Why are Democrats so gung ho on allowing voter fraud?

A couple of choice quotes from the linked article:

"Show me the examples of the problem you're trying to solve," demanded Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer, Maryland Democrat who accused Republicans of trying to appeal to the "fear and -- yes, perhaps -- the prejudices of people." A Republican cited a study by Johns Hopkins University that found 1,500 dead people who had voted in recent elections. Mr. Hoyer belittled the study, saying no criminal convictions for voter fraud had been won in any of those cases.

One more comment to add - while I'd love to see this get passed in the U.S. Senate, I seriously doubt it will. It's highly likely to be blocked (filibustered) there by the Democrats and would probably never see the light of day.

Of course I'd love to see the Democrats block it and have it become part of the fight over border security with the GOP pointing out that the Democrat efforts to block this has much to do with allowing illegals to vote and take advantage of our system. Perhaps that would inspire more response from the GOP voters and create a bit of a groundswell of support for getting rid of some of the obstructionists in the Senate.

Well if they require ID, then how will the illegals vote? And we all know the democrats need the illegals this coming election season.

And the snow birds that vote in the NE and in Fla.

So far I haven't heard one legitimate argument against requiring ID to vote. Most excuses are based on the idea that the poor and old are too stupid to be able to get an ID (even if given to them free and they have two years to take care of it).

Most excuses are based on the idea that the poor and old are too stupid to be able to get an ID (even if given to them free and they have two years to take care of it).

Now I don't want to disenfranchise anyone, but if that's the case, I don't really want them voting either!

i understand your side of this terp, and it does make some sense and hold some water. i don't appreciate the hyperbolic headline, but that's your perogative.

voting is a right, not a priveledge however. why does the NRA resist every attempt for the powers that be to regulate guns more? because, as they see it, owning a gun is a right. they need not show id to buy it, register it with the govt. etc, etc...

no one need show id to exercize their right of free speech, or religion, etc, etc...

now, no analogy is going to be perfect here, so please don't try to nitpick it, that's not why i am replying...but the overall theory is that things that are "rights" under our constitution should require as little in the ways of ID and such as that takes things from being a right to a priveledge at some point. at what point that happens, is up for debate of course. some say that a voter need not show id or anything to vote, it is their right and no one has the right to question that. some demand more accountability and don't trust any "honor system" that may be in place.

i'm not exactly sure where i stand on the issue. but that is hardly the only voter issue being discussed when it comes to fraud. and the other major fraud issue concerns electronic voting machines. and here, it is the GOP, not the democrats on the side of less accountability. so, your headline could have cited either party as being "for fraud" as you put it.

in that debate, one side says that in our "right to vote", we have the right to CONFIDENTIALLY vote for anyone we choose. the other side is saying that there must be a paper trail in light of the fact that these machines can be hacked. a princton university study recently showed how one line of machines used in multiple states, could be hacked in about 30 seconds.

when it comes down to it, these debates are actually tied in to one another. and it's funny how 1 party stands on the side of accountability on one issue, yet wants annonymity on the other. to try to paint the democrats as "being for fraud" exclusively, implying the GOP was for "truth and justice" is just intellectually dishonest.

one could argue, on the issue of the right of annonymity in voting, that in having to register to vote, one loses that.

fact is, the whole issue is a little more complex and delicate than it has been painted here.

democrats want a paper trail. republicans don't. does that mean the GOP is supporting fraud? or are they trying to protect the annonymity of the voter?

i'm not asking you to agree with the above stance against ID's, like i said, i'm still not decided on the issue myself. but you asked for the other side's argument, so i provided it. at least as i see it.

take care:)

Now I don't want to disenfranchise anyone, but if that's the case, I don't really want them voting either!

If the stupid could not vote, Palm Beach County would see a drastic reduction in the voter rolls.

one more note,,,there is an old philosophy most americans embrace when it comes to our legal system. in our criminal system, we require the burden of proof to be beyond a reasonable doubt. the old saying goes "better to let 10 guily people go free than to convict 1 innocent man." sometimes that gets a little messy, but on the whole, that is what our constitution dictates.

the same applies in voting some would argue..."better to let 10 unregistered voters vote than to deny 1 person their right to vote because they lacked an Id."

just another viewpoint. again, i'm not sayin i'm sold either way here, just presenting different viewpoints.

WHY has the GOP controlled congress and Bush NOT passed laws that REQUIRE a paper trail for all electronic voting?

WHY has the GOP controlled congress and Bush NOT passed laws that REQUIRE a paper trail for all electronic voting?

Quit it already with the blowhard b.s. here....

Just to disprove you quickly and easily enough - Governor Ehrlich, Republican, Maryland, a Bush supporter who has been championed by Bush as well, tried to get paper trails established in Maryland and was shot down by the Democratic legislature.

Has Bush not pushed hard enough for changes in the voting laws? Maybe, maybe not, but then again, as usual, it's not Bush that passes the laws - it is congress. Congress passes them, he signs them or vetos them. That's it for his involvement other than perhaps putting the bug into Congress' ears for programs that he'd like to see.

For the record, if you read the linked article, you'd see that the requirement for requiring this change -- and several others -- is coming from a BI-PARTISAN commission. It is one of several changes that have been proposed, and those other changes may (or may not) include the paper trails you seem to be demanding.

Also, for the record, I'd very much welcome the paper trail as it would obliterate complaints and accusations by idiots like yourself that elections were stolen and rigged. Of course that is also why Democrats don't want to make the changes that would be required because they'd lose out on potential issues to complain about.

Note to Sean Conners - the hyperbolic headline is there to do just what it apparently did for you, incite a reaction. The Democrats and liberals in the media use that tactic constantly so you'll have to forgive me while I borrow some pages from their big book of tricks and apply them for the good guys for a change.

Regarding the NRA, you'd find that there are plenty of very reasonable individuals out there that both support the NRA and support gun control requirements. I'm one of them. I have no problem at all requiring reasonable waiting periods, requiring mandatory background checks, requiring submission of finger prints, and obtaining of certified gun safety training before an individual may own a gun. I believe that almost everyone has the right to own a firearm if they so choose (excluding convicted felons, certified individuals with mental health issues, etc.), but I also believe that the right comes with a lot of responsibility and some requirements that must be fullfilled before the right can be exercised.

I believe many in the NRA would support such a stance, but they also fear the slippery slope of having more and more obstacles placed in the way of gun ownership. They fear that people will lose the right to firearm ownership as they have in New York City, the District of Columbia and other places that have basically outlawed gun ownership.

Regardless, the issues of making sure that voters are able to vote *once* and only once is very important. Making sure that the data integrity behind that vote is there is also vitally important. That's part of why I also believe that we need paper trails of some sort. Receipts that print some encrypted code on them that can be decyphered back into confirmation of the votes that were cast would be a good thing. Anything that helps to make sure that the system isn't tampered with by either side.

Unfortunately, lately, it seems that the Democrats are the ones that are demagogueing the issue and preventing realistic change from occuring, and again, to me it seems that it's a matter of them trying to preserve the ability to use voter fraud on their own behalf.

If somehow it could be written that all GOP voters must show 6 forms of I>D> and the Democrats zero, then the left would vote for showing ID>

Note to Sean Conners - the hyperbolic headline is there to do just what it apparently did for you, incite a reaction. The Democrats and liberals in the media use that tactic constantly so you'll have to forgive me while I borrow some pages from their big book of tricks and apply them for the good guys for a change.i know why ya did it, i wasn't asking...but again, to imply only 1 side does that is intellectually dishonest. all headlines are desined to "incite a reaction" that's why they are headlines. and this good guys vs bad guys thing is just the type of thing that keeps us divided.

Regarding the NRA, you'd find that there are plenty of very reasonable individuals out there that both support the NRA and support gun control requirements. I'm one of them
that really doesn't matter. the point is that the NRA platform rejects any form of accountability when it comes to guns. the NRA position is it's my right to own a gun and the goverment doesn't even have the right to know about it. people who feel the same way about the right to an annonymous vote feel the same way. that was the point.

I believe many in the NRA would support such a stance

no they don't. , certainly not a majority. thus, their position.

For the record, if you read the linked article, you'd see that the requirement for requiring this change -- and several others -- is coming from a BI-PARTISAN commission.

doesn't that kind of make your headline false? i assume a BI-PARTISAN commision consists of democrats too. have all votes on this issue been split down party line as the headline suggests? or have people of both parties taken stances on either side? while you have assumed party line splits on these issues, is that the case? again, this is the kind of talk that keeps us divided. treating another political party either overtly or in your head as "the enemy" will get us nowhere.

doesn't that kind of make your headline false? i assume a BI-PARTISAN commision consists of democrats too. have all votes on this issue been split down party line as the headline suggests? or have people of both parties taken stances on either side? while you have assumed party line splits on these issues, is that the case? again, this is the kind of talk that keeps us divided. treating another political party either overtly or in your head as "the enemy" will get us nowhere.

The commission may have been bi-partisan, but it hasn't stopped the Democrats in Congress, in the legislatures and courts in Georgia, and in the legislature in Maryland as examples from preventing the enaction of some of these very necessary reforms.


On this point:

i know why ya did it, i wasn't asking...but again, to imply only 1 side does that is intellectually dishonest. all headlines are desined to "incite a reaction"

I would hold that more often than not it's the left that uses the scare mongering headlines, sound bites and video clips to the detriment of all around them far more than does the right.

You have not explained WHY the GOP controlled Congress has not passed a law that REQUIRED a paper trail for electronic voting in Federal Elections!

Gene

You have not explained WHY the GOP controlled Congress has not passed a law that REQUIRED a paper trail for electronic voting in Federal Elections!

There you go, showing your total ignorance again. There are no Federal Elections in this country, there are 50 state elections, each with their own laws covering how they will be conducted.

Is there anything you do understand about our nation and how it works?

I would hold that more often than not it's the left that uses the scare mongering headlines, sound bites and video clips to the detriment of all around them far more than does the right.


i would respectfully disagree with this. but we can agree to disagree here, i don't see any minds being changed.

all i wanted to do was show the other side of the story. you challenged in your orig. post that no one could do that. i clearly did. that should have been the end of it.

now, if ya already knew the other side and wanted to debate it, that's another issue. but it seems to me that you wanted to trap someone into an argument (i.e. ... lookin for a fight) if you want to continue this, that's fine, but don't spend the rest of your time saying it's the other side that incites and such when that is exactly what you are doing. and if you think that's a unique move by " your side", again, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

have a nice day:)

Reply #10 WHY has the GOP controlled congress and Bush NOT passed laws that REQUIRE a paper trail for all electronic voting?

Reply #16 You have not explained WHY the GOP controlled Congress has not passed a law that REQUIRED a paper trail for electronic voting in Federal Elections!

I wonder how many votes the Democrats fear losing if voter ID was required?

and COL., i don't know you, but it seems to me you want to do the same,,,start a fight...and terp is right, there are no "federal elections" as it pertains here, our elections are 50 independent state elections which nominates the electoral college. but you are right that there are certain laws that are federal, such as the voting rights act, which is a federal statute.

as far as what kind of ballots and other methods of voting go, those things are still left up to the states, even more local in some cases.

they could change that and raising the national standard, but that seems as likely as the country abandoning the electoral college (which i am highly against, at least in it's present, unfair form).

the same applies in voting some would argue..."better to let 10 unregistered voters vote than to deny 1 person their right to vote because they lacked an Id."

That's a nonsensical argument because every time an illegal votes, someone else's vote is canceled out thus disenfranchised.

That's a nonsensical argument because every time an illegal votes, someone else's vote is canceled out thus disenfranchised.

Very wise words, that I doubt we will hear from the democrats. But that should be the campaign slogan for Voter ID (We have Voter ID here in Va. I was a bit surprised we did not make the list).

."better to let 10 unregistered voters vote than to deny 1 person their right to vote because they lacked an Id."

No, it's better to stop the 10 unregistered from voting and ensure all of the registered are permitted to vote.

The whole anti voter ID argument is based on sheer stupidity. There is no legitimate reason to fight against it. Yes, voting is a right but nowhere does the constitution of this nation say that one doesn't have to prove they are a citizen in order to receive their rights. Every single right privided under the constitution of this nation is dependant upon one single idea; citizenship. This is something that must be proven, not assumed.

I agree on needing ID in order to vote. I'm tired of the walking dead and people that meow and bark vote for presidents.

yes, I'm a Democrat.