No. of Recommendations: 25
Thank you for answering my question at http://boards.fool.com/30767287.aspx

Seeing as how you said, later in that thread, that you were putting the thread on ignore due to the responses of other posters, I'm taking the liberty of responding to your response in a new thread... otherwise (presumably) you wouldn't even see my response.

I'm having trouble understanding how voter ID laws, either ones requiring an ID to be shown at the poll or ones requiring an ID to be shown at registration (or both), can disenfranchise voters except in the sense of extremely rare isolated instances. And I mean that literally, not sarcastically. I really just don't see it, so I'm hoping you can explain.

Consider even the extreme case of requiring specifically either an official state-government-issued photo ID or a US-issued passport. Colovion recently posted that even the so-called homeless people he's encountered have state photo ID's. I ran this past my friends in law enforcement here (in southern California). They said that they had never encountered, even once, one of the "homeless" who didn't have an actual state-government-issued photo ID. And because these people are very prone to being encountered by law enforcement, the officers have encountered a very high percentage, perhaps 100%, of them.

We're talking people who are, by and large, severely mentally ill (or otherwise mentally impaired, for example with severe drug-induced impairments). Many of these people wander aimlessly talking to people who, as far as anyone else can tell, aren't there. (On the other hand, lots of people do that these days with bluetooth headsets.) People who couldn't tell you what country they are in... perhaps not even what planet they're on. And I'm not kidding or exaggerating here. These people are just about as non-functional as you can get and still walk around... in that portion of the time they're able to walk around. And they all have photo ID's; they need them to use various government aid programs. I'm not making this up... check with your own local police department.

Now if people who are almost completely non-functional can get photo ID's, how can you possibly say that an ID requirement disenfranchises voters? Which voters, exactly, are unable to get a photo ID? Mind you, there's countless organizations that are dead set on helping people vote. None of these are going to help anyone get photo ID's? Geez, some of the ACORN people purposely violated local laws, risking jail time (some of them even got jail time) in order to maximize the registration of would-be voters.

I'm just having trouble seeing an ID requirement as a method for disenfranchising. Sure, you could disenfranchise probably dozens of people nationwide. But, realistically, it'd be easier to just hire hit-men to kill those dozens of people than it would be to go to all the effort that's being put into trying to require photo ID's, wouldn't it?

Perhaps I'm missing something here. Hopefully, TMFPMarti, you can enlighten me.

You said "My favorite story from the unintended consequences file came in the Kansas primary when a judge known by every precinct worker was turned away because he didn't have photo ID." How did he come to be at the poll with no photo ID? Did he not have such an ID? Did he just fail to bring it? Why couldn't he get an ID? Why couldn't he bring it? I'm simply not understanding this as an explanation as to how requiring ID's disenfranchises people.

Phil
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
It's the Democrat's vote saver doctrine. :)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Here's what you need to know, Phil:

1) There is evidence of voter fraud.
2) There is no evidence of voter disenfranchisement, just hunches and feelings.
3) Democrats ignore #1 and believe #2 completely. (Actually, one could argue that everything they believe is '#2', but that's another story.)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 16
You said "My favorite story from the unintended consequences file came in the Kansas primary when a judge known by every precinct worker was turned away because he didn't have photo ID."

Which is odd, because this is not disenfranchisement. This is a case of a judge (who presumably knew the law and tried to circumvent it), being told to go get his driver's license. This is not a case of disenfranchisement, it is a case of a voter getting instruction by a poll worker.

I do not think I have *ever* gone to the polls without a state issued ID. The reason is that I drive there and when I drive, I bring my driver's license.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 10
Funny.

To gain advantage in close elections.............

Conservatives need to make sure that military ballots count.

Liberals need to make sure that the ballots of illegal aliens and felons count.

I'm fine with that contrast.

JediG
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 8
Conservatives need to make sure that military ballots count.

Excellent point, Jedi. Libs never have a problem disenfranchising members of the military, even (especially?) when they're busy laying their lives on the line halfway around the world.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Yep.

I'M ALL FOR DISENFRANCHING FELONS AND ILLEGALS.

They tried to disenfranchise the military.

JediG
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 26
I'm having trouble understanding how voter ID laws, either ones requiring an ID to be shown at the poll or ones requiring an ID to be shown at registration (or both), can disenfranchise voters except in the sense of extremely rare isolated instances.

I answered this - with specificity - two weeks ago. I know of two people - both staunch Republicans - who will be disenfranchised, absent someone taking time off from work and motoring them somewhere to stand in line and get "a government approved ID." Presumably that won't be impossibly difficult, since both have had drivers' licenses in the past (now expired), but it is not hard to imagine that it will be very difficult for some people, which is exactly what these laws are aimed at.

My father, age 93. My father-in-law, age 89. Neither has a valid "government approved" ID. Both cannot use public transportation, nor can they drive. So unless you are bringing the "government" to them, they are, by definition, disenfranchised.

http://boards.fool.com/frankly-i-do-not-thin-anyone-is-actua...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 19
My father, age 93. My father-in-law, age 89. Neither has a valid "government approved" ID. Both cannot use public transportation, nor can they drive. So unless you are bringing the "government" to them, they are, by definition, disenfranchised.

What kind of logic is this? I swear you liberals all roll the same way: identify extreme outliers and then argue that 99.999995% of the population should conform to the special cases.

In most voter ID laws being enacted, the IDs are available for free. BTW. How are they voting if they're both unable to travel? Are they absentee? Are they in jail? Are you posting from prison and can't help out? They're not being taken care of? What?

Or how about this. We'll stipulate that rest homes could have picture ID services if you stipulate to presenting photo IDs to vote.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I'm having trouble understanding how voter ID laws, either ones requiring an ID to be shown at the poll or ones requiring an ID to be shown at registration (or both), can disenfranchise voters except in the sense of extremely rare isolated instances.

You might find this interesting;
http://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/d/do...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
So unless you are bringing the "government" to them, they are, by definition, disenfranchised.

They are also, by definition, disenfranchised, if a fraudulent vote cancels their vote out. But I'm guessing that your father and father-in-law probably vote the same way as the average fraudulent vote, which is to say, Democrat.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
So unless you are bringing the "government" to them, they are, by definition, disenfranchised.

Isn't that what ACORN does???... Oh yeah that just for liberals.

Ed
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
What kind of logic is this?

Life is tough. It is even tougher when you're stupid.

- John Wayne
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 37
My father, age 93. My father-in-law, age 89. Neither has a valid "government approved" ID. Both cannot use public transportation, nor can they drive. So unless you are bringing the "government" to them, they are, by definition, disenfranchised. Goofy

Good Lord how pathetic. Your contempt for humanity is boundless.
This isn't a case of "disenfranchisement". This is "life's problem solving 101" and a case of lazy children. Stop posting nonsense for just 30 minutes and figure it out!

Call up the local DMV and ask the procedure for obtaining non driving picture ID.
Call up the voter office and ask how to sign up for absentee voter registration.
Call up the local agency for seniors and ask how to arrange for volunteer transportation on election day.
Call up the local taxi company and ask how you arrange for transportation to the voting booth on election day.
Call up the registrar of voters and ask for help.

I just took care of both my parents in their late 80's and solved these problems quite easily. I'll guarantee you that I was busier than you.

Problem solving isn't a strong point with leftists but sheese focus up and get these old coots to the voting booth.

If you still can't cope with the problem ask the nearest conservative, I'm sure they will fix it for you. If you don't know any conservatives e-mail me and I'll help.


mcb
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
"A recent national survey sponsored by the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law reveals that millions of American citizens do not have readily available documentary proof of citizenship. Many more – primarily women – do not have proof of citizenship with their current name. The survey also showed that millions of American citizens do not have government-issued photo identification, such as a driver’s license or passport. Finally, the survey demonstrated that certain groups – primarily poor, elderly, and minority citizens – are less likely to possess these forms of documentation than the general population.

Survey results: proof of citizenship
As many as 7% of United States citizens – 13 million individuals – do not have ready access to citizenship documents. Seven percent of the American citizens surveyed responded that they do not have ready access to U.S. passports, naturalization papers, or birth certificates.

Using 2000 census calculations of the citizen voting-age population, this translates to more than 13 million American adult citizens nationwide who cannot easily produce documentation proving their citizenship.

Citizens with comparatively low incomes are less likely to possess documentation proving their citizenship. Citizens earning less than 25,000 per year are more than twice as likely to lack ready documentation of their citizenship as those earning more than $25,000.

Indeed, the survey indicates that at least 12 percent of voting-age American citizens earning less than $25,000 per year do not have a readily available U.S. passport, naturalization document, or birth certificate.

Documentation proving citizenship often does not reflect the citizen’s current name. Many of those who possess ready documentation of their citizenship do not have documentation that reflects their current name. For example, survey results show that only 48% of voting-age women with ready access to their U.S. birth certificates have a birth certificate with current legal name – and only 66% of voting-age women with ready access to any proof of citizenship have a document with current legal name.

Using 2000 census citizen voting-age population data, this means that as many as 32 million voting-age women may have available only proof of citizenship documents that do not reflect their current name."
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I answered this - with specificity - two weeks ago.

Oh, I forgot! I forgot to have your response--with specificity--tattooed on my forearm. My bad.

My father, age 93. My father-in-law, age 89. Neither has a valid "government approved" ID. Both cannot use public transportation, nor can they drive. So unless you are bringing the "government" to them, they are, by definition, disenfranchised.

No, they're inconvenienced. If they receive any government entitlements, chances are they need ID to get them, do they not?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
From the link:

As many as 7% of United States citizens – 13 million individuals – do not have ready access to citizenship documents. Seven percent of the American citizens surveyed responded that they do not have ready access to U.S. passports, naturalization papers, or birth certificates. Using 2000 census calculations of the citizen voting-age population, this translates to more than 13 million American adult citizens nationwide who cannot easily produce documentation proving their citizenship.

I find this very hard to believe. Is the "Brennan Center for Justice at the NYU School of Law" a librul organization? Why, yes, it is.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
Using 2000 census calculations of the citizen voting-age population, this translates to more than 13 million American adult citizens nationwide who cannot easily produce documentation proving their citizenship.

And by some accounts, there are 11 million illegal immigrants. How would anyone know who is legally voting and who isn't? Anyone can pose as anyone else, and there is no way to know how many fraudulent votes are cast. As long as the name is on the rolls (and oh, by the way, there are almost 2 million dead people on the voting rolls), the vote looks legit. So libs argue that because no new names were written on the voter rolls in crayon, that means that there's no fraud. Total BS, but that's libs.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Presumably that won't be impossibly difficult, since both have had drivers' licenses in the past (now expired), but it is not hard to imagine that it will be very difficult for some people, which is exactly what these laws are aimed at.

I am surprised that they haven't obtain a state ID card. When my father became frail, it was occassionally necessary to prove his signature for a document. Whether or not someone is driving, I find it surprising that they don't need a state issued ID.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Problem solving isn't a strong point with leftists but sheese focus up and get these old coots to the voting booth.

It isn't that they can't get to the voting booth. Obviously, they can, even if it's effortful to do so. The lefties just don't want whoever shows up to the voting booth to be identifiable. I wonder why?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
lindytoes quotes: "...millions of American citizens do not have readily available documentary proof of citizenship. blah blah blah blah Citizens with comparatively low incomes are less likely to possess documentation proving their citizenship. blah blah blah blah..."

The Brennan Center for Justice at New York University Law School is a public policy and law institute that focuses on issues involving democracy and justice. The Center is "dedicated to strengthening democracy and securing justice, through law, scholarship, education and advocacy." The organization is currently headed by Michael Waldman, former Director of Speechwriting for President Bill Clinton from 1995–1999.

Libruls. Whodda thunk?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
It isn't that they can't get to the voting booth. Obviously, they can, even if it's effortful to do so. The lefties just don't want whoever shows up to the voting booth to be identifiable. I wonder why?
_______________________________________________

It was nice of goofyasaMadHatter to post his garbage a second time, I am sure there are some people who did not get crap on their shoes from stepping on that silly nonsense the first time.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 13
Good Lord how pathetic. Your contempt for humanity is boundless.

You've got Goofy nailed on that.

This is "life's problem solving 101" and a case of lazy children.

But, you see, in Goofy's world, the Government is the wet nurse for everyone's every need. You need to pay for his fecklessness, because it's not his fault. Life is so unfair, and there are so many sob stories, that you just have to give more in taxes. Can't you hear the violins?

People don't have ID's, and having to go get them with only 2 years' notice is just too dang much to ask of anyone! It's not fair! Some of these people only have friends and family to help them, and expecting them to actually help, when the Government has nothing better to do is mean.

And racist.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
"...goofyasaMadHatter..."

Now that's fun-neee. Goof and FeedMeCrap make a nice couple.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 18
Goofy My father, age 93. My father-in-law, age 89. Neither has a valid "government approved" ID. Both cannot use public transportation, nor can they drive. So unless you are bringing the "government" to them, they are, by definition, disenfranchised.


Good grief, my grandparents voted well into their 90s and even after they voluntarily stopped driving (for safety reasons). In most cases, family members drove them. In others, the senior center or other voluntary organizations took care of it.

It finally becomes apparent why democrats vote to have the government treat them like children. It's because they never figured out how to take care of themselves.

Even supposedly successful democrats like Goofy claims to be, can't figure out the solution to extremely simple problems.

Honestly, if democrats can't figure out how to solve the "voter ID" problem, then perhaps it is best that they not vote. I'm not saying they should be disenfranchised, I'm saying that emplacing a minimal hurdle is a good way to keep those not qualified out of the system.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 24
Goofyhoofy,

I know of two people - both staunch Republicans - who will be disenfranchised, absent someone taking time off from work and motoring them somewhere to stand in line and get "a government approved ID." Presumably that won't be impossibly difficult, since both have had drivers' licenses in the past (now expired),

It won't be difficult. So they aren't disenfranchised.

but it is not hard to imagine that it will be very difficult for some people, which is exactly what these laws are aimed at.

Yes, it is hard to imagine. The worst case I can possibly think of is someone perpetually in ICU. And then I can think of several ways it would be possible for them to get a state-issued ID.

And even if they couldn't, how many people like this can there possibly be? Obviously, very obviously, not enough for anyone to go to any significant trouble to disenfranchise them. And a lot of effort is being put into voter ID laws. It's just ridiculous to think that disenfranchising a handful of people is their goal.

My father, age 93. My father-in-law, age 89. Neither has a valid "government approved" ID. Both cannot use public transportation, nor can they drive. So unless you are bringing the "government" to them, they are, by definition, disenfranchised.

That's absurd. My father had a state-issued photo ID when he was 93. He couldn't use public transportation, indeed there wasn't any anywhere near his city unless you count emergency-service ambulances, nor could he drive. He was in an assisted-care facility for a time, surrounded by elderly people who couldn't drive or use public transportation. They all had ID's too... you couldn't be a patient in that facility without one. It's just not that hard to get an ID. Clearly, they are not "by definition disenfranchised"... that's totally ridiculous.

Phil
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
DufusGoneSplat,

You might find this interesting;

A telephone survey of 987 voting-age American citizens. With the results "weighted to account for underrepresentation". Why would that be interesting?

Phil
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
lindytoes,

"A recent national survey sponsored by the Brennan Center for Justice ...

That's the same survey DufusGoneSplat posted. They called 987 people. Then they altered the results arbitrarily.

Sorry, data needs to have a lot more validity than that.

Phil
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
CCinOC,

I find this [survey] very hard to believe.

I can't imagine why anyone would believe it.

Tell you what. Give me $100k and tell me what you want the results to be, and I'll call sets of "987 randomly selected voting-age American citizens" to interview, and repeat until I get the results you want. Then I'll publish them.

Heck, for $50k I'll use their "the results of this survey were weighted to account for underrepresentation" technique and still get you the results you want... at half the price!

Deal?

Phil
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Give me $100k and tell me what you want the results to be, and I'll call sets of "987 randomly selected voting-age American citizens" to interview, and repeat until I get the results you want. Then I'll publish them. Heck, for $50k I'll use their "the results of this survey were weighted to account for underrepresentation" technique and still get you the results you want... at half the price!

Yup.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
I know of two people - both staunch Republicans - who will be disenfranchised, absent someone taking time off from work and motoring them somewhere to stand in line and get "a government approved ID." Presumably that won't be impossibly difficult, since both have had drivers' licenses in the past (now expired)

I don't know about y'all, but I am deeply touched by The Goofster's concern for the plight of a couple of Republicans.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Or how about this. We'll stipulate that rest homes could have picture ID services if you stipulate to presenting photo IDs to vote.

Anything short of stipulating that Democrats should be given every election from now until the end of time will not satisfy people like Goofy. You see, Goofy knows that a significant number of Democrat votes in every election are from people who are no longer breathing, so any law that directly or indirectly requires someone to be living (not to mention legally able to vote) is, by definition, going to disenfranchise a key Democratic voter bloc.

Goofy also finds it unfair that Republicans are able to speak out against the socialist dream that is Obama's awesomely awesome awesomeness. He yearns for a leftist Government that can shut down opposition on a whim. Some of his comrades apparently inhabit several Government agencies already.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I don't know about other states, but I was told by Virginia DMV that I could use an expired diver's license as picture ID.

arrete
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
What kind of logic is this? I swear you liberals all roll the same way: identify extreme outliers and then argue that 99.999995% of the population should conform to the special cases.

Curiously, they're not "outliers" at all. My father has now been in two large retirement communities. The first was "independent living", the current one is "assisted living." (The first also had assisted living, but he didn't want to move there when the time came.) (The father-in-law is a shut-in, living in a daughter's spare bedroom. She works three jobs, so there isn't a lot of "spare time." Probably not much of an "outlier" either.)

Both establishments have over 1,000 inhabitants, and a conservative estimate would be that half of the people there have no living relatives nearby, no one to take them to city hall, and no one to deal with this sort of issue.

The places have "van service", which is to say they go to the grocery store once a week, to WalMart once a week, and occasionally to another Senior center for a day of cards, or Wii bowling, or whatever.

There are a tremendous number of people in this identical situation. But leave it to you to be so anti-empathetic that you cannot understand that everybody doesn't have a driver and limo at their beck and call, nor people to deal with human frailties.

In most voter ID laws being enacted, the IDs are available for free. BTW. How are they voting if they're both unable to travel?

The ID's are free if you can get downtown and stand in line for an hour.. And they're not voting. Both voted in the last Presidential election, but only because their licenses had not expired. They now have, and since neither drives any more, they haven't voted since. (There have been local elections.) Perhaps they will; I suspect that family will take the time, but - as I referened above - not everyone has family to do this, and the nursing homes don't take this as a function.

Or how about this. We'll stipulate that rest homes could have picture ID services if you stipulate to presenting photo IDs to vote.

As I indicated in the original post, which you obviously couldn't be bothered to read, given that it comes from someone who occasionally disagrees with you, I am in favor of voter IDs. But not just for "rest homes" but also for inner city dwellers and all others who have a need and not the means to achieve it. And no, I'm not going to leave that to "rest homes." It's a GOVERNMENT FUNCTION.

Pay the bureaucracy to ensure that every eligible voter is able to vote, or just admit that you don't care. To me, voting is the most sacred privilege of a democracy, and nothing should be allowed to get in the way of that, certainly not a few bucks to register people who are unable to travel, for whatever reason.
 
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
To me, voting is the most sacred privilege of a democracy...

That's right, yet dead people manage to vote, and they manage to vote Democrat...which is the real problem.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Legal eligibility to vote isn't the only thing Democrats don't care about. On the taxpayer's dime, one can just lie about your eligibilitiy for subsidized health care.

Not Qualified For Obamacare's Subsidies? Just Lie -- Govt. To Use 'Honor System' Without Verifying Your Eligibility Eligibility
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/07/06/not-qua...

That's OK, Owebamacare is falling flat on its face, anyway.

Why The White House Is Panicking About ObamaCare
http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngoodman/2013/07/10/why-the-w...

Last week’s announcement that the employer mandate will be delayed for a year and that income verification for people getting subsidies will also be delayed are the latest signs of trouble. The next shoe to drop may be the failure for people to obtain (ObamaCare) insurance — even if it’s free or highly subsidized.

Why is this? Well, the article gives several reasons, but the main reason is that most Americans still value the essential characteristic that makes America America: freedom. The sooner Baracky gets this fundamental notion through his childish head, the better off we'll be as a nation.

http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/handsome-black-boy-child-bagg...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Goofy simply believes that voting is so sacred that even death should not prevent Democrats from being allowed to vote. In fact, they believe that the dead have to work so hard to vote, that they should get at least two.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Just hilarious. I don't even need to post; I'll let you blow apart your own argument.

First you said
My father, age 93. My father-in-law, age 89. Neither has a valid "government approved" ID. Both cannot use public transportation, nor can they drive. So unless you are bringing the "government" to them, they are, by definition, disenfranchised.

Now you say
My father has now been in two large retirement communities. The first was "independent living", the current one is "assisted living." (The first also had assisted living, but he didn't want to move there when the time came.) (The father-in-law is a shut-in, living in a daughter's spare bedroom. She works three jobs, so there isn't a lot of "spare time." Probably not much of an "outlier" either.)

Both establishments have over 1,000 inhabitants, and a conservative estimate would be that half of the people there have no living relatives nearby, no one to take them to city hall, and no one to deal with this sort of issue.


This destroys your anecdote. You made it sound like they were shut-ins and couldn't travel. Now you're saying they're actually in a place where someone could take them to wherever they needed to go. So much for your anecdotal evidence as to why voter ID laws disenfranchise voters.

Now here comes the part where you change your argument but don't cop to it. To wit:
As I indicated in the original post, which you obviously couldn't be bothered to read, given that it comes from someone who occasionally disagrees with you, I am in favor of voter IDs. But not just for "rest homes" but also for inner city dwellers and all others who have a need and not the means to achieve it. And no, I'm not going to leave that to "rest homes." It's a GOVERNMENT FUNCTION.

So now you're raising the bar and discarding your original "evidence". Fine. Now the argument is, there are tons of people who are trapped in the inner cities, I suppose. You threw in a strawman (that the rest homes run the voting program. Um, I meant that you could have the government come to the rest homes and give out IDs. In other words, I used your suggestion) and are now trying to move the goalposts.

Won't work. I already stipulated to you that the government could spend money to ensure that everyone could have a photo ID for free. But that's not good enough for you. Never mind that it already takes photo ID to get welfare, buy cold medicine, get a job, buy alcohol or cigarettes, get on a train or plane or do any number of other things. Let's assume there are vast numbers of people out there who never do ANY of those things.

I'm stipulating that the government should provide a photo ID to everyone and that photo ID should be REQUIRED for the polls. What's the problem with that?

Pay the bureaucracy to ensure that every eligible voter is able to vote, or just admit that you don't care. To me, voting is the most sacred privilege of a democracy, and nothing should be allowed to get in the way of that, certainly not a few bucks to register people who are unable to travel, for whatever reason.

This is like beating on a punching bag. I've already stipulated this.

Let's keep it simple, to make this less taxing for you:

If every effort was made to give every person a photo ID, would you support showing them at polling places to verify identity?

Yes or no.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Just wondering....if all of these disenfranchised voters were told they would receive additional income per month if they had a photo ID, how many would ascertain to get a photo ID?

-Donna
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 8
I don't know about y'all, but I am deeply touched by The Goofster's concern for the plight of a couple of Republicans.

Goofy ought to help me with my plight. I often have to travel out of town on short notice to meet with clients. I have missed about 1/3 elections due to these last minute changes.

Please help me Democrats! I've been disenfranchised!


Actually my solution (which I started doing a couple of years ago) is to *always* get an absentee ballot.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
if all of these disenfranchised voters were told they would receive additional income per month if they had a photo ID, how many would ascertain to get a photo ID?

Are you kidding? They'd break each others bones to get photo ID. It'd look like Black Friday at the retirement homes.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 9
Please help me Democrats! I've been disenfranchised!

I didn't get to vote in the 2008 election. I was in TX finishing up some training for the oil patch when Hurricane Ike hit. My plan was to finish up training and be in CO long enough to meet their 30 day residency requirement to vote, so I never bothered to register in TX to vote.

My time in TX was extended three weeks. I had no idea what they were going to do with our class. We were in the middle of our oral finals when we got the word to seek safety somewhere. All we'd get was "the building is closed. Call back tomorrow" on the company hotline.

Of course, Houston was without power for a very long time, so I reckon that registering folks to vote took a backseat to other concerns anyway.

I got to CO two weeks before the election. I was clearly more disenfranchised than any of the sob stories offered by our liberal guests, yet I did not whine. I just chalked it up to one of life's unfortunate incidents.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I got to CO two weeks before the election. I was clearly more disenfranchised than any of the sob stories offered by our liberal guests, yet I did not whine. I just chalked it up to one of life's unfortunate incidents.
__________________________

In goof's defense, I would just like to say, were you totally FOS, you likely would have reacted just like him.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Jim2B,

I have missed about 1/3 elections due to these last minute changes. ... Actually my solution (which I started doing a couple of years ago) is to *always* get an absentee ballot.

You know, when I travel, I can't buy a Big Mac at my home McDonald's. But guess what? I can buy one at whatever McDonald's happens to be where I travel to! And even though my MasterCard is issued by my bank at home, I can still use it at a McDonald's in some other city! Or even in another state! Wow!!

There's really no reason why the government couldn't allow you to vote at any polling place in the country. The electronic voting booths could simply present the correct ballot for your place of residence. And if they ever started actually, you know, checking to see if people who claim to be authorized to vote really are, it wouldn't be any harder for them to check that at any polling place than it is for MasterCard to check that the purchase you want to make anywhere in the world is valid and within your credit limit.

Absentee ballots are a major source of fraud. Probably there'd be no real need for >99% of them if you could vote at any polling place.

Phil
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
CCinOC,

Are you kidding? They'd break each others bones to get photo ID [if that would let them receive additional income per month].

Probably a substantial percentage of them already have photo ID's for several states, to get the benefits in each.

I know for sure that there are groups that charter buses to take them to government offices in several states, so they can get the freebies. It's illegal, of course, but I can't imagine that the government employees at those offices don't know that tour buses are pulling up... and they don't do anything about it.

Phil
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I know for sure that there are groups that charter buses to take them to government offices in several states, so they can get the freebies. It's illegal, of course, but I can't imagine that the government employees at those offices don't know that tour buses are pulling up... and they don't do anything about it.

________________________

Of course this is the big difference between charity and government handouts.

With a charitable organization, there is a bias to do as much with the limited amount you have, so you really hate fraud.

At a government operation, the main focus is to ensure job security and that means the more clients, the more security the more funding the more promotions for staff and more power for the executive set.

Positive incentives to serve society for charity, negative incentives to serve society for government.

Now this is not remotely to say there is no role for government, just to scream, that were a private sector solution is possible a private sector solution is preferable.

This to me, is the Achilles heel of ObamaCare. The cost is not going to go down, there is zero incentive for the cost to go down, once the structure is in place. There are only negative incentives for government to function well.

that is the nature of the beast. The more government you put in the way, the less effective cost containment is in a system. That is why medical care is such a mess now. Replacing people who want to make a profit with people who want to expand their funding to consolidate power is friggin insane

and on and on
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I got to CO two weeks before the election. I was clearly more disenfranchised than any of the sob stories offered by our liberal guests, yet I did not whine. I just chalked it up to one of life's unfortunate incidents.
__________________________

In goof's defense, I would just like to say, were you totally FOS, you likely would have reacted just like him.


At the very least you would have understood that those Colorado laws were explicitly designed to disenfranchise you and the millions of other people in the same situation.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Absentee ballots are a major source of fraud. Probably there'd be no real need for >99% of them if you could vote at any polling place.

The real and final solution.

Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKi1CKTRCQM
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I know for sure that there are groups that charter buses to take them to government offices in several states, so they can get the freebies. It's illegal, of course, but I can't imagine that the government employees at those offices don't know that tour buses are pulling up... and they don't do anything about it.

Entitlement Bandits
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/271006/entitlement-ba...

In 2005, the New York Times reported that “James Mehmet, who retired in 2001 as chief state investigator of Medicaid fraud and abuse in New York City, said he and his colleagues believed that at least 10 percent of state Medicaid dollars were spent on fraudulent claims, while 20 or 30 percent more were siphoned off by what they termed abuse, meaning unnecessary spending that might not be criminal.” And even these experts ignore other, perfectly legal ways of exploiting Medicare and Medicaid, such as when a senior hides and otherwise adjusts his finances so as to appear eligible for Medicaid, or when a state abuses the fact that the federal government matches state Medicaid outlays. [...]

The fact that Medicare and Medicaid spend other people’s money is why the number of fraud investigators in New York’s Medicaid program can fall by 50 percent even as spending on the program more than triples. That is why, as Sparrow explained in an interview with The Nation, “The stories are legion of people getting a Medicare explanation of benefits statement saying, ‘We’ve paid for this operation you had in Colorado,’ when those people have never been in Colorado. And when you complain [to Medicare] about it, nobody seems to care.”
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Absentee ballots are a major source of fraud. Probably there'd be no real need for >99% of them if you could vote at any polling place.
_____________________________

Once you have absentee ballots, requiring the same effort as voting to get, with a caveat for delivery to shut ins(as voting IS that important) I simply do not see how they are any more a source for fraud than anything else.

Playing make believe that absentee ballots are any easier to abuse than a system with no way to stop it from being used for fraud as we have now is a lot like the Zimmerman trial

It is simply something to be used to divert attention from the real stuff that is very dirty and actually important.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
lowstudent,

Once you have absentee ballots, requiring the same effort as voting to get, with a caveat for delivery to shut ins(as voting IS that important) I simply do not see how they are any more a source for fraud than anything else.

Non-absentee voting is designed to make it hard to buy votes. You can pay someone to vote a certain way, but when they go into the poll you have no way of knowing how they really voted. The voting machines where I vote are specifically designed so there's no photo you could take in the voting booth that shows how you voted. They're running somewhat behind technology, because you could show how you voted with a video recorded in the booth.

With absentee voting there's no protection whatsoever against selling votes, and you really have no way of knowing who actually cast the vote either.

Phil
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
With absentee voting there's no protection whatsoever against selling votes, and you really have no way of knowing who actually cast the vote either.
_____________________________

I must say personally, I can not think of a manner of voter fraud that could possibly be less effective or more costly. Can't see this as being a problem, takes way too much effort and time, for that kind of monitoring for the subset of folks who would sell their vote and really care about who was going to win -- that is of course if you are very stringent in who can get their hands on an absentee ballot of course.

As far as who is casting the vote? Well it took as much effort if you demand the same proof to get an absentee ballot as in person, so it is just a different day. If you sell your vote in person or on-line doesn't seem like more than a distinction without a difference to me so it is really pretty close to identical IMO

As log as you are very stringent in giving out the ballots, I still do not see it as anything more than very marginally more open to corruption than in person voting

Note: Now if getting the ballots is NOT closely verified, this is a disaster, as I expect it is today.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
lowstudent,

I must say personally, I can not think of a manner of voter fraud that could possibly be less effective or more costly.

Well, vote-buying is certainly going on. There have even been convictions of people involved in buying votes, even though efforts to enforce the laws are pretty much minimal.

As far as who is casting the vote? Well it took as much effort if you demand the same proof to get an absentee ballot as in person, so it is just a different day. If you sell your vote in person or on-line doesn't seem like more than a distinction without a difference to me so it is really pretty close to identical IMO

We'll just have to disagree on this one, apparently. It seems to me that buying up a whole stack of hundreds or thousands of absentee ballots, then filling them out at your leisure and mailing them in, is a heck of a lot easier than trying to buy the votes of people voting at the voting booths. (There are certainly lots of people willing to sell their votes for small dollar amounts, we know that from the convictions.) With the voting-booth votes, you can't be sure the people are voting the way you want unless either (a) you have your own person vote in their place (hence the call for voter-ID laws) or (b) they take a video of the entire process, and then you'd have to review all the videos. And of course it's illegal to make a video of yourself voting, so each of the hundreds or thousands of people you're buying votes from would have to make their videos in some way that isn't obvious.

Phil
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
We'll just have to disagree on this one, apparently. It seems to me that buying up a whole stack of hundreds or thousands of absentee ballots, then filling them out at your leisure and mailing them in, is a heck of a lot easier than trying to buy the votes of people voting at the voting booths.
___________________

OK, I will not pursue except to say, that the only difference I see is the few who would not show up to vote. It is not like we are talking about folks who care in the first place.

Both votes are bought in advance, your concern seems to be with delivery. Going to 100,000 homes and collecting ballots seems like a bit of a nightmare so again, I see it as equal. As long of you have to verify as stringently for the ballot whenever you get it
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
lowstudent,

OK, I will not pursue except to say, that the only difference I see is the few who would not show up to vote.

People not showing up to vote isn't a problem, because typically when people buy non-absentee votes they don't pay until they get the little slip you get at the polling place when you vote. First they put out the word that if you vote for x, you'll get paid $y. Then they come back on election day to collect the slips and pay the $y's. Of course they have no idea whether the people vote for x or not.

Going to 100,000 homes and collecting ballots seems like a bit of a nightmare so again, I see it as equal.

You wouldn't go to homes, you'd go to homeless shelters, assisted living centers, sporting events, churches, schools, bars, and so forth. Anywhere there's a group of people who don't really care whether they vote or not. Again, you'd have to go a few times. First to tell people to register and get the absentee ballot and you'll pay them $y each for the signed ballot. Then later to collect the ballots and pay out the money. Another advantage of buying votes through absentee ballots, besides being sure the votes go like you want, is not having to reveal who you want the votes to go to.

Phil
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
You wouldn't go to homes, you'd go to homeless shelters, assisted living centers, sporting events, churches, schools, bars, and so forth. Anywhere there's a group of people who don't really care whether they vote or not. Again, you'd have to go a few times. First to tell people to register and get the absentee ballot and you'll pay them $y each for the signed ballot. Then later to collect the ballots and pay out the money. Another advantage of buying votes through absentee ballots, besides being sure the votes go like you want, is not having to reveal who you want the votes to go to.

Phil
______________________________

So the only thing you would need to do would be to have rules that anyplace with more than say 6 registered voters from the same address would require signature verification.

As long as we have a system without common sense QA processes all systems are easy to violate.

Again, I see these ballots as easier to protect as any, further I personally would support that absentee ballots nor be picked up but rather mailed with a random mailing pattern

I think absentee ballots are quite valuable, and again not hard to protect to a degree that makes massive corruption possible without a huge investment of effort
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
What kind of logic is this? I swear you liberals all roll the same way: identify extreme outliers

Oops. Another "extreme outlier":

HARRISBURG, Pa. -- On the first day of a voter ID trial in Pennsylvania on Monday, the liberal-leaning plaintiffs got a boost from an improbable ally -- a voter who called former Republican presidential candidate John McCain "my man" and noted she herself had twice been elected to a local office on the Republican ticket.

Marian Baker was one of two witnesses who offered videotaped testimony to start a trial that will determine the constitutionality of Pennsylvania's voter ID law, a subject of controversy since it was passed last spring by a Republican legislature and governor. The law, blocked by the state Supreme Court until the trial reviews its constitutionality, requires voters to present photo identification at the polls.

A grandmother of eight who lives in Reading, Pa., Baker testified that the law caused her to recently miss an election for the first time since 1960. Under the new law, she said, she would have to get a special state-approved photo ID at a drivers' license center, where lines often stretch down the block. (Her driver’s license recently expired.)

"I'm never going to be able to go there and stand," she said, alluding to medical complications that have impaired her ability to get around.


But I know, you "can't understand" how that could happen.
 
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
(Her driver’s license recently expired.)

The only place an expired drivers license isn't valid ID is when you're trying to get a passport.

Fail.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
So the only thing you would need to do would be to have rules that anyplace with more than say 6 registered voters from the same address would require signature verification.

As long as we have a system without common sense QA processes all systems are easy to violate.

Again, I see these ballots as easier to protect as any, further I personally would support that absentee ballots nor be picked up but rather mailed with a random mailing pattern

I think absentee ballots are quite valuable, and again not hard to protect to a degree that makes massive corruption possible without a huge investment of effort


Our absentee ballots (from a county election office in the state of Washington) go in a plain envelope which goes in a second envelope. The signature goes on the second envelope.

Why couldn't the signature go across the sealing flap of the second envelope - so that part is on the flap and part is not? Then if the envelope is signed before it is sealed, it would very-often (not always) be fairly apparent.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
lowstudent,

So the only thing you would need to do would be to have rules that anyplace with more than say 6 registered voters from the same address would require signature verification.

I'm not following the reasoning here. Let's say I go to a sporting event and approach many people telling them that I'd be willing to pay $x for their absentee ballot, and instruct the ones who sound interested on how to register to vote and request a ballot, and that I'll meet them at a future game. They bring their signed ballot to that future game, and I take the ballots and hand out the $x's.

Now I can vote as many times as I found people willing to take my money. All the addresses of the ballots are different. All the signatures are valid.

People actually do this now, mind you.

I think absentee ballots are quite valuable, and again not hard to protect to a degree that makes massive corruption possible without a huge investment of effort

One should also keep in mind that the tighter you control the registration process and the updating of voter lists (as people move, die, are convicted of crimes, and so forth) and the proper identification of persons registering and voting, so that only people actually authorized by law to vote can vote at a polling place or using an absentee ballot, and can vote only once... then buying absentee ballots becomes more and more cost-effective compared to other methods of illegal voting.

Phil
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Goofyhoofy,

Another "extreme outlier":

Ooooohhhh, she'd have to stand in line once every 10 years (at least that's how long an ID is valid for here in California, for seniors). Or maybe that's once every 20 years... I'm not sure if you can renew the ID's once by mail like you can with driver's licenses.

No, not STANDING IN LINE!!! The horror.

Mind you she wouldn't have to literally stand at any time. And probably wouldn't have any trouble getting help with just a call to the Republican or Democratic party office nearest her.

How much do you want to bet that the statement that "lines often stretch down the block" isn't actually true?

Phil
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
CCinOC,

The only place an expired drivers license isn't valid ID is when you're trying to get a passport.

Actually, when I got my driver's license in California they wouldn't accept a valid non-expired Colorado driver's license as ID. I had to go get my passport and come back to the DMV. Fortunately, when I got back my take-a-number still hadn't been called yet (I didn't make an appointment, just did a walk-in... in Colorado they had DMV mini-offices in shopping malls and it was no big deal to walk up and get a license renewed).

Phil
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
warrl,

Why couldn't the signature go across the sealing flap of the second envelope - so that part is on the flap and part is not? Then if the envelope is signed before it is sealed, it would very-often (not always) be fairly apparent.

Wouldn't matter much. The old way, to sell your vote you'd sign the envelope and hand everything over (unsealed) to the person buying your vote, and they'd pay you. Your new way, you'd have to wait a moment while the person buying your vote fills out the ballot, then you'd seal and sign it, then hand it over to the buyer and he'd pay you. If the internal ballots are all the same (which they should be, so you can't identify who is voting), then the buyer could have a stack of them already filled out to speed things up.

A little more tedious, but not much.

Phil
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
One should also keep in mind that the tighter you control the registration process and the updating of voter lists (as people move, die, are convicted of crimes, and so forth) and the proper identification of persons registering and voting, so that only people actually authorized by law to vote can vote at a polling place or using an absentee ballot, and can vote only once... then buying absentee ballots becomes more and more cost-effective compared to other methods of illegal voting.

Phil
______________________________

Agreed, it is also the most likely source of catching the folks that do it.

I think the benefit outweighs the cost, just that the process is not that easy to corrupt, not that it can't be corrupted.

Interesting to think about this stuff though
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Actually, when I got my driver's license in California they wouldn't accept a valid non-expired Colorado driver's license as ID.

Valid forms of ID to obtain a CA drivers license
http://apps.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/obtain_dl.htm

Acceptable Documents

An acceptable birth date/legal presence or true full name document is issued by a county or state. This document is a certified copy of the original (the original is retained by the county or state) and contains an impressed seal or an original stamped impression. The DMV will not accept a photocopy of the certified copy for birth date/legal presence or true full name verification.

Examples of other acceptable birth date/legal presence documents are:

~ U.S. Birth Certificate
~ Proof of Indian Blood Degree
~ U.S. Passport
~ U.S. Armed Forces ID Cards
~ Certificate of Naturalization
~ Permanent Resident Card, or a foreign passport or Mexican Border Crossing Card with a valid I-94. The I-94 expiration date must be more than 2 months from the DL/ID card application date.

A complete list of birth date/ legal presence documents is available online at www.dmv.ca.gov or in the Birth Date/ Legal Presence and True Full Name (FFDL 05) Fast Facts brochure.

Examples of true full name verification documents include the following:

~ Adoption documents containing your legal name as a result of the adoption.
~ Name change documents containing your legal name both before and after the name change.
~ Marriage Certificate
~ A certificate, declaration, or registration document verifying the information of a domestic partnership.
~ Dissolution of marriage document containing your legal name, as a result of the court order.

https://www.dmv.ca.gov/dl/dl_info.htm

How to apply for a driver license if you are over 18

If you are a visitor in California over 18 and have a valid driver license from your home state or country, you may drive in this state without getting a California driver license as long as your home state license remains valid.

If you become a California resident, you must get a California driver license within 10 days. Residency is established by voting in a California election, paying resident tuition, filing for a homeowner’s property tax exemption, or any other privilege or benefit not ordinarily extended to nonresidents. [...]

If your name is different on your birth date and/or legal presence document than the one you are currently using, you will also need to provide an additional acceptable document to establish your true full name, such as; a marriage certificate, dissolution of marriage, adoption or name change document that shows your current name.

***

A valid non-expired drivers license from another U.S. state isn't a "legal presence document?" That's odd. Sounds to me, based on the reference above to a "...document ... contains an impressed seal or an original stamped impression." like the DMV worker/branch office was mistaken. Most drivers licenses now contain holograms, for cryin' out loud.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Agreed, it is also the most likely source of catching the folks that do it. I think the benefit outweighs the cost, just that the process is not that easy to corrupt, not that it can't be corrupted. Interesting to think about this stuff though

Fingerprint ID is used for lots of things. Why not voting registration?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
At a California DMV, those with disabilities are moved to the front of the line. Also in California, at least the several offices I've been to, if you make an appointment at the DMV there is no waiting in line. Maybe 5 minutes max, usually only 1-2 minutes.

Seems like Pennsylvania would need to sort out PennDOT issues before implementing.

They need a 1-800 PennDOT number separate just for voter ID questions for people to call for info and make appointments. Then no waiting in line with appointments for voterID, and a trained employees who handles only free voterID's.

This should solve 99+% of the issues I've seen.

--
whyohwhyoh
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
My father, age 93. My father-in-law, age 89. Neither has a valid "government approved" ID. Both cannot use public transportation, nor can they drive. So unless you are bringing the "government" to them, they are, by definition, disenfranchised.

http://boards.fool.com/frankly-i-do-not-thin-anyone-is-actua......

Goofy


That's what children are for. Why don't you drive them to get their IDs or arrange for someone else to drive them if you cannot do it?

Sheesh!

My elderly mom never did drive so I drive her to the local DMV to get her ID and she needs a wheelchair to get about if she has to walk more than 100 feet or so.

You people are worried that photo IDs will reduce voter fraud and quite possibly the number of elections that Democrats win.

Mike
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
At a California DMV, those with disabilities are moved to the front of the line. Also in California, at least the several offices I've been to, if you make an appointment at the DMV there is no waiting in line. Maybe 5 minutes max, usually only 1-2 minutes.

In Indiana (run by GOP), the wait time is typically 1-5 minutes and the worst I've ever experienced is a 20 minute wait time for service.

Democrats simply do not comprehend the huge improvement in quality of life that moving to republican controlled states or electing republicans grants.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
My father, age 93. My father-in-law, age 89. Neither has a valid "government approved" ID. Both cannot use public transportation, nor can they drive. So unless you are bringing the "government" to them, they are, by definition, disenfranchised.

http://boards.fool.com/frankly-i-do-not-thin-anyone-is-actua.........

Goofy

That's what children are for. Why don't you drive them to get their IDs or arrange for someone else to drive them if you cannot do it?

Sheesh!
-------------------------------------------------------------
Well, er, my father has no ID and is tethered to a large cement chair in the living room, and if he stands up from the chair it sets off explosives in the local kitty and puppy shelter. Why do you want to disenfranchise my father?!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
CCinOC,

A valid non-expired drivers license from another U.S. state isn't a "legal presence document?" That's odd. Sounds to me, based on the reference above to a "...document ... contains an impressed seal or an original stamped impression." like the DMV worker/branch office was mistaken.

The reference to a document containing an impressed seal, etc., is supposed to refer to one of the documents on the "List of Acceptable Birth Date/Legal Presence Documents", not to just any document, I think (so the word "other" is poorly chosen). The list is at
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/brochures/fast_facts/ffdl05.htm
and a driver's license from another state isn't one of them.

They actually had a little printed brochure they gave me at the time which listed the ID requirements and specifically said that a driver's license from another state isn't acceptable.

The DMV worker said they don't accept them because they have no way of verifying with the state the purportedly issued the license whether it is real or not. She could be wrong about that, but I doubt she was wrong about them not accepting another state's license... unless the printed brochure was wrong too.

If you become a California resident, you must get a California driver license within 10 days.

Which is why I didn't get an appointment at the DMV. There weren't any available within that 10 day timeframe (or even close). Clever, huh?

Phil
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 11
My father, age 93. My father-in-law, age 89. Neither has a valid "government approved" ID. Both cannot use public transportation, nor can they drive. So unless you are bringing the "government" to them, they are, by definition, disenfranchised.

I can see why this would be a problem. After all, driving your elderly parents to get a valid ID every week is quite time consuming and would eat into your leisure time.

Oh wait, government issued IDs are good for 5 years. That means you only need to set aside a couple of hours every 5 years to help your aging parents. Does this mean that your parents aren't worth a measly 2 hours every 5 years?!

Doesn't this make you a candidate for "worst child of the decade" award?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I can see why this would be a problem. After all, driving your elderly parents to get a valid ID every week is quite time consuming and would eat into your leisure time.

Oh wait, government issued IDs are good for 5 years. That means you only need to set aside a couple of hours every 5 years to help your aging parents. Does this mean that your parents aren't worth a measly 2 hours every 5 years?!
-----

Shoot, I've driven people I consider just acquaintances. It's not that big a deal.

arête - but that's probably evil because I'm not a registered Democrat. The guy I drove was, though. GF should be thankful. And I'm thankful I won't see any of his replies. <g>
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
Opposition to ID for voting is a BS issue. Remember when Bush sent $300 checks to everyone a few years ago for stimulus? Well, cashing those checks required ID (even Wal-Mart, who cashed more of those checks than anyone else, required ID) ... and everyone seemed to find their ID for that purpose. So, it shouldn't be too difficult for them to drag out those IDs every year (or two, or four) to vote.
Print the post Back To Top
Advertisement