CapitolFax.com - Latest Comments in Question of the day

Re: Question of the day

baitcaster — Tue, 29 Aug 2006 01:10:58 -0000

There's absolutely no reason for Voter IDs...none! Although hundreds of millions of votes have been cast in recent years, there have been almost no cases of individual voter fraud, and even fewer that this nutty idea would have prevented (an ID wouldn't reduce Madison County's alleged vote-buying, for example).

It's government officials and campaign staffers, not individuals, who commit voting fraud--as happened in Madison County--and they do it in the big numbers. Far from being a remedy, Voter ID is just more officially-committed vote-fraud.

Obtaining a state-issued Voter ID is neither "free" nor "easy." Most voters who lack driver's licenses are elderly, or poor, or disabled. They'd find it hard to get to a license facility, unless they have good public transportation. In many cases, they'd have to take time off work--or hire a babysitter--just to stand in line. Plus they usually need a Birth Certificate, which costs money and takes time to obtain. (Missouri officials had been delaying the issuance of Birth Certificates for as long as 8 months...until that state's Voter ID law was shot down in the courts a week or two ago. Do you think that delay was a coincidence?)

Anyone who claims these laws aren't designed to discourage voters--especially black or poor voters--is either out of touch with human nature or a Republican. Oops, I just committed a redundancy!

Re: Question of the day

seamo — Sat, 26 Aug 2006 14:11:08 -0000

#1-this will only create another office and additional bureaucracy within the ever expanding government machine.

#2-if voter fraud is already such a problem, how difficult would it be for the crooked to create 1,000's of "fake ID's"? Computer technology can allow anyone with basic skills to place their face on anyone elses body--and bar codes? Tiger Direct sells 'em cheap.

#3-pharmacists do have to post a valid license at their place of business, too bad Stephens no longer has one to post.

Re: Question of the day

bored now — Fri, 25 Aug 2006 09:03:38 -0000

i understood your point; you appear to have missed mine...

Re: Question of the day

Lovie's Leather — Fri, 25 Aug 2006 08:52:41 -0000

Our Constitutional Republic is democratic... that was my point, Bored Now.

Re: Question of the day

Shallow Pharnyx — Fri, 25 Aug 2006 07:52:43 -0000

Bored Now
You get up to early!!!

Re: Question of the day

bored now — Fri, 25 Aug 2006 06:40:13 -0000

no worries. a lot of republicans out there don't really support democracy (stephens appears to be one). but it's a fun catch word; it can really fool the voter!!!

Re: Question of the day

Lovie's Leather — Fri, 25 Aug 2006 01:07:02 -0000

Scratch that "I support democracy." That is factually untrue. I support a constitutional republic....

Re: Question of the day

Lovie's Leather — Fri, 25 Aug 2006 01:05:38 -0000

"right, lovie, because democracy is really only for the elite, those who can prove they deserve to be in your country club! whiners. either you support democracy or you donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t. democracy shouldnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t just be for those who live in the green zoneÃ¢â‚¬Â¦"

Then get off your ass and go vote!!! I support democracy. But I don't think democracy should make exceptions for people who can't vote or wouldn't normally vote. That would be demoCRAZY.

Re: Question of the day

bored now — Thu, 24 Aug 2006 23:04:14 -0000

pot. kettle. black.

arguing for something that will have no discernible effect on voter fraud is a weak argument. noting that this proposal has a considerable downside (i'd call it an unintended consequence, but i don't think it's unintended) is nothing more than blowing holes through that weak argument. one observes that not a single example has been given of vote fraud that would be prevented by this...

Re: Question of the day

zatoichi — Thu, 24 Aug 2006 22:58:05 -0000

Disenfranchised because someone has to go to a driver license office or a court house once every couple of years? If people can get to the grocery store, bank, ATM, library, or church, they should have some way of getting an ID. Not hard with a slight bit of effort. Expired license cause I forgot to keep track? Pretty weak arguement.

Re: Question of the day

anonymous again — Thu, 24 Aug 2006 21:54:10 -0000

Holy cow rs what is with you guys are you all from another planet with this guys ideas and jbt runnning for gov you might win something around 2050 keep up the good work you're making it pretty easy for us thanks

Re: Question of the day

LicensedinIllinois — Thu, 24 Aug 2006 21:47:25 -0000

Buck - Pharmacists, just the same as all those licensed by IDPR, are required to have that license on public display at their place of employment, available to any customer/client wishing to verify that they are indeed licensed and the license is up to date.

Re: Question of the day

Justice — Thu, 24 Aug 2006 19:58:21 -0000

Get off your but, get a job, get a photo ID, and get a clue. You want to vote, show an ID. Nothing discriminating about that. Want to cash a check, get an ID, want to drive, get an ID, want to buy a firearm or ammo, get an ID, want to check out a book at the library, get an ID, want to do the most important thing in your life such as vote, get an ID. Seems pretty reasonable to me. If a cop stops you and asks you if you have any ID and you say Ã¢â‚¬Å“bout whatÃ¢â‚¬Â chances are you really donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t need one.

Re: Question of the day

Madison County Watcher — Thu, 24 Aug 2006 19:34:14 -0000

After reading all of these partisan comments, I thought I'd share a perspective from the area in question.

Bob Delaney, the Democrat County Clerk of St. Clair County, is actually on record supporting Rep. Stephens' idea. Yes, a democrat supports the idea.

It might be easy in other parts of the state to say that this proposal disenfranchises "honest" voters, but the fact is that, in 2004 in East St. Louis, voter fraud occurred and elections were influenced.

In 2004, every voter in St. Clair County was defrauded by the illegal actions of a few. People were paid $5 per vote. Period. People have gone to jail for the antics that occurred. Where's the outrage from good government groups outside our area? Talk about hypocrisy and insincerity.

The best quote I saw in our local media regarding this story talked about the necessity of photo IDs in the most basic consumer functions of society. No one's complaining about banks asking for photo IDs. No one on this blog would just sit back if someone walked into their bank and withdrew money from their account. The same people who would say that voters are "disenfranchised" would be yelling at a bank president for not having asked for a photo ID.

How can our country be the leader of the free world and yet still fail in the most basic tenets of democracy?

Re: Question of the day

Carl Nyberg — Thu, 24 Aug 2006 18:56:19 -0000

Republicans seem a tad insincere in their desire to reduce voter fraud when they aren't also interested in ensuring access to the polls in places like Ohio and Florida.

Besides, the victims of fraud by the Dem Machine is far more often independent and progressive Dems in primaries than Republicans in general elections.

When was the last time the Dem Machine--people like George W. Bush's b-day host--cheated Republicans in the general election?

Re: Question of the day

Carl Nyberg — Thu, 24 Aug 2006 18:53:26 -0000

If someone has an expired ID, will s/he be allowed to vote?

People who don't own cars don't have to be particularly vigilant about renewing their drivers licenses.

My guess is that people with expired IDs won't be able to vote even though it's perfectly clear who there are and where they live.

In my mind this is not an acceptable outcome.

Also, who said you needed to have a state ID in this country. If you don't drive and don't need one for booze or cigarettes, why should you be discriminated against at the polling place?

Re: Question of the day

bored now — Thu, 24 Aug 2006 18:30:07 -0000

right, lovie, because democracy is really only for the elite, those who can prove they deserve to be in your country club! whiners. either you support democracy or you don't. democracy shouldn't just be for those who live in the green zone...

Re: Question of the day

Lovie's Leather — Thu, 24 Aug 2006 17:53:46 -0000

Yeah, an ID card is another act of voter suppression. Just add it to the long list of: Can't vote everyday of the year, can't vote until age 18, can't vote because you aren't registered, can't vote because the people at the poll looked at me wierd when I picked the Republican ballot, can't vote because my kids are sick (damn government), can't vote because my car broke down, can't vote because I don't have the right skin-color, can't vote!!! can't vote!!! can't vote!!! Come on, cry baby... cry! cry! come on, cry!!! There are some reasons why people don't vote or can't always vote... that doesn't mean it is voter suppression. It means that some people think they are being disenfranchised when they disenfranchise themselves.

Re: Question of the day

NW burbs — Thu, 24 Aug 2006 17:03:49 -0000

Why not just tell people they'll be arrested for past due parking tickets ... or that they'll have to pass a short written exam before voting ...

Oh, wait. Those were all tactics conservatives already tried to suppress the minority vote.

Hello? It's 2006. Why aren't more people calling this what it is -- a blatant attempt at racist voter suppression. Welcome to desegregation Rep. Stephens.

Re: Question of the day

Glenn Wood — Thu, 24 Aug 2006 17:00:08 -0000

Several Things
In Atlanta, there were no facilities in the central city where people could go to get the ID.

Technically, we have an open primary. you are not required to officially join a party to vote in its primary.

This all smacks a little too much of "Show me your papers!"

I would like Rep. Stephens to show me which elections were won by fraud. Even in recounted elections that were close, I haven't heard a big cry of voter fraud in Illinois.

Re: Question of the day

cermak_rd — Thu, 24 Aug 2006 15:32:40 -0000

Richard K. Means,

I agree the FBI has more to consider and eliminate than an election judge, but I also don't believe that anyone without training on handwriting recognition is really all that capable of accurately checking a signature and certainly not in the length of time the usual election judge has to give to it.

I'm not really criticizing election judges, just the security blanket society clings to by having untrainted people check sigs.

Re: Question of the day

zatoichi — Thu, 24 Aug 2006 15:24:41 -0000

Drivers license and state ID card are easy to get. Make ID card free once the right documents are produced. Fail to see how that is racial, economic, or any other negative. Sigs change over time. Faces stay pretty much the same. Good idea, but will go nowhere. Just a Warhol 15 minute PR attempt.

Re: Question of the day

Frank Booth — Thu, 24 Aug 2006 15:18:11 -0000

OK, everyone's had a rich healthy discussion on the idea. Now for a little reality and perspective so we can move on to talking about something of relevence like, say, the decision to exclude Pluto as a planet.

Marginal lawmaker in marginalized minority party proposes election reform that won't be considered until after the election.

Does anything more really need to be said?

Re: Question of the day

Richard K. Means — Thu, 24 Aug 2006 14:54:45 -0000

Cermak Rd diminishes the value of the signature comparison by comparing what the FBI does in a lab. That's not a valid contrast. When the FBI compares a "known" signature with a "questioned" signature, they do not know whether the questioned signature was a photo, a painstaking tracing, a valid signature made under durress, etc. The election judges and poll watchers see the voter making the signature right in front of them and always have the right to challenge it upon which the voter is required to produce ID.
For those who complain that the election judges and poll watchers don't do their job, the solution is to make the system work the way it is supposed to and not to further depress the honest vote.

Re: Question of the day

bored now — Thu, 24 Aug 2006 14:06:41 -0000

backyard: as i suspected, you have no examples where this proposal would in any way prevent or even deter the kind of voter fraud you are aware of. me neither! so we are left with the hard (voter suppression), and no good (unless you want to call easing irrational fears a public good!).

as for your experience as an election judge, we have to weigh your convenience (one person) against the convenience of others (the many). interestingly, the people who you want to be inconvienced don't think like you! i'm shocked!

bbn: i'm sorry you can't read. but to summarize, i'm arguing that voter fraud is a problem, but not at the individual level. i can't think of an election where voter fraud has decided the outcome -- not that i don't doubt this has occurred at a local level. hence, this proposal has no upside (unless you count easing the concerns of irrational people) and a significant downside.