So, you're no longer making the case that there is statistically significant voter fraud. But you still want IDs. As has been repeatedly stated, this is proven to disenfranchise voters.

Now, why you want to do this is odd. You don't have to do this to stop the fraud that doesn't exist. It's proven to disenfranchise voters.

Is it some Calvinistic thing? The only thing your desire will do is create a non-democratic system.

Again, a taking such a position is truly bizarre in our political system. It seems to be against the very principles upon which this society is built. And accomplishes nothing?

This I would agree with.

And I would also say that I am not convinced there are huge amounts of voter fraud to the point that it would significantly change an election-at least not at a national level-voter fraud at a local level where a few votes can make a difference is another thing.

But that doesn't mean there shouldn't be integrity in the area of who registers to vote and whether they are eligible voters and the person casting the vote is that eligible voter.

These would either be non-citizens ineligible to vote, or citizens voting more than once. All of them would have to first register illegally or more than once in different locations or vote on election day with provisional ballots to be verified later. Most states have some requirement for residency, if not a drivers license then a utility bill or something similar.

You would also likely need some collaboration with voting precinct persons to at least look the other way.

Isn't it much more likely that any significant election fraud occurs institutionally by voting officials, rather than by individual voters with or without picture ID's.

If they want to vote, and the ID is provided for free, then they will do what is needed to vote.

Maybe the way to fix problems with voting aren't requiring ID's, but there does seem to be a problem at the very least-there have been more than enough scandals reported that indicate some real problems in how we register and keep track of voters.

But at the very least I would like to be confident that the people registering to vote are eligible voters, whether voter fraud is rampant or not, this is one area where there doesn't seem to be much integrity.

The question you should be asking is how do we know a lot of crime goes unreported? And if you know the answer to that, then you should realize that the same techniques can be use to estimate the amount of voter fraud that goes unreported. Further, the reasons why victims underreport isn't the same reasons why voter fraud would go unreported (no fear of retribution, no shame, for example). Realizing this, it's pretty clear that analogies to crime reporting don't hold much water and even if you are hard over on that analogy a lot of the reasons for underreporting don't come into play with voter fraud, so there's far less incentive (or disincentive, as the case may be) to under report. Going even further, there's a HUGE incentive for people on your side of the fence to actually uncover instances of voter fraud. Certainly, as the whole AG firing scandal has revealed, there's been a whole lot of political pressure from the very top of our government to come up with statistically significant cases of voter fraud.

So, again, where is it?

I think it is mostly due to the fact that victims don't really know when they have been victimized enough to report it.

I really think you're relying on conjecture and don't have any evidence to support this claim. The people who man the polls have a high incentive to make sure fraud doesn't occur. Not sure if you realize this, but voting actually puts politicians into power and takes them out of power. There's enormous pressure on voting officials and pressure on people all the way down the line. Claiming that it's unreported because these people don't know they're being victimized is rather absurd.

it is pretty hard for the little old ladies (at least in my ward they are little old ladies) to know you aren't who you say you are.

Really? FIrst, the addresses are all verified against real, actual addresses. So, you'd have to use a real address - you can't just make one up. Second, you run the high risk of voting for someone who already or will vote for that address. Again, there are ways of actually auditing this stuff and - as I have repeatedly said - there's a lot of incentive to find fraud.

What your argument consists of is questioning mechanisms as to why things work and because you can't come up with what you find as an acceptable answer, postulating that fraud must exist - but we somehow can't find it.

but it also means you can't argue either way with much certainty that voter fraud isn't a concern.

It's always a concern. The problem with your argument structure is that there is no evidence it is occurring, and - I can't stress this enough - there's clearly a lot of incentive to find it.

You may not-but either way I don't think the requirement is something unatainable, people can barely do anything in society at this point with a picture ID.

Well, as the report that James linked to shows, it isn't that it's unattainable, it's that people don't do it and the effects of this are to disenfranchise a voting population that conveniently is on the other side of the issue. Strange how that works out.

Shoot you can't even sign up for public assistance without a photo ID.

And it isn't a coincidence that study after study has shown that there is a large number of people who are eligible for public assistance who never get it precisely because of this requirement. So you have, in effect, proven exactly why requiring an ID is going to disenfranchise a non-trivial segment of the voting population. Further, a segment which trends democrat. As I said, very convenient.

The bottom line, as I've been told by many conservatives time and time again wrt to other issues, there's a cost/benefit analysis. So far, there's no evidence that there's any statistically significant voter fraud going on. The mechanisms you want to put into place will, as studies have shown, result in voter disenfranchisement. So, what you're expecting us to do is to disenfranchise voters to solve a problem you can't come up with any evidence that it exists.

That's a very, very strange position to hold in a democracy.

I don't see any reason why this has to be government funded by everyone, if a driver's liscense or other photo ID will do.

I have no problems funding a program that provides a free photo ID to anyone who does not have a liscense provided it requires proof of citizenship and residency.

Most people pay for a driver's liscense, even on the charts, the vast majority of people have some form of photo ID.

All it takes is to compare convictions rates to victimization reports to realize that a lot of crime goes unreported. My college degrees were in criminal justice, and one thing we always did when considering crime was look at and compare official stats (arrest and convictions) to those reported by victims. In pretty much all cases crime reports of victimization were much higher than arrest and conviction reports.

The problem with voter fraud though-is the victims don't know they were victims so there isn't a way to do a victimization report, but I am sure the ladies at NOW would have hissy fits if you tried to disregard victimization reports on rapes or even domestic violence-there are huge discrepencies between domestic violence victimization reports and arrest/conviction rates.

And I realize the author is arguing that those who believe there is fraud think it is due to lack of prosecution-I think it is mostly due to the fact that victims don't really know when they have been victimized enough to report it.

In a state where all you have to do is mail in a voter registration application with no proof of citizenship or residency, and then you show up to vote and aren't asked for anything other than your signature, it is pretty hard for the little old ladies (at least in my ward they are little old ladies) to know you aren't who you say you are.

I have never been asked to even show my voter card when voting-they just have me sign, and I have never seen anyone asked to show their voter card.

It has always been difficult to measure fraud or even specify it, and it is important to stress that until better evidence comes to light, we will not be able to compile comprehensive statistics on levels of cheating by voters. Researchers are hampered in studying voter fraud because government agencies fail to track it and are often unresponsive to information requests.

This conclusion pretty much says-the prosecutions are low, but we don't have much data to go off of, and we need more.

Which makes sense, but it also means you can't argue either way with much certainty that voter fraud isn't a concern.

Which comes back to how to make sure those registering to vote and voting are eligible voters-I happen to think asking for a picture ID is reasonable. You may not-but either way I don't think the requirement is something unatainable, people can barely do anything in society at this point with a picture ID. Shoot you can't even sign up for public assistance without a photo ID.

Um, because the system being proposed throws our fellow citizens under the bus on the flimsiest of suppositions.

If voter fraud is a genuine concern, the only solution that protects the most fundamental of civil rights is universal registration and a voter identification program that is fully funded and puts IDs into every voters' hands.

Are you willing to help pay for that through increased taxes, or are you not that concerned that this is a problem?

Well actually no I didn't. I have screwy colors on my monitor at times (generally it doesn't affect what I do on the internet much) but red often appears to be black, so I didn't see the link-I had to wave the mouse over the words to find it.

But I did find the fact that in key findings they essentially said they needed better data, better election administration, transparency and responsible journalism, which indicates right now the data ain't that great.

And it probably isn't, because voter or election fraud isn't something easy to find or easy to prosecute, because so much of it is done under the cloak of anonymity.

I do notice that for the purposes of the study you link to, they seem to exclude things done by ACORN where fake registrations forms are filled out-whether that kind of fake registration leads to fake votes or not is for further research, but at the very least, when things like that happen-it is of concern.

But at the very least we should have a system where only eligible voters are able to register and vote-and I don't see how anyone who wants open and fair elections would be opposed. So how do you propose states seek to make sure those voting are eligible, if you are opposed to ID requirements?

I don't have any links-and at the moment can't read your link any further (I have chauffer duty in about 5 minutes).

I will try to finish reading and do some searching later.

All you've accomplished here is reveal that you don't interact with poor or elderly people in urban environments. The two things that those people don't have are time and money, both of which are necessary to get a government-issued ID.

Still, if the requirement was an underhanded way to disenfranchise Democrats and advantage Republicans, you’d think that they wouldn’t undercut the richest Hoosiers.

I thought you were supposed to have a Ph.D. in political science?!?! Why did you ignore the regression tables? Table 8 reveals how silly your statement is.

On the other hand, every election we have to put up with GOP operatives challenging anybody they 'believe' suspicious which generally means "brown people". This activity always slows down voting to a crawl with long lines and waits, that I'm sure dissuades some to not vote at all.

...and supporting policies that wouldn't solve the problem even if it did exist.

The real question is do you have anything to support your beliefs? Sure, call me on my claims but at least have the stones to back up your own.

is it your argument then that people who are ineligible to vote don't register when there is nothing required of them to prove eligibility beyond filling out a voter registration card?

I'm not making any arguments about why there isn't massive voter fraud. The burden isn't on my position to show why there isn't massive fraud, nor is it required that I give any explanation for the lack thereof.

What is required, though, is for you to come up with evidence of fraud before you start asserting that it exists. And the simple fact is, that despite massive incentive to show such fraud exists, there simply isn't any to speak of.

Which leaves people like you in a bit of a quandary as to why you're supporting doing something about a problem that doesn't exist.