Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
1/22/2020 12:12:56 PM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 9/25/2012 6:13:20 PM EST
You're not going to get to just show an ID, they're scanning them.

I go to my polling place and tell them my name. They look in their book, find my name, I sign it, fill out a ballot, and I'm on my way.

Discuss.
Link Posted: 9/25/2012 8:23:57 PM EST
So when you go into there and you tell them your name. They look it up, and it's already been signed by someone else, what do you do?


Discuss.
Link Posted: 9/25/2012 8:55:44 PM EST
If having your ID scanned is a touchy subject, I hope you don't buy tobacco or ever get pulled over for speeding or some other infraction...because your ID gets scanned there, too.

(The Holiday by where I worked would asked for IDs for all tobacco purchases and swipe it though to make sure it was valid, I guess...I don't know if they still do it as I quit in 06...)

All the scanning will do is verify that the license is legit. It's not like there's some extra hidden information on the magnetic strip that isn't already printed on the face of the card.
Link Posted: 9/26/2012 12:28:53 AM EST
Originally Posted By LaserBait:
So when you go into there and you tell them your name. They look it up, and it's already been signed by someone else, what do you do?


Discuss.


Take pride in the fact that he helped re-elect Obama?
Link Posted: 9/26/2012 1:03:21 AM EST
Though a driver's license isn't the only valid form of ID that would be accepted under the proposed law, for many people, it will be the de facto reality.

We don't need to expand the reach of government in our society by strengthening the position of the driver's license by giving it the impression of being all the more indispensible. If curtailing voter fraud is of such concern (don't get me wrong, I'm not naive enough to believe the jingoistic Minnesota Establishment and believe that everything here is oh-so squeaky clean), there are other means to go about doing it without expanding the reach of government and strengthening the position of its documents.

Nearly all of the voter fraud stories that I've heard don't involve someone using your name at the polling place. Rather, they involve one person vouching for a busload of people that nobody has ever seen in the community before and are new same-day registrations in the precinct, people using the names of dead people, things like that which don't make any sense. If election judges would do their job (or felt empowered to do so), they would be rejecting these and sending them away.

Rather than strengthen the position of the driver's license in our society, how about we use the reportedly effect method we installed in Iraq? When you're done, go stick your finger in purple dye. That way, if you vote, you only get the one shot. You may have voted on someone else's "behalf", but then you won't get to vote "yourself". In so doing, you've already used your vote.
Link Posted: 9/26/2012 1:10:18 AM EST
When it comes to the "debate" that has ensued over this proposal, I cannot help but think that both sides, as they have bifurcated themselves, use some of the most piss-poor lines of argumentation and rhetoric. Examples:

Them: "You have to show an ID to do virtually everything else!"

Me: "Why should you have to? Who says that you must? Many of those "uses" are government mandates. Surely you aren't in favor of government mandates, are you?"

Them: "There's no fraud. Very few cases are ever prosecuted."

Me: "There are many cases of kidnapping, rape, and murder that are never prosecuted. Will you tell the victims of these crimes that it didn't happen because there was no prosecution?"

Link Posted: 9/26/2012 4:08:13 AM EST
Originally Posted By GrandForks:

Rather than strengthen the position of the driver's license in our society, how about we use the reportedly effect method we installed in Iraq? When you're done, go stick your finger in purple dye. That way, if you vote, you only get the one shot. You may have voted on someone else's "behalf", but then you won't get to vote "yourself". In so doing, you've already used your vote.


So the aforementioned inept, worthless election judges are going to make sure that everyone sticks their finger in the dye? And if someone says they aren't going to do it... then what?
Link Posted: 9/26/2012 4:36:46 AM EST
Originally Posted By BigAKFan:
You're not going to get to just show an ID, they're scanning them.

I go to my polling place and tell them my name. They look in their book, find my name, I sign it, fill out a ballot, and I'm on my way.

Discuss.


Al Franken agrees with you.

Link Posted: 9/26/2012 6:09:07 AM EST
Part of me says "Why bother voting this year". Not like there is much of a choice anyway. I will go to vote "YES" on voter ID so that future elections may be considered a true count of the electorate. Apart from that, none of the choices really matter.
Link Posted: 9/26/2012 6:15:55 AM EST
How about an ID just for citizenship.
Link Posted: 9/26/2012 7:17:49 AM EST
Originally Posted By Evil_Ed:
If having your ID scanned is a touchy subject, I hope you don't buy tobacco or ever get pulled over for speeding or some other infraction...because your ID gets scanned there, too.

(The Holiday by where I worked would asked for IDs for all tobacco purchases and swipe it though to make sure it was valid, I guess...I don't know if they still do it as I quit in 06...)

All the scanning will do is verify that the license is legit. It's not like there's some extra hidden information on the magnetic strip that isn't already printed on the face of the card.


I have no real choice when threatened with imprisionment, but I certainly have a choice when buying cigarettes or alcohol.

About 8-10 years ago MGM started requiring IDs get scanned for purchasing alcohol. I haven't stepped foot in one since.

I'm not willing to give my DOB, home address, and DL# to everyone working a register who asks for it.


Link Posted: 9/26/2012 9:13:12 AM EST
I look at the number of people likely to be persecuted by the old lady poll judges, vs the number of people voting fraudulently and I have to support voter ID.

And, yes, if it passes, we probably will hear about one case in the next 10 years of someone being hassled based on their vote. I can live with that if it means getting rid of all the illegal voting.
Link Posted: 9/26/2012 2:58:27 PM EST
Originally Posted By sjuhockey10:
Originally Posted By GrandForks:

Rather than strengthen the position of the driver's license in our society, how about we use the reportedly effect method we installed in Iraq? When you're done, go stick your finger in purple dye. That way, if you vote, you only get the one shot. You may have voted on someone else's "behalf", but then you won't get to vote "yourself". In so doing, you've already used your vote.


So the aforementioned inept, worthless election judges are going to make sure that everyone sticks their finger in the dye? And if someone says they aren't going to do it... then what?


Stick your finger in the dye as a condition of being given a ballot. This isn't that hard.
Link Posted: 9/26/2012 2:59:30 PM EST
Or make it a condition of feeding your ballot into the machine. Again, this isn't that hard.
Link Posted: 9/26/2012 4:45:08 PM EST

I will vote Yes.

The way I see it is this, on a national level 1 or 100 fraudulent votes do not matter, it's not right, but it makes no difference. At a local level, many elections are decided by only a few votes. In my area, school referendums, school board, city council, etc... have come down to just a few votes. Someone could easily pack a few buses and swing a vote in their direction.
Link Posted: 9/26/2012 5:23:26 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/26/2012 6:14:45 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/26/2012 6:15:13 PM EST by GrandForks]
Originally Posted By iNuhBaDNayburhood:

Election Judges are complicit, and I trust them as much as I trust many democrats! I believe they should FULLY automate the process. That way it's the machine dispensing only ONE ballot per person. You screw it up, too bad!

The problem with the ink/stink finger method is people putting it in the machine, then asking the people for another ballot.. Wherever there is human involvement there has always been fraud or ineptitude to some extent.


Interesting idea that I'd maybe like to hear more about. On the other hand, what's the word on this process being hacked? Ultimately, we must heed Joe Stalin's warning: "The voters decide nothing, it's the people who count the votes." That being the case, do everything you want to prevent voter fraud, but it's not going to make the difference its proponents think it will.

How would that be any different than the way things are now? Inking a finger was a condition of putting a ballot in the machine. If you then show up asking for another with an inked finger, you don't get another one.
Link Posted: 9/26/2012 6:17:16 PM EST
Ultimately, what I'd like to see are solutions that involve a little more creativity than the knee jerk "let's strengthen and broaden the reach, size, and scope of government" reaction that has become all too common.

Only a few posts away from #1776. I'd better make a big deal of it in GD.
Link Posted: 9/26/2012 6:25:06 PM EST
Originally Posted By zimpete:

...

The way I see it is this, on a national level 1 or 100 fraudulent votes do not matter, it's not right, but it makes no difference. At a local level, many elections are decided by only a few votes. In my area, school referendums, school board, city council, etc... have come down to just a few votes. Someone could easily pack a few buses and swing a vote in their direction.



It makes a difference on a national level too. We have Obamacare today because Al Frankin stole my vote and just a few more. If the DFL did not cheat it's way into the Senate, we would be a very different country today.

243 out the 312 margin Frankin won (311 if you count my stolen vote) have already been proved fraudulent and over 1000 cases are still pending. That means that the DFL only had to steal 68 more votes to give us government takeover of healthcare and trillions of dollars added to our national debt. I doubt there is any uncertainty that DLF was able to steal 68 votes out of 2.8 million cast.
Link Posted: 9/27/2012 1:20:23 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/27/2012 1:20:33 AM EST by sjuhockey10]
Originally Posted By GrandForks:
Originally Posted By sjuhockey10:
Originally Posted By GrandForks:

Rather than strengthen the position of the driver's license in our society, how about we use the reportedly effect method we installed in Iraq? When you're done, go stick your finger in purple dye. That way, if you vote, you only get the one shot. You may have voted on someone else's "behalf", but then you won't get to vote "yourself". In so doing, you've already used your vote.


So the aforementioned inept, worthless election judges are going to make sure that everyone sticks their finger in the dye? And if someone says they aren't going to do it... then what?


Stick your finger in the dye as a condition of being given a ballot. This isn't that hard.


And this proves that the person is actually eligible to vote how?
Link Posted: 9/27/2012 7:53:49 AM EST
Originally Posted By GrandForks:
Ultimately, what I'd like to see are solutions that involve a little more creativity than the knee jerk "let's strengthen and broaden the reach, size, and scope of government" reaction that has become all too common.

Only a few posts away from #1776. I'd better make a big deal of it in GD.


Preach it brother!

Link Posted: 9/27/2012 8:27:31 AM EST
Properly identifying oneself as an eligible voter and resident of the state in which you are living is part of having free elections. Photo IDs are a pretty damn good way of accomplishing this and are not a violation of one's constitutional right to anything. In fact, to ensure obtaining an ID won't be inferred as a "Poll Tax" all government IDs shall be issued to voters free of charge.

I have absolutely no problem with this.
Link Posted: 9/27/2012 8:46:17 AM EST
We do not see fraud because few really look for it. Scanning the ID allows the state to flag felons before they vote and insure legal immigrants are not talked into voting. Vouching abuses would also be prevented.

It is not perfect but then again, few things are.

Mark
Link Posted: 9/27/2012 12:31:34 PM EST
Originally Posted By mcnielsen:
Properly identifying oneself as an eligible voter and resident of the state in which you are living is part of having free elections. Photo IDs are a pretty damn good way of accomplishing this and are not a violation of one's constitutional right to anything. In fact, to ensure obtaining an ID won't be inferred as a "Poll Tax" all government IDs shall be issued to voters free of charge.

I have absolutely no problem with this.


The poll tax is the only valid argument. I agree with this solution.
Link Posted: 9/28/2012 12:58:31 AM EST
Originally Posted By mcnielsen:
Properly identifying oneself as an eligible voter and resident of the state in which you are living is part of having free elections. Photo IDs are a pretty damn good way of accomplishing this and are not a violation of one's constitutional right to anything. In fact, to ensure obtaining an ID won't be inferred as a "Poll Tax" all government IDs shall be issued to voters free of charge.

I have absolutely no problem with this.


The argument I've always heard is that this would be used to ensure "one man, one vote" is upheld. Has the line of argumentation changed?
Link Posted: 9/29/2012 2:05:07 AM EST
Originally Posted By BigAKFan:
You're not going to get to just show an ID, they're scanning them.



So what? We own the government. They work for us. We don't worry about what one (or the whole group) of these clowns thinks of us. Being worried about being in some database (when there's no proof that's even happening) ensures you've already surrendered your piece of ownership of this experiment to the Soros crowd.
Link Posted: 9/29/2012 4:39:32 AM EST
Originally Posted By GrandForks:
Originally Posted By sjuhockey10:
Originally Posted By GrandForks:

Rather than strengthen the position of the driver's license in our society, how about we use the reportedly effect method we installed in Iraq? When you're done, go stick your finger in purple dye. That way, if you vote, you only get the one shot. You may have voted on someone else's "behalf", but then you won't get to vote "yourself". In so doing, you've already used your vote.


So the aforementioned inept, worthless election judges are going to make sure that everyone sticks their finger in the dye? And if someone says they aren't going to do it... then what?


Stick your finger in the dye as a condition of being given a ballot. This isn't that hard.


what happens if i stick my finger tip in wax before i walk in? will the die take? do they make you stand there and ensure that your finger is fully stained?
what happens if i use makeup on my fingertip AFTER it has been stained? when i goto the next poleing place to cast another vote, how closley do they examin
my finger to make sure it isnt already died?
Link Posted: 9/29/2012 5:04:28 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/29/2012 5:07:37 PM EST by rgrprib]
All these people that are against voter ID must have never:
Serve in the military
Travel by air
Travel outside the USA
Rent a car
Rent a hotel room
Drive a car
Have a job
Have a bank account
Purchase firearms - legally

The list goes on and on.

You must have a form of identification for all of the above.

Voting is a right - you should want to protect that right.

Flame away libtards
Link Posted: 9/30/2012 4:35:12 AM EST
Originally Posted By J75player:
Originally Posted By GrandForks:
Originally Posted By sjuhockey10:
Originally Posted By GrandForks:

Rather than strengthen the position of the driver's license in our society, how about we use the reportedly effect method we installed in Iraq? When you're done, go stick your finger in purple dye. That way, if you vote, you only get the one shot. You may have voted on someone else's "behalf", but then you won't get to vote "yourself". In so doing, you've already used your vote.


So the aforementioned inept, worthless election judges are going to make sure that everyone sticks their finger in the dye? And if someone says they aren't going to do it... then what?


Stick your finger in the dye as a condition of being given a ballot. This isn't that hard.


what happens if i stick my finger tip in wax before i walk in? will the die take? do they make you stand there and ensure that your finger is fully stained?
what happens if i use makeup on my fingertip AFTER it has been stained? when i goto the next poleing place to cast another vote, how closley do they examin
my finger to make sure it isnt already died?


What if someone brings a fake ID? After all, if someone's willing to go to those lengths to cheat, they'll find a way to thwart the solution you've already latched on to and decided is best.

College students working out of dorm rooms can manufacture fake IDs just as "real" as legitimate ones.

Ultimately, this all leaves us back at square one and demonstrates that the current proposal offers to take a sledgehammer to something that, to properly resolve, demands far a more surgical and precise approach.
Link Posted: 9/30/2012 4:39:10 AM EST
Originally Posted By rgrprib:
All these people that are against voter ID must have never:
Serve in the military
Travel by air
Travel outside the USA
Rent a car
Rent a hotel room
Drive a car
Have a job
Have a bank account
Purchase firearms - legally

The list goes on and on.

You must have a form of identification for all of the above.

Voting is a right - you should want to protect that right.

Flame away libtards


I have done nearly all of these legally. And having done them, I also know that all of these ID requirements are actually government mandates––you know, rules and regulations.

Which brings me to my next point. When "Conservatives" talk about abolishing rules, regulations, and mandates exactly which ones are they talking about? Because the moment the discussion goes from the abstract to the concrete, many "Conservatives" are just as much about maintaining rules, regulations, and mandates as any libtard out there. And like with libtards, it's all emotionally-based because they are frightened of some perceived need not being fulfilled.
Link Posted: 9/30/2012 4:41:14 AM EST
Inevitably, this is where the discussion always goes. I'm rather amazed that it took this long for the run-of-the-mill, piss-poor argumentation and rhetorical skills to turn up.
Link Posted: 9/30/2012 5:31:19 AM EST
Originally Posted By GrandForks:
Inevitably, this is where the discussion always goes. I'm rather amazed that it took this long for the run-of-the-mill, piss-poor argumentation and rhetorical skills to turn up.


I would like to hear how you propose to fix the problem? I have heard plenty against voter ID, but never an alternate solution.

Don't say it isn't a problem, because in the lat election we had thousands of felons voting as well as groups of people being "vouched for" at polling places.
Link Posted: 9/30/2012 5:34:05 AM EST
Grandforks, are you going to vote against the voter ID amendment? Because there's only two choices-yes or no. Voting no enables the ongoing voter fraud-all you need to do is look at who wants you to vote no to see that. Let's try not to over-analyze this thing. If you don't like the wording of these ballot choices you need to get yourself elected on the state level and work to make your ideas a reality-a "no" protest vote won't mean shit or shinola in the grand scheme of things.

Link Posted: 9/30/2012 9:03:16 AM EST
Originally Posted By LaserBait:
So when you go into there and you tell them your name. They look it up, and it's already been signed by someone else, what do you do?


Discuss.


This.

Scanning assists in preventing duplicate voting, and fruad. Thereby protecting the franchise of each vote and voter.
Link Posted: 9/30/2012 2:42:15 PM EST
Originally Posted By live-free-or-die:
Originally Posted By GrandForks:
Inevitably, this is where the discussion always goes. I'm rather amazed that it took this long for the run-of-the-mill, piss-poor argumentation and rhetorical skills to turn up.


I would like to hear how you propose to fix the problem? I have heard plenty against voter ID, but never an alternate solution.

Don't say it isn't a problem, because in the lat election we had thousands of felons voting as well as groups of people being "vouched for" at polling places.


Please see my previous posts. I believe that I stated in no uncertain terms that this is indeed a problem but that I thought this was the wrong way to go about dealing with it. If this idea hasn't been made clear in that and my numerous other posts, let it be now.

Moreover, if you had read those numerous previous posts, you would have found that I suggested no less than one alternative solution. I've also been known to advocate for ending vouching and same-day registration. From all the fraud stories that I've heard, ending these practices will do far more to eradicate this problem than expanding the reach of government.

Either way, vote as you will. I'll defer to Joe Stalin who said something to this effect: "The voters determine nothing; the people counting the votes decide everything."
Link Posted: 9/30/2012 4:59:30 PM EST
It's a good thing you have it all figured out. Thank you for enlightening us again and again as we are all clearly just tools of the machine doing what they want us to do. Based on your line of thinking, vote yes, vote no, what does it even matter? It's the SYSTEM, MAN!!!! the SYSTEM!!!!!
Link Posted: 9/30/2012 6:04:03 PM EST
Originally Posted By GrandForks:
Originally Posted By live-free-or-die:
Originally Posted By GrandForks:
Inevitably, this is where the discussion always goes. I'm rather amazed that it took this long for the run-of-the-mill, piss-poor argumentation and rhetorical skills to turn up.


I would like to hear how you propose to fix the problem? I have heard plenty against voter ID, but never an alternate solution.

Don't say it isn't a problem, because in the lat election we had thousands of felons voting as well as groups of people being "vouched for" at polling places.


Please see my previous posts. I believe that I stated in no uncertain terms that this is indeed a problem but that I thought this was the wrong way to go about dealing with it. If this idea hasn't been made clear in that and my numerous other posts, let it be now.

Moreover, if you had read those numerous previous posts, you would have found that I suggested no less than one alternative solution. I've also been known to advocate for ending vouching and same-day registration. From all the fraud stories that I've heard, ending these practices will do far more to eradicate this problem than expanding the reach of government.

Either way, vote as you will. I'll defer to Joe Stalin who said something to this effect: "The voters determine nothing; the people counting the votes decide everything."


Sorry, I thought the ink in the finger was a joke...

I just went through your posts again and can't put my finger on why you have a problem with voter ID? The best I can discern from your comments is that you dislike more government involvement and power. I respect that!

I just don't see a better wat to prevent voter fraud that would be accepted.

If I had my way you would get a unique voter ID (free) that gets swiped and if it were swiped at another location would alert the judges. The only exception would be for the military who would be given mail in ballots.


Link Posted: 10/1/2012 1:04:25 AM EST
Originally Posted By live-free-or-die:
If I had my way you would get a unique voter ID (free) that gets swiped and if it were swiped at another location would alert the judges. The only exception would be for the military who would be given mail in ballots.



That would be something to be handled at the time of voter registration I would think.
Link Posted: 10/1/2012 2:25:35 AM EST
Originally Posted By GrandForks:
Originally Posted By live-free-or-die:
If I had my way you would get a unique voter ID (free) that gets swiped and if it were swiped at another location would alert the judges. The only exception would be for the military who would be given mail in ballots.



That would be something to be handled at the time of voter registration I would think.


Agreed
Link Posted: 10/1/2012 3:36:44 PM EST
Doesnt every person who is legal to vote have a damn SS card. Bring your card, show your card get your ballot. That is a unique number to every individual. Enter your ss number in a machine, presto heres a ballot. If it says the number was already used, the machines could be programmed to identify the location it was used. So if it really is you, which can be easily verified with your photo id, then the other is removed and you get to cast your vote. Or we could just show your ID to start with
Link Posted: 10/1/2012 5:53:03 PM EST
Make IDs free. Require IDs to vote.


Done.

(This was already mentioned, but I echo it).
Link Posted: 10/2/2012 4:00:33 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/2/2012 4:05:09 PM EST by zimpete]
One of my pastors will be discussing this topic with myself and others at our church council meeting next Tuesday and I have a few questions. She claims 200,000 people will not be able to vote in 2013 if this passes.

1. How much does a Minnesota ID card cost now?
oops, answered my own question:
Fees
Identification card fees are $17.25 for people younger than 65, $11 for those ages 65 and older, and $.50 for those with a qualifying physical or developmental disability or qualified mental illness. If your card is damaged, lost or stolen and you need a duplicate (replacement), the fee is $12.75.

2. How will voting work for college kids, who do not change their drivers license while attending college, but vote in a town other than what is listed on their ID?

3. What about people who have just moved, will the paperwork qualify as an ID?

Link Posted: 10/2/2012 4:03:30 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/2/2012 4:05:41 PM EST by zimpete]
Link Posted: 10/2/2012 5:54:19 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/2/2012 5:56:37 PM EST by GoBlue]
Originally Posted By zimpete:


1. How much does a Minnesota ID card cost now?
oops, answered my own question:
Fees
Identification card fees are $17.25 for people younger than 65, $11 for those ages 65 and older, and $.50 for those with a qualifying physical or developmental disability or qualified mental illness. If your card is damaged, lost or stolen and you need a duplicate (replacement), the fee is $12.75.




well there you go. most Minnesota DFL liberals would only have to pay $0.50 as they clearly have a mental illness. $0.50 does not seem like an unreasonable hurdle.

Link Posted: 10/2/2012 6:49:45 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/2/2012 7:36:54 PM EST by norseman1]
Originally Posted By GrandForks:
When "Conservatives" talk about abolishing rules....


Like when "so called conservatives" show up at leftist OWS rallies claiming to stand up for free market values and supporting the constitution?

So you don't want to show ID when you vote. Your argument that its an encrouchment of gubmint is thin, at best. States have the right to run their elections in a manner they see fit.

Don't like it? Fine, move to Chicago. No problem with dead people voting there.

Vote absentee if its that much of a problem.

Link Posted: 10/2/2012 7:01:42 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/2/2012 7:07:37 PM EST by norseman1]
Originally Posted By GrandForks:

What if someone brings a fake ID? After all, if someone's willing to go to those lengths to cheat, they'll find a way to thwart the solution you've already latched on to and decided is best.

College students working out of dorm rooms can manufacture fake IDs just as "real" as legitimate ones.

Ultimately, this all leaves us back at square one and demonstrates that the current proposal offers to take a sledgehammer to something that, to properly resolve, demands far a more surgical and precise approach.


The ID's will be scanned. That makes equipment to do what you indicated nigh impossible.

You would need to know the ID number of the person you are counterfeiting as well as the location of their polling place. Not to mention getting there before they showed up.

Good luck with that...

Link Posted: 10/2/2012 7:08:49 PM EST
Originally Posted By zimpete:
One of my pastors will be discussing this topic with myself and others at our church council meeting next Tuesday and I have a few questions. She claims 200,000 people will not be able to vote in 2013 if this passes.

1. How much does a Minnesota ID card cost now?
oops, answered my own question:
Fees
Identification card fees are $17.25 for people younger than 65, $11 for those ages 65 and older, and $.50 for those with a qualifying physical or developmental disability or qualified mental illness. If your card is damaged, lost or stolen and you need a duplicate (replacement), the fee is $12.75.

2. How will voting work for college kids, who do not change their drivers license while attending college, but vote in a town other than what is listed on their ID?

3. What about people who have just moved, will the paperwork qualify as an ID?



I'm wondering what hapens if the ID scanner doesn't accept an ID. Can they still vote?

If for some reason an ID scanner is down are they denying everyone the right to vote?

What if the swipe area of the state issued ID is damaged in some way, then what? That person is prohibited from voting?

Link Posted: 10/2/2012 7:18:39 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/2/2012 7:38:11 PM EST by norseman1]
Originally Posted By BigAKFan:

I'm wondering what hapens if the ID scanner doesn't accept an ID. Can they still vote?

Yes, its called a provisional ballot. Once the voter get verification, the ballot is counted.

If for some reason an ID scanner is down are they denying everyone the right to vote?

Nope. Ballots are provisional. I don't know all the specifics of how the provisional ballots get scored and at which point. There was someone on the radio who went through all the details.

What if the swipe area of the state issued ID is damaged in some way, then what? That person is prohibited from voting?


You get a provisional ballot. Once verified, your vote is counted.


VoteID systems work pretty slick. The news segment talking about other states was well balanced. Our proposed amendment actually avoids the mistakes that other states have run into.

Now, that is not to say its perfect. Someone could steal a person's wallet and dress up as them and go and vote. Its possible, but highly improbable.

There were so many dead people and fellons who voted last time, and all the UoM students who are not residents.

And speaking of UoM students, by law, we cannot use their enrollment status to ascertain their residency when it comes to voting.
Just one more good reason to require a STATE issued ID for voting.
Link Posted: 10/3/2012 1:26:03 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/3/2012 1:27:55 AM EST by GrandForks]
Originally Posted By norseman1:
Originally Posted By GrandForks:
When "Conservatives" talk about abolishing rules....

So you don't want to show ID when you vote. Your argument that its an encrouchment of gubmint is thin, at best. States have the right to run their elections in a manner they see fit.



And just because the states have the right to do something, does that mean they should? The states have the right to have big governments. Does that mean they should?

EDIT

Do states and governments even have rights? Or is the word "powers" what we're looking for?
Link Posted: 10/3/2012 4:39:45 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/3/2012 11:10:49 AM EST by GoBlue]
Originally Posted By zimpete:
. She claims 200,000 people will not be able to vote in 2013 if this passes.





that is a BS number. Minnesota's voter eligible population is 3.7 million. We lead the nation in voter turn out, never exceeding 80%. So of the 2.96 million people that vote, she is claiming that 7% would be disenfranchised. 1 in 14 adults in MN don't have a valid ID? Simply not believable.

Claiming that $17 bucks is an undue burden is bullshit. The amendment provides for free ID. If a person just moved (must be more than 30 days) and does not have a valid ID, then a provisional ballot will be issued.
Link Posted: 10/3/2012 4:48:27 AM EST
Originally Posted By zimpete:



2. How will voting work for college kids, who do not change their drivers license while attending college, but vote in a town other than what is listed on their ID?

3. What about people who have just moved, will the paperwork qualify as an ID?



Re #2, they are not eligible to vote if they are not a resident for 30 days in the district. College kids should file for an absentee ballot in the district they are resident in. If they want to become permanent residents of their college town, then they should change their IDs. State law says they are required to get a new id when they establish permanent residency in MN within 60 days.

Re #3 - They need to be resident for 30 days in the district in order to be eligible to vote in the district. They can get an ID within that time frame or file a provisional ballot if they meet the residency requirements but have not gotten a state issued id in time.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top