2012 President?

[bleedorange]

No voter fraud period? OK, go with that. With absentee voting and satellite voting stations, it's a very hard crime to even observe, let alone report. Just because it isn't reported doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

 

You think being able to prove a person is who they claim to be is unreasonable, I disagree. You say that makes me uncaring. I say it wants me to make our elections more honest.

 

Why do we want to make it harder for people to vote? Because we want to know, beyond question, that those who vote are who they say they are. How expensive would it be for every state to issue FREE? Can't be too much here in Iowa. I assume the vast majority of us have drivers licenses, but for the state issues photo id's at the dmv for $5 good for five years. http://www.iowadot.g...d/ods/types.htm

 

Five damn dollars. A burden? Yes. Unreasonable? Come on. Earlier, I said this wasn't an important issue to me, but the more you argue your side, the least convinced I become.

 

The Supreme Court agrees with you. Plus, the Texas law would make the IDs free.

[KevinG]

No voter fraud period? OK, go with that. With absentee voting and satellite voting stations, it's a very hard crime to even observe, let alone report. Just because it isn't reported doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

 

Just because no one has seen bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster doesn't mean it exists too.

 

I can site studies that show that voter fraud is not occurring. Most current voting laws require proof of residency, etc (Utility bills, etc). That has worked for 50 plus years, and now all of sudden we need to pass voter ID laws to keep the integrity of the elections. It seems liked a ginned up thing

 

I agree with you the ID is not a burden for most americans. But yes it is a burden to some, (getting off worked, taking public transit to the DMV, etc.). You are extremely lucky to be in a place where you do not have to worry about the ID and its cost. But you know some people aren't as lucky as you, some can't take off the time from work to go to the DMV, etc.

 

So I will ask a question again, why do you want to make it harder for people to vote? Do you really think there are thousands of people voting multiple times? Why all of sudden is voter ID so important?

[uncool2pillow]

The Supreme Court agrees with you. Plus, the Texas law would make the IDs free.

I looked up NY just to see what other states do. It's a bit more expensive there, depending upon the length of time you want the ID to be valid. Around 3-5 dollars a year. http://www.dmv.ny.gov/broch/c-33.htm

 

I already answered the question. It may not have satisfied you, but I answered it.

[bleedorange]

It's also a burden for some to actually vote. I say, in order to make sure that everyone's constitutional right to vote is guaranteed, each county should be responsible for installing red and blue buttons in the kitchen of each residence. (For those residences without kitchens, the buttons should be installed by the nearest hot plate.) Then on election day, all a person would need to do is walk to the button of his or her choice and press it.

 

For those that can't walk or otherwise move with crutches or a wheelchair, the county can hire someone to go into those homes and press the button for that resident. Look! I just created some jobs. Government jobs, no less.

[Beltmann]

My view is that our elections must have integrity. Voter fraud interferes with that integrity, and therefore serious steps must be taken to prevent fraud (that includes concerns with computerized ballot counts, which is a major topic for another time). At the same time, voter suppression also interferes with that integrity. How can we have trust in our elections if, due to various barriers, eligible voters are systematically denied the opportunity to participate? The current crop of tighter voter ID laws and the reckless purging of voter rolls seem to be trading one evil (voter fraud) for a much greater evil (large-scale voter suppression). This is intensified by the fact that there is zero empirical evidence of widespread fraud, but plenty of empirical evidence of widespread suppression. That is a far more pervasive assault on the integrity of our elections--and far more nefarious, since it is an institutional subversion of democracy.

 

In short, I'm not opposed to voter ID, as long as it is free, easy, and truly barrier-free. (How do we do that? I don't know, but I'm sure we could figure it out.) But I'm exponentially more concerned about voter suppression than about individual vote fraud, and I'm suspicious of the real motives of anyone who expresses belief in voter ID but then expresses little concern about voter suppression.

 

When people dismiss concerns about the difficulty of obtaining ID, it always sounds an awful lot like: "Well, these barriers won't affect the better voters, and if people don't have ID, they probably don't deserve to vote, anyway." Those attitudes reveal a lack of awareness of the problem for many voters. Worse, those attitudes are, to me, a serious violation of American democratic principles.

 

Why Don't Millions of Americans Have ID?

[IRememberDBoon]

anyone who thinks republicans are pushing voter ID laws to make sure theres no fraud must buy gold from glen beck

[IRememberDBoon]

can folks that are for IDs tell me how the fraud would work without an ID? I dont understand??

[uncool2pillow]

My view is that our elections must have integrity. Voter fraud interferes with that integrity, and therefore serious steps must be taken to prevent fraud (that includes concerns with computerized ballot counts, which is a major topic for another time). At the same time, voter suppression also interferes with that integrity. How can we have trust in our elections if, due to various barriers, eligible voters are systematically denied the opportunity to participate? The current crop of tighter voter ID laws and the reckless purging of voter rolls seem to be trading one evil (voter fraud) for a much greater evil (large-scale voter suppression). This is intensified by the fact that there is zero empirical evidence of widespread fraud, but plenty of empirical evidence of widespread suppression. That is a far more pervasive assault on the integrity of our elections--and far more nefarious, since it is an institutional subversion of democracy.

 

In short, I'm not opposed to voter ID, as long as it is free, easy, and truly barrier-free. (How do we do that? I don't know, but I'm sure we could figure it out.) But I'm exponentially more concerned about voter suppression than about individual vote fraud, and I'm suspicious of the real motives of anyone who expresses belief in voter ID but then expresses little concern about voter suppression.

 

When people dismiss concerns about the difficulty of obtaining ID, it always sounds an awful lot like: "Well, these barriers won't affect the better voters, and if people don't have ID, they probably don't deserve to vote, anyway." Those attitudes reveal a lack of awareness of the problem for many voters. Worse, those attitudes are, to me, a serious violation of American democratic principles.

 

Why Don't Millions of Americans Have ID?

You make a lot of sense here. As much as you do talking about the films of Wes Anderson. But we don't have to go back all that far in history to see the serious impact of voting fraud.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1960#Controversies

 

It seems that in the information age, there is a reasonable way to provide integrity in both senses -- authenticity and open polls. Inexpensive, accessible ID's, and accurate rosters of registered voters.

 

 

can folks that are for IDs tell me how the fraud would work without an ID? I dont understand??

It would be quite simple where I vote. The volunteers are gentle, older folks who are quite trusting. As voters come in, they highlight their info on the roster. I come in, take a quick look at the roll (it wouldn't be that hard to do), pick an unhighlighted name, say I'm that person, and vote. It could become much more systematic and sophisticated. If someone had access to voting history decided to distribute names of registered voters unlikely to vote based upon their voting history and send people out to vote from precinct to precinct. It may sound as paranoid as Panther, but an ID check is a simple way to prevent such a thing.

[IRememberDBoon]

It would be quite simple where I vote. The volunteers are gentle, older folks who are quite trusting. As voters come in, they highlight their info on the roster. I come in, take a quick look at the roll (it wouldn't be that hard to do), pick an unhighlighted name, say I'm that person, and vote. It could become much more systematic and sophisticated. If someone had access to voting history decided to distribute names of registered voters unlikely to vote based upon their voting history and send people out to vote from precinct to precinct. It may sound as paranoid as Panther, but an ID check is a simple way to prevent such a thing.

 

 

so every election in history until now has been rigged? one by one people are looking at voting rosters and stealing spots??!! good lord man you would have to have one hell of a crew to pull that one

[Beltmann]

If someone had access to voting history decided to distribute names of registered voters unlikely to vote based upon their voting history and send people out to vote from precinct to precinct. It may sound as paranoid as Panther, but an ID check is a simple way to prevent such a thing.

I've imagined different scenarios about how I could fake a vote. For example, my neighbor recently moved. I know he's still on my district's rolls, but won't be voting in my district. I could easily show up and claim to be him, and then later show up for my own vote. Why don't I do this? Because it's wrong, yes, but also because it's risky--it doesn't pass the cost-benefit test. Why would I risk being caught doing such a thing when that one vote isn't going to change the outcome? It's paranoid to think that these kinds of fraud are happening en masse. Yes, it's possible. But a far more likely scenario is that for every single fraud prevented by voter ID, there will be 500 (pick a number) eligible votes prevented, too. It's like treating a runny nose with cancer.

[LouieB]

Ya gotta give Romney some props for showing up at the NAACP and dissing Obamacare. That takes some balls. Mostly it is a dog whistle to his constituents that he isn't afraid of colored people.

 

LouieB

[uncool2pillow]

Last word on the subject from me, most likely. Like I said, it's really not important to me. While documented voter fraud is low now, one of the reasons why is it's difficult to prove. If I'm a registered voter who usually doesn't vote. How would I ever know someone is voting in my name?? There are historical cases of serious voter fraud, see the Wikipedia link about the 1960 election.

 

The potential exists for a great deal of fraud to be perpetrated when voter rolls contain the names of lots of dead people is huge. Because it hasn't happened in the recent past doesn't mean it cannot.

 

Low cost photo IDs are available in my state and a couple of others I researched. If a photo ID law passes and is well publicized, I do not view it as a "cancer".

 

One note in support of the opponents. When reading up on this last night, I came across a right wing article. In the comments section, one person said "You need a photo ID to do just about anything, even get on a plane." It made me chuckle to think about a person who's so disconnected from poverty to realize that many, many people never get on an airplane.

[KevinG]

Ya gotta give Romney some props for showing up at the NAACP and dissing Obamacare. That takes some balls. Mostly it is a dog whistle to his constituents that he isn't afraid of colored people.

 

LouieB

 

I was listening to Bill Press this morning and he made some really good comments. One of the points was he gave the same speech he has been giving all along, with the simple message I am going to repeal Obamacare. He really missed an opportunity to speak to the African American Community. He could have pointed out that Obama is not speaking to the NAACP and he is (pointing out that Obama is taking the black vote for granted, and he will do x y and z for African Americans and the American people), instead he was just speaking to speak not to the group. It enforced my belief that little substance.

 

Though I think it was highly disrespectful of the audience to boo, when he mentioned repeal. You may not like what he has to say, but your group invited him to speak you listen to what he has to say. The NAACP is a powerful organization can express their views in better and more constructive ways.

[Sweet Papa Crimbo]

I was listening to Bill Press this morning and he made some really good comments. One of the points was he gave the same speech he has been giving all along, with the simple message I am going to repeal Obamacare. He really missed an opportunity to speak to the African American Community. He could have pointed out that Obama is not speaking to the NAACP and he is (pointing out that Obama is taking the black vote for granted, and he will do x y and z for African Americans and the American people), instead he was just speaking to speak not to the group. It enforced my belief that little substance.

 

Though I think it was highly disrespectful of the audience to boo, when he mentioned repeal. You may not like what he has to say, but your group invited him to speak you listen to what he has to say. The NAACP is a powerful organization can express their views in better and more constructive ways.

 

Does anybody really think that ANYTHING Romney says or does will win anything remotely resembling a less than nominal portion of the African American vote?

Really?

He stated his message and the NAACP rudely received him. What else is new?

 

Last word on the subject from me, most likely. Like I said, it's really not important to me. While documented voter fraud is low now, one of the reasons why is it's difficult to prove. If I'm a registered voter who usually doesn't vote. How would I ever know someone is voting in my name?? There are historical cases of serious voter fraud, see the Wikipedia link about the 1960 election.

 

The potential exists for a great deal of fraud to be perpetrated when voter rolls contain the names of lots of dead people is huge. Because it hasn't happened in the recent past doesn't mean it cannot.

 

Low cost photo IDs are available in my state and a couple of others I researched. If a photo ID law passes and is well publicized, I do not view it as a "cancer".

 

One note in support of the opponents. When reading up on this last night, I came across a right wing article. In the comments section, one person said "You need a photo ID to do just about anything, even get on a plane." It made me chuckle to think about a person who's so disconnected from poverty to realize that many, many people never get on an airplane.

 

Get on a plane, cash a check, rent a video, buy alcohol or cigarettes in a grocery store...

 

Who would have thought that the NAACP and Kansas City baseball fans would both show such rude behavior?

[KevinG]

 

One note in support of the opponents. When reading up on this last night, I came across a right wing article. In the comments section, one person said "You need a photo ID to do just about anything, even get on a plane." It made me chuckle to think about a person who's so disconnected from poverty to realize that many, many people never get on an airplane.

 

This really was the point I have been trying make when you slammed me for being holier than thou. A lot of American's are disconnected to what it is like to be poor. It is easy for most Americans to have an ID, but for some it is not. People see getting an ID as no big deal so these laws are ok.

 

Also you keep bringing up 1960 election, which was ripe with voter fraud. However the fraud was most from the political machine, having the dead vote, stuffing the ballot box, crooked poll workers etc. How would voter ID have solved this?

[uncool2pillow]

This really was the point I have been trying make when you slammed me for being holier than thou. A lot of American's are disconnected to what it is like to be poor. It is easy for most Americans to have an ID, but for some it is not. People see getting an ID as no big deal so these laws are ok.

 

Also you keep bringing up 1960 election, which was ripe with voter fraud. However the fraud was most from the political machine, having the dead vote, stuffing the ballot box, crooked poll workers etc. How would voter ID have solved this?

Since I was asked a direct question, I guess it wasn't my last word...

 

1) By lumping me and other supporters of this bill in with all people who support it shows me exactly how holier than thou your original post was. You seem to show your assumption that anyone who supports the bill must be completely ignorant about conditions of those who live in poverty.

 

2) I don't know much about the tactics used in the old days of political machines. I kind of imagine a group of people in a warehouse filling out ballots and to be added later with the authentic ballots. I assume there are FEC laws and procedures in place that prevent that sort of fraud. So let's say I want to corrupt an election today... I get access to voting records. I believe these are public and -- as someone who rarely misses an election day of any sort -- the reason I am targeted for lots and lots of phone calls. Instead of having a group of people stuffing ballots in an empty warehouse. I give people lists of registered voters who rarely vote and the precincts in which they are registered. They spend the day driving from precinct to precinct voting all day long. Polls are open in Iowa (I think) 7 AM - 9 PM. Assume I can cast 2-3 votes an hour and there's 50-100 people doing the exact same thing.

 

As I type this, I go back and forth between it seeming implausible or not. I'm not really sure. But, again, while I acknowledge that millions don't have photo ID's, I don't think it's an unreasonable burden to get one. Is there impure motivation behind supporting these laws? Sure. But that doesn't make the law itself a bad idea.

[KevinG]

Since I was asked a direct question, I guess it wasn't my last word...

 

1) By lumping me and other supporters of this bill in with all people who support it shows me exactly how holier than thou your original post was. You seem to show your assumption that anyone who supports the bill must be completely ignorant about conditions of those who live in poverty.

 

2) I don't know much about the tactics used in the old days of political machines. I kind of imagine a group of people in a warehouse filling out ballots and to be added later with the authentic ballots. I assume there are FEC laws and procedures in place that prevent that sort of fraud. So let's say I want to corrupt an election today... I get access to voting records. I believe these are public and -- as someone who rarely misses an election day of any sort -- the reason I am targeted for lots and lots of phone calls. Instead of having a group of people stuffing ballots in an empty warehouse. I give people lists of registered voters who rarely vote and the precincts in which they are registered. They spend the day driving from precinct to precinct voting all day long. Polls are open in Iowa (I think) 7 AM - 9 PM. Assume I can cast 2-3 votes an hour and there's 50-100 people doing the exact same thing.

 

As I type this, I go back and forth between it seeming implausible or not. I'm not really sure. But, again, while I acknowledge that millions don't have photo ID's, I don't think it's an unreasonable burden to get one. Is there impure motivation behind supporting these laws? Sure. But that doesn't make the law itself a bad idea.

 

I knew that wasn't going to be your last word.

 

Yes your assumption is correct, when you think it is not an unreasonable burden to get an ID, I don't think you understand the conditions of those who live in poverty. I guess I am holier than thou. I guess I have to change my user name to Pope Keving II.

 

Beltmann I think put it best, when he stated (and I am paraphrasing here) that election fraud occurs, but not on the level to warrant the potential disenfranchisement of thousands (millions of people).

 

It is an unnecessary law, trying to solve a problem that isn't there, and potentially striping the rights of US citizens, that makes the law a bad idea. If voter fraud was rampant and we several irregular votes etc, then we might need to look for ways of stoping it, but it simply is not happening.

 

Also your plan for rigging the election in Iowa although clever, probably won't work. take your 100 volunteers at 3 votes an hour and polls being open for 14 hours that is 4,200 votes, hardly going to swing Iowa for any candidate (Obama won Iowa by 150,000 votes). Even if it was a close election a recount would be held (where election workers contact those who voted and say did you vote, and match that number to the actual votes your plan would be found out.

 

Voter fraud is more likely to occur through the political machine and intimation then it is multiple people voting or voting under the wrong name.

 

I always thought the best way to combat voter fraud is the way they did it in Iraq. You dip your thumb in ink. That way you can't have multiple votes.

 

That is my last word on the subject, I guess. But saying that I am sure someone will say something that I will take offense to and I will have to get on my Mitre and drop some holier than thou knowledge on your uncaring and stupid asses (now if I could just find the sarcasm button on the internet.)

[uncool2pillow]

I knew that wasn't going to be your last word.

 

Your name shouldn't be Pope Keving II, it should be Nostra-fucking-damus. You knew it wouldn't be the last word after you asked me a direct question. Wow! Who should I bet on to win the next Super Bowl?? You really are a piece of work.

 

Also your plan for rigging the election in Iowa although clever, probably won't work. take your 100 volunteers at 3 votes an hour and polls being open for 14 hours that is 4,200 votes, hardly going to swing Iowa for any candidate (Obama won Iowa by 150,000 votes). Even if it was a close election a recount would be held (where election workers contact those who voted and say did you vote, and match that number to the actual votes your plan would be found out.

Voter fraud is more likely to occur through the political machine and intimation then it is multiple people voting or voting under the wrong name.

 

I always thought the best way to combat voter fraud is the way they did it in Iraq. You dip your thumb in ink. That way you can't have multiple votes.

 

That is my last word on the subject, I guess.

 

I agree with a lot of this. Especially what they did in Iraq. But one question... (direct question, feel free to respond w/o me calling you out for going back on your last word statement). Let's say the type of fraud I suggest was used in Florida in 2000. Lots of big cities in an incredibly tight election. An easily swayed election. It wouldn't have worked in the Iowa Caucus as the are simultaneous meetings and a person can only be in one place at a time, but that was another incredibly close election, as many are today, and not just, of course, at the presidential level.

[gogo]

Article in The Nation on the Texas law: http://www.thenation.com/blog/168784/discriminatory-texas-voter-id-law-challenged-federal-court#

 

"Hispanics in Texas, who vote solidly Democratic, are not only more likely to lack ID compared to white voters, but will have a harder time obtaining the voter ID required by the state. There are DMV offices in only eighty-one of the state’s 254 counties. Not surprisingly, counties with a significant Hispanic population are less likely to have a DMV office, while Hispanic residents in such counties are twice as likely as whites to not have the right ID. Hispanics in Texas are also twice as likely as whites to not have a car. “During the legislative hearings, one senator stated that some voters in his district could have to travel up to 176 miles roundtrip in order to reach a driver’s license office,” wrote DOJ."

[uncool2pillow]

See now, the presentation of facts like this are much more useful in this discussion. Thanks for bringing that article to my attention. THAT is an unreasonable burden.

[ih8music]

Article in The Nation on the Texas law: http://www.thenation...-federal-court#

 

Thank you for that article. I was looking for numbers like these:

 

Wrote Assistant Attorney General Tom Perez:

We conclude that the total number of registered voters who lack a driver’s license or personal identification card issued by DPS could range from

603,892 to 795,955.

The disparity between the percentages of Hispanics and non-Hispanics who lack these forms of identification ranges from 46.5 to 120.0 percent. That is, according to the state’s own data, a Hispanic registered voter is at least 46.5 percent, and potentially 120.0 percent, more likely than a non-Hispanic registered voter to lack this identification.

 

In court today, the Justice Department argued that the number of voters without ID is, in fact, double what the state estimated. “At least 1.4 million registered voters in Texas lack any form of state-issued ID accepted under [the law], and those voters are disproportionately Hispanic and black,” said DOJ lawyer Elizabeth Westfall.

 

It sounds like a significantly more widespread problem than I thought.

[KevinG]

Your name shouldn't be Pope Keving II, it should be Nostra-fucking-damus. You knew it wouldn't be the last word after you asked me a direct question. Wow! Who should I bet on to win the next Super Bowl?? You really are a piece of work.

 

 

 

I agree with a lot of this. Especially what they did in Iraq. But one question... (direct question, feel free to respond w/o me calling you out for going back on your last word statement). Let's say the type of fraud I suggest was used in Florida in 2000. Lots of big cities in an incredibly tight election. An easily swayed election. It wouldn't have worked in the Iowa Caucus as the are simultaneous meetings and a person can only be in one place at a time, but that was another incredibly close election, as many are today, and not just, of course, at the presidential level.

 

Pillow, you really get worked up. Take a deep breath and settle down now.

 

I was joking when I said I knew it wasn't gonna be your last comment. On the internet there are never any last comments, everyone thinks of something else or feels the need to respond to something. Sarcasm does not come over the internets very well. I at times been infuriated by your comments, but have enjoyed the discussion, you brought up some well thought out salient points. I just happen to disagree with you on the assertion that getting an ID is not a burden on people. Unfortunately you thought I came off as smug (which has happened before) and pompous. It was never my intent, but so be it. I think we would have a much better discussion over a couple of beers rather than over the the forum, but I ain't coming to Iowa anytime soon.

 

GoGo thank you for the article on Texas, yes the facts do help much more then my ramblings.

 

We can continue to debate if it is an undue burden to get an ID, but that was never my intent. When I started this discussion I wanted to point out that these laws are purely political, done to give Mitt Romeny and other GOP candidates an advantage in November. Voter fraud, while it may or may not occur, it is not the rampant problem that is destroying the integrity of our elections. Integrity of an election is comprised when laws are put in place that prevent people from voting. I feel the laws in place work, and our elections are clean and should be trusted. There is no legitimate reason to put an extra burden on the electorate.

[bleedorange]

I still don't have a problem with requiring an ID to vote. I think the solution for some of these instances is to make it less of a burden to obtain one, not eliminate the entire requirement.

[uncool2pillow]

Of course, bleedorange, that would lead to more government spending. Imagine how much in Texas. Big state, lots of DMV stations needed. A more efficient means might be mobile stations open once a month or so. Is it worth it to raise taxes to pay for this? Something for fiscal conservatives to think about. In Iowa, we have 99 counties, in pretty small land area. I'm pretty sure each has a DMV office, though I'm not sure. I would not oppose a photo ID law under those circumstances.

 

KevinG, really the only reason I got worked up -- again I'm pretty open and not terribly passionate about this issue -- was what I sense as a condescending tone epitomized here.

 

Too bad we don't think about others.

 

It seems to me, instead of wanting to engage in a thoughtful discussion, you wanted to lump all opposing viewpoints in this case as uncaring. Gogo and Beltmann brought facts and thoughtful ideas and did a lot to inform my flexible point of view. Your arrogance (possibly sarcastic arrogance that I didn't pick up on, you even defended your arrogance at one point) made me want to dig in my heels. Kind of proves what we learn in high school about persuasive writing and speaking.

 

I generally enjoy political dialogue in person and online. I tend to gravitate towards people with opposing views because I like to be challenged. And sometimes I find myself arguing a point of view I don't even necessarily support because I see such weak arguments being made and I feel a need to call them out. A lot of my old HS friends on FB probably think I've changed from a raging conservative to a loopy liberal because of the statements I've made there. It's probably hard for you to imagine anyone thinking of me as liberal at all. Of course, what do we really know about anyone we "know" on a message board?

[Beltmann]

I give people lists of registered voters who rarely vote and the precincts in which they are registered. They spend the day driving from precinct to precinct voting all day long. Polls are open in Iowa (I think) 7 AM - 9 PM. Assume I can cast 2-3 votes an hour and there's 50-100 people doing the exact same thing.

If this was an effective strategy, you would have different organizations working from the same list of registered voters. The likely outcome would not be a swayed election, but a lot of fraudulent voters showing up trying to vote under the name of someone who (oops) was already used by another fraudulent voter. Consider my earlier example of my neighbor who moved. Sure, I could show up and vote under his name. But what if my other neighbor tried the same thing, and beat me to it? Now I'm in serious trouble. My guess? If attempted on a massive scale, these types of strategies would end up in a lot of awkward moments, and a lot of prosecuted cases of election fraud, voter ID or no voter ID. Which is just one reason why it simply doesn't happen en masse.

 

Meaningful fraud happens instead at a systematic level. For example, we should be very concerned about how electronic voting machines can be tampered with and programmed to swing votes, especially in light of a long list of evidence suggesting that kind of fraud happens regularly. I just don't understand why those who are passionate about voter ID are so willing to look the other way when it comes to much more pressing and widespread violations of election integrity. (Mathematician Richard Charnin, for example, has written extensively about the so-called Red Shift, which is worth a google.)

 

Again, I'm not opposed to voter ID in theory, as long as it truly is free, easy, and barrier-free. If no suppression happens, then I'm all for it. But I also think we have far larger problems, and I think there's a reason why our political machines are cynically using the voter ID issue to distract us from those problems.