"We're Trying To Keep Our Voting Rights! Thousands March Against New Voter ID Laws"
- Thread starter deprave
- Start date
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
What if John Smith registers and votes for 10 people across 10 polling booths and only 4 of the other real people show up. John Smith now has 6 registered votes for his candidate.
Your method would only work if 100% of people voted and the actual count is usually around 50% or less.
MuyLocoNC
Well-Known Member
Spot on. And it's only one of the ways it can be done. And everyone always equates this to Presidential elections. The real area that is susceptible is the smaller, local elections, where even fewer people vote. It doesn't even matter how prevalent the problem is, it's just common sense to somehow verify that you are who you say you are before you get to vote for that person.
The previous poster is correct, we don't have a right to vote, therefore, mandatory ID verification as a requirement should be allowed for that privilege. They make you have an ID to drive a car, as of this moment they can force me to buy health insurance, hard to argue against requiring ID to vote. Maybe they can find a way to abstrusely classify voting as "commerce". I'm being factitious, but the absense of commerce is now commerce and legal contracts are now inconsequential under this administration, so anything is possible.
WillyBagseed
Active Member
ID's for voting
ID's to use CC's
ID's for buying a Flight Ticket
etc... etc..
That's it, keep willingly giving your rights away a little at a time..........................
ID's to use CC's
ID's for buying a Flight Ticket
etc... etc..
That's it, keep willingly giving your rights away a little at a time..........................
MuyLocoNC
Well-Known Member
Willyßagseed;6773914 said:
Except, none of those are rights. Privileges and commerce is all I see. You sure have to produce an ID to write or cash a check, no one seems to bitch about that. I'm also unclear where it's stated we have a right to anonymity, privacy sure, but identifying yourself to partake in regulated and restricted civil actions is hardly an invasion of privacy. Now if they gave an IQ test, sanity screening or forced you to provide medical records, I'd be right there with ya.
WillyBagseed
Active Member
Actually according to ALL major credit card contracts with merchants, you have the right to not show an ID.
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 and Congress amended this in 1982, prohibiting any voting practice or procedure that has a discriminatory result.
Sooooo..................... next please...................
I am talking about not having to show your papers.
Either you do not give a shit on how this country has changed in the last 30 years or you are too young to know.
I do not show ID at King Soopers or my local general store to write a check, you used to be able to walk into an airport, buy a ticket and go with no ID.
I have never been carded for an ID when I mail my bills paying by check.
I have never been carded for an ID when paying with an e-check online.
I do understand that ID may be required to write a check tho, there is no contract stating you cannot require it and no signature to compare to.
You must not realize how much the American citizen has lost... just a little at a time........ Keep it up, you will wake up one day asking WTF...............
If this ID thing is ok with you then you must be for:
Smart meters ( you choose to take your power from a provider, don't like it get solar or a generator)
Red light cameras
Speed cameras
ID and search at airports ( you do not have to fly and you are accepting search to fly)
Road side checkpoints (driving is a privilege not a right)
and a whole lot more......
None of this is the America I grew up in.
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Ben Franklin
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 and Congress amended this in 1982, prohibiting any voting practice or procedure that has a discriminatory result.
Sooooo..................... next please...................
I am talking about not having to show your papers.
Either you do not give a shit on how this country has changed in the last 30 years or you are too young to know.
I do not show ID at King Soopers or my local general store to write a check, you used to be able to walk into an airport, buy a ticket and go with no ID.
I have never been carded for an ID when I mail my bills paying by check.
I have never been carded for an ID when paying with an e-check online.
I do understand that ID may be required to write a check tho, there is no contract stating you cannot require it and no signature to compare to.
You must not realize how much the American citizen has lost... just a little at a time........ Keep it up, you will wake up one day asking WTF...............
If this ID thing is ok with you then you must be for:
Smart meters ( you choose to take your power from a provider, don't like it get solar or a generator)
Red light cameras
Speed cameras
ID and search at airports ( you do not have to fly and you are accepting search to fly)
Road side checkpoints (driving is a privilege not a right)
and a whole lot more......
None of this is the America I grew up in.
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Ben Franklin
MuyLocoNC
Well-Known Member
Willyßagseed;6774033 said:
I think you're either too new to the forum or you're caught up in the heat of the moment, because you're forgetting who you're interacting with. I'm with you completely on most of your points, however, you're off on the not showing my papers comparison.
As to the others:
Smart meters - bad, invasion of privacy in your home
Red light cameras - all for them, public roads
Speed cameras - let's get more of them, same argument
Id & search at airports - I haven't flown since '90 but ID hell yeah, searches over the top as they are now
Roadside checkpoints - Drunk driver checkpoints... no problem with it at all, public roads
I'm a fairly staunch conservative on most topics, except the social issues, but I don't let that get in my way. I try to approach each topic with an open mind and select my position based on common sense. As many will tell you, I'm against government intrusion at the Federal level, but at the state level, you go with what works. Driving is a privilege and can be regulated by the states in any way the majority sees fit, that's it, it ain't debatable. Allowing voting without confirmation of identity strikes me as just plain stupid. Unless they come up with another way to ensure accuracy and legitimacy. I'd support whatever works best.
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
It is not an invasion of privacy to be identified. If it were then social security numbers would be illegal.
I agree with MuyLocoNC about it being stupid for no identification being required to vote. It has been shown how simple it is to cheat the system if this were in place. And history has shown that people who can cheat the system will cheat they system. There is plenty of history to prove this to be the case.
People who cheat the system erode my legitimate vote and that is why I am for voter ID.
I agree with MuyLocoNC about it being stupid for no identification being required to vote. It has been shown how simple it is to cheat the system if this were in place. And history has shown that people who can cheat the system will cheat they system. There is plenty of history to prove this to be the case.
People who cheat the system erode my legitimate vote and that is why I am for voter ID.
WillyBagseed
Active Member
If you read up on studies, election fraud far outpaces any voter fraud. I would think that electronic voting with no paper trail would be more of a concern than voter ID.
I never said no confirmation of identity, I said no ID. An ID is not needed to confirm somebodies identity. If states gave away free ID's, I wouldn't like having to show an ID to vote but would go with it.
I never said no confirmation of identity, I said no ID. An ID is not needed to confirm somebodies identity. If states gave away free ID's, I wouldn't like having to show an ID to vote but would go with it.
WillyBagseed
Active Member
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 and amendment in 1982 prohibits any voting practice or procedure that has a discriminatory result.
Believe it or not, some of your fellow Americans can't afford the $25.00. Way to be an American............... lol
Some Driving rights cases.
"The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.
"The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon,either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will,but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompsonv. Smith, 154 SE 579. It could not be stated more directly or conclusively that citizens of the states have a common law right to travel, without approval or restriction (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S. Constitution.
"The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without dueprocess of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v.Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.
"The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right." Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287,225 F2d 938, at 941.
WillyBagseed
Active Member
All I posted was "some driving rights cases"
Nowhere will you find me stating I do not think you need to have a licence.
Those are all copied cases and statements, none being mine except on voter ID.
Nowhere will you find me stating I do not think you need to have a licence.
Those are all copied cases and statements, none being mine except on voter ID.
WillyBagseed
Active Member
So, are you saying people who can afford to vote are the only people who should vote?
My opinion on:
Smart meters - Altho I do not like them it is not an invasion of privacy, you do not have to get power from a provider, you choose to get power from them. (being devils advocate here)
Red light and Speed cameras - I have had a few tickets from these and have never paid for one. Studies show they cause more accidents than they prevent and many cities are ripping them out, they are for more government income only. Are you really the type of person to snitch out your wife, child or friend driving your car or even yourself? You do not have to pay unless you get served (at least in Colorado, they have 90 days to serve you) Make it cost as much as possible to waste my time.
Roadside checkpoints: I always refuse any breathalyzer and demand a blood test, take me in so after I pass again it costs you more to fuck with me.
If I get pulled over for speeding or doing something illegal I will take the breathalyzer if asked NP, but random checkpoints can kiss my ass.
Again, my freedoms are worth more to me than convenience.
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
Willyßagseed;6774387 said:
I am saying that people who can provide ID are the only people who should vote.
You are whining that it is not free. Well, citizenship here in the USA isnt free. And soon with Obama care it will be alot less free.
I am truly sorry that you feel your citizenship is worth less than 10 bucks. Maybe it is a good idea if you didnt vote...
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
So enforcing road traffic laws like speeding, red lights and breath-testing people is a "waste of your time" is it?Willyßagseed;6774387 said:
No offense but how is it in anyway an affront to your freedom to require ID to vote/drive? These arnt fundamental rights you're being denied, if you want to travel your rights say you can walk. Nowhere do you have the right to vote either, hence why children can't vote.
If you want to be truely 100% free go live off the land in a forest, cos every modern society has certain criteria.
WillyBagseed
Active Member
So more accidents from cameras and more income for the government and the private industry that runs them for city govs.is good and poor people can't vote............ you two are awesome freaking Americans.
A 2005 federal study demonstrated that while injuries from right angle or T-bone crashes decreased by 16 percent at red-light camera intersections, injuries from rear-end collisions increased by 24 percent.
The final argument in the debate in Los Angeles may have already been decided by the courts. The courts have ruled that violations caught on a photo are unenforceable since there is no live witness to testify against an alleged offender.
I myself can and do vote, have ID and do not worry about it. You must be out of touch with reality to think all Americans, old , poor etc... can afford even $10.00 more and the time to get there.
If we are all about laws then WTF is your problem claiming you need ID's to vote ? Make ID's free for the poor or, do not require them or... STFU.
The law is the LAW, you cannot put in place ANY requirement to vote that is discriminatory.
What part of this do you not understand?
Voting Rights Act 1965
Section 2 contains a general prohibition on voting discrimination, enforced through federal district court litigation. Congress amended this section in 1982, prohibiting any voting practice or procedure that has a discriminatory result.
The final argument in the debate in Los Angeles may have already been decided by the courts. The courts have ruled that violations caught on a photo are unenforceable since there is no live witness to testify against an alleged offender.
I myself can and do vote, have ID and do not worry about it. You must be out of touch with reality to think all Americans, old , poor etc... can afford even $10.00 more and the time to get there.
If we are all about laws then WTF is your problem claiming you need ID's to vote ? Make ID's free for the poor or, do not require them or... STFU.
The law is the LAW, you cannot put in place ANY requirement to vote that is discriminatory.
What part of this do you not understand?
Voting Rights Act 1965
Section 2 contains a general prohibition on voting discrimination, enforced through federal district court litigation. Congress amended this section in 1982, prohibiting any voting practice or procedure that has a discriminatory result.
mame
Well-Known Member
Lots of states currently let you use social security cards, birth certificates and even recent utility bills as ID for voting. It's not like you're just signing your name and voting no questions asked... Seems like a few people in this thread dont realize that.
MuyLocoNC
Well-Known Member
Willyßagseed;6774620 said:
To the first, I'd gladly accept a 24% increase in rear end accidents, many of which are fender benders and have minimal to zero injuries, for a 16% reduction in T-bone accidents which are one of the deadliest types of collisions. I've had a few customers over the years killed and injured/maimed in exactly that kind of accident. I also just recently lost my aunt, uncle, cousin and 3 month old niece in a T-bone accident in Utah. Guy ran a red light and wiped them out. The baby held on for 3 days with a severed spinal cord before she passed. So, maybe it's a little personal for me, but the more traffic laws and technological advances that might prevent some idiot from killing my children are fine by me. I don't look at them as an infringement on my rights at all.
To the second, the part we don't understand is where your proof is that requiring IDs is discriminatory. It's great to make the claim that it is, but I've seen ZERO evidence. I would contend that the kind of person who can't be bothered to carry an ID, probably isn't the kind of person that votes. Only about 50% do vote and far more than that have IDs.
Similar threads
