or ID or express hardship in getting one.

In December, DOJ rejected the law contending it would have a discriminatory effect on black voters. The state's own data indicated blacks were 20 percent more likely to lack the required photo ID.

The law was not in effect during the presidential primary in January.

[Brother Hesekiel 2,236]

Being an outspoken supporter of having an acceptable photo ID when going to the polls (I would even require proof of citizenship when registering to vote), voter fraud is pretty much non-existent. Why? Simple: people who are unlawfully present in the U.S. as well as people who are here on a Green Card will not jeopardize their life as they know it in order to vote for a friggin' President.

[X Factor 1,112]

Being an outspoken supporter of having an acceptable photo ID when going to the polls (I would even require proof of citizenship when registering to vote), voter fraud is pretty much non-existent. Why? Simple: people who are unlawfully present in the U.S. as well as people who are here on a Green Card will not jeopardize their life as they know it in order to vote for a friggin' President.

Well said - I don't know why the politicians won't go for it.