Posted on 06/09/2011 11:31:48 AM PDT by Hojczyk
Support remains high for requiring voters to show photo identification before being allowed to cast their ballots. An increasing number of states across the country are putting that requirement into law.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 75% of Likely U.S. Voters believe voters should be required to show photo identification such as a driver’s license before being allowed to vote. Just 18% disagree and oppose such a requirement. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
Eighty-five percent (85%) of Republicans support a photo ID requirement at the polls, as do 77% of voters not affiliated with either major party and 63% of Democrats. But then support for such a law is high across virtually all demographic groups.
Supporters of photo ID laws say they will prevent fraud at the polls; opponents insist the laws will discourage many including minorities and older Americans from voting.
By a 48% to 29% margin, voters think that letting ineligible people vote is a bigger problem than preventing legitimate voters from casting a ballot.
A plurality (46%) of Democrats thinks it’s more common for eligible voters to be denied their right to vote. Seventy-two percent (72%) of Republicans and a plurality (44%) of voters not affiliated with either party, on the other hand, believe that illegal voting is more prevalent.
(Excerpt) Read more at rasmussenreports.com ...
That was similar to my question. How do you handle absentee ballots?
It used to be standard practice that Democrats would go to nursing homes and mental institutions every election, to vote people who were unconscious or had the mental abilities of cabbage.
We are the only developed country in the world where you don’t have to show ID to vote. Old people and poor people can get ID. Ridiculous to use that as an excuse. There are old and poor people in European countries, even minorities, and they are not thought so stupid they couldn’t get an ID card.
We need to fight this stupid excuse that it would be unfair to require ID. If you are incapable of procuring an ID (especially if it were subsidized), Then you are too far gone to vote (the sick, the disabled).
There is someone on my street with nearly my identical name and I have to check those biddies at the polls or they will cheerfully mark me down as her, since our last names are pronounced the same. What a joke.
Imagine being the one to have to check Anthony Weiner’s, um, “photo ID!”
Now we need to work on doing way with absentee and "early" voting (except in legitimately extenuating circumstances, of course.) Voting ON Election Day, AT a designated polling place only.
If this went into effect, the democrats would lose 3 Senate seats and 12 House seats.
75% of Americans have been told to SHOVE IT for the last 30 years!
What I get out of this is that half of the ‘rats don’t understand that they’ll lose over 5% of their popular vote total if vote fraud is curtailed.
That remaining 25% of those polled, or roughly half the rats, understand this.
It still is.... nursing homes across the nation are beseiged by eager demoRAT "volunteers" who are so eager to assist any or all nursing home residents to vote - whether they are able to or not. In that case, the demoRAT "volunteer" votes for the incapicitated elderly voter. I would wager to say that there is a >100% nursing home vote turnout, and that 95% of those are cast for the socialist demoRATs.
As it currently stands anyone on Earth can live in America permanently, get government handouts, and vote in our elections. All they need to do is get here! It doesn’t matter how. Take a plane from Mombassa, a boat from Chile, or walk in from Mexico.
THERE IS NO INTERNAL ENFORCEMENT AT ALL.
Once.
Why is it that only Dems oppose this initiative?
Once.
Why is it that only Dems oppose this initiative?
Mail-in votes would have to be considered provisional unless & until they’re vetted. Of course, what the vetting consisted of would have to be established. OR, simplest of all is abolishing all but verifiable absentee mail-in voting (as for diplomatic and military services).
A question, tho—How do sick people vote?
opponents insist the laws will discourage many including minorities and older Americans from voting.
This *argument* is plain asinine?
The only 'minority' a Photo ID would discourage is an ILLEGAL (or maybe a FELON) and they aren't supposed to vote in the first place.
When I first was able to vote in the 70’s in MD, you had to show ID. In my case, the polling place was my old elementary school [less than 1 mile away] and the poll workers were ALL mothers and fathers from the neighborhood.
So, I DID NOT have to show ID - but they KNEW me on sight ...
NOW, the poll workers come from up-county, DON’T know me, AND DON’T ASK FOR ID ...
AND A LOT OF THEM ARE HISPANIC - SHOULD I BE ASKING FOR THEIR ID ???
Fox (John Stossel?) did an expose on this not too long ago, only it was with a group home. You're right, 100 % turnout. 99% Dem.
They interviewed a polite young man who was severely brain damaged, but still was "helped" by the Dem volunteers to cast a vote. He thought that he was voting for Gerald Ford.
What do you suppose came out of the expose? Yeah, that's what I thought too.
Here in California a state-issued I.D. costs $26 and they have a special program for poor people so it only costs them $7 to get an I.D.
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/dl/fees/idCard_fees.htm#reg_id
States can require a thumb print on the registration form (or on the form where the voter requests an absentee ballot) and then require that the absentee ballot itself have a matching thumb print. The state can then keep an absentee ballot thumbprint database to ensure that future ballots are cast with the same thumbprint. Any irregularities and the ballot is thrown out and an investigation can ensue.
Arguments are that the thumbprint will deny the voter some level of privacy/secrecy, but they’ll always be allowed to vote at the polling place if that’s a big enough concern.
Oh, and states should make voter fraud a felony that carries a minimum jail term of one year and a stipulation that multiple convictions cannot run concurrently. Fraud on 5 ballots = 5 years minimum in the slammer.
Once.
Yeah, but I see you're all for posting twice!
: )
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.