TX GOP trying to ban the teaching of thinking

Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan

>>I am not saying implement it immediately, but come up with a 4 year plan<<

See, that would be reasonable, William. But the current GOP isn't interested in reasonable.

 

Originally Posted By dshyates

The GOP isn't concerned one bit about voter fraud.

 

Originally Posted By Dabob2

<What is your source for this?>

<a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002923156" target="_blank">http://www.democraticundergrou...02923156</a>

'When her department announced the new figures, it made no mention of the huge disparity between what Aichele had been saying and the actual facts. Of course, Aichele and Corbett also have long ignored the fact that there is no hard, or even soft, evidence of a need for a law preventing voter impersonation in this state or others. In fact, a group of Republican lawyers could document only 400 voter-fraud cases in the entire country over a decade, less than one case per state per year. Most of those cases were vote-buying schemes that would not have been prevented by a voter-ID law. "

<You need an ID to buy alcohol, to buy cigs, to get a credit card, why is it trying to rig a system when you ask for a voter ID to vote? >

You need ID for those things to prove age. You also need to prove your age when you register to vote in the first place. But once you're in place and on the books, you should be good to go. It's worked for a long, long time with no evidence of anything like widespread fraud (or Bigfoot), DESPITE people desperately trying to find it.

Where I live, you have to sign you name and it has to match the signature they have on file. That makes a lot more sense to me. Not everyone has (or needs) a driver's license, but anyone can pick up a pen and sign their name.

 

Originally Posted By WilliamK99

Where I live, you have to sign you name and it has to match the signature they have on file. That makes a lot more sense to me. Not everyone has (or needs) a driver's license, but anyone can pick up a pen and sign their name.<<

Again, you don't need a driver's license. You can pick up an ID card at the DMV without getting a license. I find it hard to fathom that we have any 18+ year old people without an ID, I mean how do they get a checking account, how do they get a job? How do they do anything without a photo ID?

 

Originally Posted By Dabob2

Why is this so important to you. I've voted for over 3 decades using the signature system. I have a photo ID, but plenty of people don't. You may find that unfathomable, but deal with it. They don't. Why should they have to jump through hoops when a). a signature is, if anything, BETTER proof and harder to falsify (if you're actually worried about fraud) than an ID card? and b). once again, there has been no evidence of anything like widespread fraud.

Or bigfoot.

 

Originally Posted By WilliamK99

Why is this so important to you. I've voted for over 3 decades using the signature system. I have a photo ID, but plenty of people don't. You may find that unfathomable, but deal with it. They don't. Why should they have to jump through hoops when a). a signature is, if anything, BETTER proof and harder to falsify (if you're actually worried about fraud) than an ID card? and b). once again, there has been no evidence of anything like widespread fraud.
<<

Signature better than a state issued photo I.D.? Not sure what you are smoking...

If anything a state issued or National ID card would put to rest the voter fraud issue once and for all because without a valid ID to be shown there is not undeniable proof that someone is who they say he is.

Now personally, I would prefer biometrics to show proof of ID to vote, but I know there is no way in hell anyone would agree to that...

 

Originally Posted By Dabob2

"Signature better than a state issued photo I.D.? Not sure what you are smoking..."

You think it's not harder to forge someone else's signature on the spur of the moment than it is to make up a fake ID with weeks to do so? What are TOU smoking?

 

Originally Posted By Dabob2

Or you even.

 

Originally Posted By Vic Sage

"In fact, a group of Republican lawyers could document only 400 voter-fraud cases in the entire country over a decade, less than one case per state per year."

Do you think they are talking about this one? - <a href="http://www.rnla.org/survey.asp" target="_blank">http://www.rnla.org/survey.asp</a>

The one that says, "Please note that the convictions or prosecutions listed here are not intended to be a comprehensive list of all instances of vote fraud"?

 

Originally Posted By mawnck

>>"Please note that the convictions or prosecutions listed here are not intended to be a comprehensive list of all instances of vote fraud"<<

Well of course they're going to want to leave the door open to invent some more instances if they need to in the future. I mean, they aren't STUPID ...

 

Originally Posted By Dabob2

Exactly.

Vic, we're all waiting breathlessly for your documented exampled of massive voter fraud. And Bigfoot.

 

Originally Posted By Vic Sage

<Vic, we're all waiting breathlessly for your documented exampled of massive voter fraud. And Bigfoot.>

In which of my posts did I claim there was either?

How many cases of voter fraud must there be before you are willing to agree there is a problem?

 

Originally Posted By Dabob2

Let's not forget that the Bush admin spent five years, with all the investigative and subpoena power of the Justice Dept actively and desperately searching for voter fraud. Remember the US attorney scandal? That was about Bush /Gonzalez/Harriet Myers essentially telling various US Attorneys that they'd better damn well find some voter fraud, and then firing some when they came up empty. The Bush JD spent five freaking years desperately searching for something--anything--to show there was widespread voter fraud going on, and even with that as the goal, and even with all the pressure on the various Attorneys in the states, they couldn't do it.

Doesn't that tell you something, for crying out loud?

 

Originally Posted By Dabob2

"How many cases of voter fraud must there be before you are willing to agree there is a problem?"

How many multiples of people are you willing to disenfranchise to fix a minuscule problem?

This isn't about fraud, not really. That's the ruse, which some people are swallowing.

 

Originally Posted By Vic Sage

<The Bush JD spent five freaking years desperately searching for something--anything--to show there was widespread voter fraud going on, and even with that as the goal, and even with all the pressure on the various Attorneys in the states, they couldn't do it.>

Didn't you just say there had been at least 400 cases of voter fraud in the last ten years? Are you now claiming there were none?

<How many multiples of people are you willing to disenfranchise to fix a minuscule problem?>

Why can't the problem be fixed without disenfranchising anyone?

 

Originally Posted By Dabob2

"Didn't you just say there had been at least 400 cases of voter fraud in the last ten years? Are you now claiming there were none?"

You might want to check that reading comprehension thang.

400 cases in 10 years for the country is less than one per state per year. I said the Bush JD, in a five year investigation, could find no widespread fraud.

You do see that's not contradictory, don't you?

<How many multiples of people are you willing to disenfranchise to fix a minuscule problem?>

"Why can't the problem be fixed without disenfranchising anyone?"

It can be. Have people match signatures like NY does.

 

Originally Posted By Vic Sage

<400 cases in 10 years for the country is less than one per state per year. I said the Bush JD, in a five year investigation, could find no widespread fraud.>

How many cases would there have to be before you considered it widespread?

 

Originally Posted By Dabob2

A hell of a lot more than less than one per state a year.

 

Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder

"How many cases of voter fraud must there be before you are willing to agree there is a problem?"

There isn't a problem. Period. The Texas GOP is seeking to rig the elections any way they can. It's beyond transparent. When you seek to overturn the 1965 Voting Rights Act, only an idiot would claim their motives are pure.

<a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/08/us-usa-texas-voter-idUSBRE86706W20120708" target="_blank">http://www.reuters.com/article...20120708</a>

"Formulated at a time of racial turmoil, the Voting Rights Act passed 77-19 in the U.S. Senate and 333-85 in the House of Representatives. The votes transcended party lines to protect black voters of all political ideals.

Ever since, it has served as the U.S. government's chief check on the fairness of election rules imposed by local governments.

While it passed with bipartisan support more than 45 years ago, a shift in political preferences along racial lines has turned the landmark piece of civil rights era legislation into a highly charged political issue."

 

Originally Posted By WilliamK99

If most states don't require any ID, how can it ever be proven fraud exists? Under our current system, massive fraud could and probably does exist with no way of every verifying that it does/does not. What are you going to do? Contact every single person that voted and ask if they truly did vote? It's impossible to verify.

Also, it is fairly simple to forge signatures...

<a href="http://www.zoklet.net/totse/en/bad_ideas/scams_and_rip_offs/forgingsignatu169320.html" target="_blank">http://www.zoklet.net/totse/en...320.html</a>