McCain Strategist Admits Voter Fraud ‘Doesn’t Really Exist’

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Steve Schmidt, a former senior strategist to Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) 2008 presidential campaign, admitted that widespread voter fraud doesn't exist in the United States and claimed that the GOP-backed voter ID laws are based on "mythology."

Appearing on MSNBC on Monday morning, Schmidt derided the hysteria surrounding ineligible voters casting ballots:

SCHIMDT: I think that one of the things you always want to be for whether you're a Democrat or Republican, you want everyone who is eligible to vote to vote. That's how you want to win elections.

I think that all of this stuff that has transpired over the last two years is in search of a solution to a problem, voting fraud, that doesn't really exist when you look deeply at the question. It's part of the mythology now in the Republican Party that there's widespread voter fraud across the country

. In fact, there's not. Both sides are lawyered up to the nth degree and they'll all posture back and forth on it but it probably won't come down to lawyers.

Since 2000, there has been about

one case of voter impersonation per every 15 million votes cast

, according to a report from ProPublica, and even proponents of voter ID have

struggled

to identify cases of fraud. Meanwhile, state-based efforts forcing voters to produce picture identifications could

disproportionately disenfranchise

minorities who typically vote for Democratic candidates.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

ID laws do not disenfranchise anyone... THAT is the myth.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

ID laws do not disenfranchise anyone... THAT is the myth.

Where in the U.S. Constitution does it say you must have an ID to vote?

[Penny Lane 8,159]

It's 2012, you need an ID to do most things.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

It's 2012, you need an ID to do most things.

Voting is a right. It's different from opening a bank account or making a purchase.

[natty bumppo 297]

Where in the U.S. Constitution does it say you must have an ID to vote?

or purchase/ own a firearm ....

[Penny Lane 8,159]

Who doesn't have an ID? How do you go through life without a single piece of identification?

[Teddy B 17,252]

While I don't believe that voter fraud is a problem, there is also no excuse for any functioning member of society to not have an id.

If you're not a functioning member of society, you really shouldn't be voting.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Where in the U.S. Constitution does it say you must have an ID to vote?

Where in the constitution does it say I can't drive a car 150 mph up 1 75. Geez all you libtards. Are into the constitution all of a sudden

Voting is a right. It's different from opening a bank account or making a purchase.

The right to assemble and own firearms are both rights yet you need a permit for both inane cases

[DaveE 178]

Voting is a right. It's different from opening a bank account or making a purchase.

Voting for president is not a constitutional right. Read the decision in Bush V Gore.

“the individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote [for presidential electors].”

Right to vote

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Who doesn't have an ID? How do you go through life without a single piece of identification?

These voter ID laws are requiring voters have specific forms of ID. You can't just show them your utility bill with your home address. Most polling places ask that you verify yourself, which can be demonstrated in a myriad of ways, without the risk of denying your right to vote.

New York University's Brennan Center states that 21 million Americans who are eligible to vote lack sufficient identification and would be turned away from the ballot box for no other reason than a lack of sufficient ID.

Take for example Republican Scott Walker. Shortly after signing voter ID laws into place in his state of Wisconsin, he finalized plans to shut down 10 Department of Motor Vehicle offices, largely in districts with a Democratic majority.

http://www.thenorthw....com/?p=3865427

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Voting ID laws generally make sense......

....but what Steven says is true in that during this election cycle there is a clear jockeying to limit votes based on statistical analysis of voting records. I think the public would generally be more positive towards voting ID laws if they were geared up for 2014 or 2016 in a non partisan manner. If I'm not mistaken most of the laws were established in 2012 or late 2011.

Edited November 5, 2012 by Sousuke

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Voting ID laws generally make sense......

....but what Steven says is true in that during this election cycle there is a clear jockeying to limit votes based on statistical analysis of voting records. I think the public would generally be more positive towards voting ID laws if they were geared up for 2014 or 2016 in a non partisan manner. If I'm not mistaken most of the laws were established in 2012 or late 2011.

The assumption is that prior to these recent voter ID laws, anyone could go to polling place and claim they were someone else and be given a ballot and that is blatantly false. You have to demonstrate in some fashion that you are who you say you are, either by providing an photo ID, or a utility bill, for example. What these new voter ID laws require now, is that you must present a specific ID, which is current (not expired and has your current address on it). Here in Arizona, for example, my DL shows my previous address. When I moved, I reported my address change online, but if I'm pulled over or asked to show my DL, I am asked if that is my current address. With some of these voter ID laws, I could technically be turned away from voting.

But beyond that, there's this assumption that somehow, a government issued photo ID is the only full proof method to prevent a problem that doesn't statistically exist. It's a complete waste of resources. People who come to the polling places with reasonable verification is sufficient and has worked all these years.

As a registered voter, I thought I always had to supply some form of ID during an election.

Not quite. Per federal law, first-time voters who registered by mail must present a photo ID or copy of a current bill or bank statement. Some states generally advise voters bring some form of photo ID. But prior to the 2006 election, no state ever required a voter to produce a government-issued photo ID as a condition to voting.

http://www.propublic...t-voter-id-laws

Edited November 5, 2012 by Commie Appeaser

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

The assumption is that prior to these recent voter ID laws, anyone could go to polling place and claim they were someone else and be given a ballot and that is blatantly false. You have to demonstrate in some fashion that you are who you say you are, either by providing an photo ID, or a utility bill, for example. What these new voter ID laws require now, is that you must present a specific ID, which is current (not expired and has your current address on it). Here in Arizona, for example, my DL shows my previous address. When I moved, I reported my address change online, but if I'm pulled over or asked to show my DL, I am asked if that is my current address. With some of these voter ID laws, I could technically be turned away from voting.

But beyond that, there's this assumption that somehow, a government issued photo ID is the only full proof method to prevent a problem that doesn't statistically exist. It's a complete waste of resources. People who come to the polling places with reasonable verification is sufficient and has worked all these years.

http://www.propublic...t-voter-id-laws

Yes, I've heard of USCIS like problems for some voters (mostly older) getting the acceptable ID. Effectively if a state wants a strict ID law then they need to put in the framework to keep it open to all demographics in a non partisan way which will be very expensive.

I think when that expense is presented many states will rethink ID laws.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

The assumption is that prior to these recent voter ID laws, anyone could go to polling place and claim they were someone else and be given a ballot and that is blatantly false. You have to demonstrate in some fashion that you are who you say you are, either by providing an photo ID, or a utility bill, for example. What these new voter ID laws require now, is that you must present a specific ID, which is current (not expired and has your current address on it). Here in Arizona, for example, my DL shows my previous address. When I moved, I reported my address change online, but if I'm pulled over or asked to show my DL, I am asked if that is my current address. With some of these voter ID laws, I could technically be turned away from voting.

But beyond that, there's this assumption that somehow, a government issued photo ID is the only full proof method to prevent a problem that doesn't statistically exist. It's a complete waste of resources. People who come to the polling places with reasonable verification is sufficient and has worked all these years.

http://www.propublic...t-voter-id-laws

Rereading this, these laws are stricter than firearm purchases. I say this because another poster brought up firearms.

In California (which probably has the third strictest laws in the nation) if your ID has an old address you may present alternative paperwork showing the new address such as dmv auto registration, deed, rental contract etc. (utility bills typically do not meet the requirement)

Edited November 5, 2012 by Sousuke