North Carolina governor signs voter ID law

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by gator85jd, Aug 12, 2013.

  1. MichiGator2002
    Online

    MichiGator2002 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    15,579
    Likes Received:
    402
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,701
    So you are saying that there was a pool of, what, 20 million or so nonvoting registrations, so that if you even were to cast a narrow net in drawing the target pool, 8 or 10 million potential marks?

    Of course, since there is going to be a lot of variance within districts, there will be some much easier to target than others. Seems a target rich environment even with that turnout.

    By the by, does it take a widespread effort? I think one such instance is two too many. Just takes a card, so I am sure that if we provided those at no cost to all registered voters, there would be no way to argue against it, right?

    This illustration is just one species of dire vulnerability that can be addressed prophylactically by an ID, but it would also solve 103% turnout districts too (maybe even 100% voting one way).
  2. MichaelJoeWilliamson
    Offline

    MichaelJoeWilliamson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Messages:
    6,820
    Likes Received:
    415
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +497
    This does not support your point at all.
  3. fredsanford
    Offline

    fredsanford VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    11,505
    Likes Received:
    155
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +974
    So we need factual support to negate the voting process changes but none to implement voter ID to combat unproven fraud? Wow.

    Your analogy is terrible. Everyone has seen the damage done by water and wind intrusion. Voter Fraud laws are more akin to barring Klingons from voting. It's a solution in search of an unprovable problem.
  4. MichiGator2002
    Online

    MichiGator2002 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    15,579
    Likes Received:
    402
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,701
    Fred is the perfect example of what I said, that if you made ID free and hand delivered, paperclipped to a stack of $100 bills to every voter who supposedly just can't manage to get ID, would still oppose showing that ID. By no coincidence whatsoever and more than a little irony, the people that those opposing ID laws are falsely claiming to defend also make up the most likely target pool for the sort of fraud I postulate.

    Qui bono?
  5. rivergator
    Offline

    rivergator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    31,007
    Likes Received:
    321
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,465
    So this would require a pretty vast conspiracy to sift through the nation's 153 million registered voters to find the 20 million or so who weren't going to vote in the election. And you'd have to be completely certain, but one or two mistakes and you'd get caught.
    And you don't think that's far-fetched?
  6. MichiGator2002
    Online

    MichiGator2002 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    15,579
    Likes Received:
    402
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,701
    Not farfetched at all, because it doesn't take any such sifting and massive database to do the work. You are either still just trollin me a little or you would be a pretty easy mark yourself. 9/10ths of the work, if not more, is profiling, it is pure demography, to project your most unlikely voters. The rest isn't anything you couldn't get from observation and planning. You are making it sound like it takes an "Ocean's Eleven" caliber scam when it is more of a Three Card Monte level scale.

    Gonna give you another chance to ignore the question -- free, mail delivered photo IDs for every registered voter. Imagine free money or free beer delieversd with it if you line. You'd still oppose presenting an I'D as though voting were at least as important as an R rated movie; why, if not to preserve the potential avenue of fraud?
  7. fredsanford
    Offline

    fredsanford VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    11,505
    Likes Received:
    155
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +974
    Untrue.

    I've said on here many times that I don't oppose these laws. What I oppose are slapdash and nakedly transparent attempts to influence elections enacted scant months before presidential ones.
  8. MichiGator2002
    Online

    MichiGator2002 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    15,579
    Likes Received:
    402
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,701
    There are national elections every two years... just when can anything at all be done that you wouldn't be inclined to brand slapdash? As for nakedly transparent attempts to influence elections, like the royal proclamation of the non-Dream non-Act?
  9. GatorBen
    Offline

    GatorBen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    6,446
    Likes Received:
    337
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,409
    Which had absolutely no effect at all on voter roles?

    In terms of how you do it without having an election immediately that you're screwing up? That seems relatively simple, make the change but have it not take effect until the next election passes. That gives you either 3 or 4 years before the next federal election, which would prevent the problems with wrongly removing eligible voters from the roles shortly before the election that we have seen with voter purges, gives people time to make changes or obtain documents they need prior to the changes kicking in, etc.
  10. MichiGator2002
    Online

    MichiGator2002 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    15,579
    Likes Received:
    402
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,701
    The phrase was "nakedly transparent attempts to influence election". I think Obama does more of that in the six months before any election than the aggregate of all procedural changes like ID laws and roster clean up have in the past 20 years.

    I don't think there is a legitimate argument that you have to skip an election for the changes to take effect, there is certainly no legal rationale behind it, in fact quite a bit against it -- if the law is being modified for the integrity of the process, there is no sanity in squeezing an additional election out first without it. It isn't like anybody is passing these the Friday before polls open.
  11. fredsanford
    Offline

    fredsanford VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    11,505
    Likes Received:
    155
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +974
    Do them in the year following a presidential contest. Voting is so light in a midterm it shouldn't be an issue.
  12. GatorBen
    Offline

    GatorBen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    6,446
    Likes Received:
    337
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,409
    There's no reason you couldn't, laws have whatever effective date they provide for.

    And doing so provides a way to implement the system without having the disenfranchising effect that the initial implementation of these laws often creates (and I completely understand that that would entirely negate the actual purpose of GOP legislatures passing them, but if our goal was actually to implement a system that works it gives you time to do so). The rushed implementation is what creates a lot of problems, whether it be the eligible voters getting removed from the roles by a poorly implemented purge within a month or two of the election (hi, Florida) or the need to actually give people time to learn that the requirements have changed and to get documents that they now suddenly need, and the state elections board time to develop and test a system to implement the requirements. Voting is a fundamental right, and if we sloppily implement a system that disenfranchises people in a near-term election there is no effective remedy for it, we essentially wind up with "Oh, oops. Well we'll have the kinks worked out by the next election." as an answer, which is not a terribly satisfying one when working the kinks out over that same time frame without infringing on a fundamental right is a readily available option as well.
  13. DaveFla
    Offline

    DaveFla Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    18,269
    Likes Received:
    142
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +913
    Incredible, isn't it?

    Sometimes I truly believe that Fred is a bot... Programmed to simply toss out simple phrases without regard to their accuracy or even relevance...
  14. rivergator
    Offline

    rivergator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    31,007
    Likes Received:
    321
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,465
    Yes, it's ridiculously far fetched. But if anyone were really that organized and bent on voter fraud, they could just do fake IDs or go to absentee ballots which, in their zeal to fight voter fraud, Republicans are making easier.
  15. gator85jd
    Offline

    gator85jd New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Messages:
    5,893
    Likes Received:
    65
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +65
    Why keep same day registration? If voting is important, don't you think registering is something people could do in advance?
  16. rivergator
    Offline

    rivergator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    31,007
    Likes Received:
    321
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,465
    you can't come up with a reason to change it?
  17. MichiGator2002
    Online

    MichiGator2002 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    15,579
    Likes Received:
    402
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,701
    Sure dove headlong into that third chance to give a rational explanation why you would still oppose an ID check if they were delivered at no charge to any registered voter, didn't you. Suppose the fact that there is no rational reason to oppose it at that point would make the attempt daunting.

    Same day registration makes it manifestly impossible to check that the same voter isn't still on the roll and eligible to vote in another precinct, that seems an obvious concern. But I sense this is yet another self-evident security concern that we will irrationally demand be proven to have already been exploited before we close it.
  18. gator85jd
    Offline

    gator85jd New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Messages:
    5,893
    Likes Received:
    65
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +65
    It increases the opportunity for walk-up voter fraud, but you already know that. Why can't people who believe voting is important register in advance?
  19. GatorBen
    Offline

    GatorBen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    6,446
    Likes Received:
    337
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,409
    Not in North Carolina. In fact you're creating an issue that plainly didn't exist under North Carolina's same-day registration scheme.

    The legislation that created it is here: http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2007/Bills/House/HTML/H91v6.html

    Of particular note: same-day registration is only available during the "one-stop absentee" voting period (an element of NC's early voting process) and is not available on general election day; the person seeking same-day registration is required to vote via a "retrievable absentee ballot" which is then pulled and not counted if, upon verification of the registration, the board of elections is unable to verify the registrant's information and eligibility to vote or determines that it is a likely duplicate registration; the registered voter is entered into or updated in the state voter registration database prior to election day.
  20. demosthenes
    Offline

    demosthenes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    6,710
    Likes Received:
    110
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    Ratings Received:
    +510
    Has North Carolina heard of computers? This isn't 1960 or even 1990.
    • Like Like x 1

Share This Page