Anderson's Pooper: Lord Dimwit

That's probably the strongest argument I've heard from the anti-ID side but I still don't buy it. The state ID has many and various uses, only one of which involves going to the polls. If I pay $40 for a driver's license, how much of it is a "poll tax?" I drive daily but only vote 2-3 times per year. I can also use my license to cash checks, get on an airplane and many other things.

And to take your argument to an extreme, I pay taxes on the gas I use to drive to the polls, is that a poll tax? If I vote by absentee ballot, does the cost of the stamp count? It's all money paid to the government so I can exercise my right to vote.

The reason I don't have a problem with an ID check is that there are too many idiots, on both sides, who decide on the day of the election that the system is rigged against them because they haven't bothered to get their ducks in a row. Intelligent, reasoned voting is not a one day experience. You have 5 months between now and election day. Primaries have been going on since March. If you want to vote, go to your election board NOW. If you wait until the day of or the day before, don't be surprised when you run into problems. You're not being suppressed, you're being unprepared.

The difference, and of course it's approaching academic, is that you don't have to drive to the polls. You can walk, ride your bike, crawl, whatever you want. You don't have to vote by mail. In the proposed scenarios you must have an ID regardless of the mechanism you use to vote or how you get to the polls. You can vote without paying gasoline taxes or for stamps (it may not be as easy, but it's possible), but in the proposed system, you can't vote without paying for an ID.

As for "being unprepared"...well, "democracy" means everyone gets to vote, even the lazy, the uneducated, the unprepared, the people who were in comas until two hours before the election, the nuns who were in a convent cut off from the world until five minutes before the election, and yes, even the Democrats. :)

relcec: jimmy2x: I also think that the "proof" mechanism is being overdone. BUT, telling us that Florida has caught a grand total of two miscreants, tells us nothing. You would have to be pretty dumb to show up to fraudulently vote without the proper ID in a state where it is required.

this is only the people from miami dade county, not the whole state. and they didn't even get to finish because miami dade was ordered to stop looking for the illegal voters that the law orders them to attempt to find and remove.
and the process isn't working very efficiently because the Obama administration has decided not to follow the law and hand over the ICE database since it will hurt his reelection chances.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/06/03/v-fullstory/2830794/how-obama- ai ded-and-abetted-scotts.html

BROWN PEOPLE ARE INVADING!!!11!

Theaetetus: Splinshints: Silly Jesus: www.jookos.com

Most of those things don't require an ID and only three of them aren't strictly private transactions. None of them are rights.

So, basically, your fancy graphic is mostly wrong to begin with, and even where it's not, it mostly refers to the requirements placed on private transactions by private parties that can set whatever restrictions they want.

Have you been sufficiently embarrassed for posting such a foolish thing or would you like to try and press the flimsy tatters of your horrendously disingenuous argument in favor of preventing people from participating in one of the most fundamental defenses of liberty possible?

Not yet.
[www.jookos.com image 640x480]
How about we ask him why he thinks you need an ID to volunteer at a secular - i.e. "non-prophet" - organization?

I like that this graphic could easily be retitled, "things that require pants," and still be roughly as accurate.

Splinshints: Silly Jesus: i0.kym-cdn.com

I guess I shouldn't be surprised. You post a graphic that's easily exposed as both inaccurate and massively dishonest and the best you can do is post a stupid image in response. I guess, however, there is no defense of the indefensible.

You're an idiot and a liar and I'm sorry I wasted my time responding to you.

I explained it in a post above yours. I wasn't going to go through it again simply due to your inability to read the thread.

The image is what I imagined you to look like while your were "shaming" me.

Lastly, my point wasn't whether the transactions were private or not etc. It was to show that ID's are used in many facets of everyday life for many people and that it isn't the OMG RACIST BURDEN that it's being made out to be.

Thanks for calling me names though. It really strengthens your argument.

Damn it. I want to know why this is being mocked.
The obvious reason is Democrats thrive on the votes of the ineligible, therefore, fark and most media outlets decry it as raaaaaaacist.
Answer me this:
Why is it "bad" to confirm people voting are ELIGIBLE. (This is not an invitation to argue that everyone should have the right to vote, regardless of their citizenship.)
Why would the federal government cause problems for ANY state or local government that want to make sure that those who ARE voting, SHOULD be. (Besides the obvious above statement.)

Lord Dimwit: Anderson's Pooper: Lord Dimwit

That's probably the strongest argument I've heard from the anti-ID side but I still don't buy it. The state ID has many and various uses, only one of which involves going to the polls. If I pay $40 for a driver's license, how much of it is a "poll tax?" I drive daily but only vote 2-3 times per year. I can also use my license to cash checks, get on an airplane and many other things.

And to take your argument to an extreme, I pay taxes on the gas I use to drive to the polls, is that a poll tax? If I vote by absentee ballot, does the cost of the stamp count? It's all money paid to the government so I can exercise my right to vote.

The reason I don't have a problem with an ID check is that there are too many idiots, on both sides, who decide on the day of the election that the system is rigged against them because they haven't bothered to get their ducks in a row. Intelligent, reasoned voting is not a one day experience. You have 5 months between now and election day. Primaries have been going on since March. If you want to vote, go to your election board NOW. If you wait until the day of or the day before, don't be surprised when you run into problems. You're not being suppressed, you're being unprepared.

The difference, and of course it's approaching academic, is that you don't have to drive to the polls. You can walk, ride your bike, crawl, whatever you want. You don't have to vote by mail. In the proposed scenarios you must have an ID regardless of the mechanism you use to vote or how you get to the polls. You can vote without paying gasoline taxes or for stamps (it may not be as easy, but it's possible), but in the proposed system, you can't vote without paying for an ID.

As for "being unprepared"...well, "democracy" means everyone gets to vote, even the lazy, the uneducated, the unprepared, the people who were in comas until two hours before the election, the nuns who were in a convent cut off from the world until f ...

It costs money (tax dollars) to manufacture the ballots. It costs money (tax dollars) to pay the people to run the polling places and to count the votes. Etc. etc.

OMG POLL TAX

A slight reality check (for those of you open to reality) from Marc Caputo in THE MIAMI HERALD. (hardly a right-wing rag.)

Gov. Rick Scott's administration created a mess by trying to get rid of noncitizen voters.

And President Barack Obama's administration helped him do it.

First, Obama's Department of Homeland Security stonewalled the state's noncitizen voter hunt for almost nine months by refusing Florida access to an immigration database. Then, on Thursday, Obama's Justice Department ordered the purge to halt, in part because time had run out.

Ironically, DOJ's order cited the so-called "Motor Voter" law, which actually calls on states to purge ineligible voters. One former DOJ lawyer and critic, conservative J. Christian Adams, blogged that the former Obama appointee in charge of the voting section announced early on that it would ignore Motor Voter's purge obligation.

"We have no interest in enforcing this provision of the law," he quoted Julie Fernandes as saying in 2009 when she was an assistant attorney general. "It has nothing to do with increasing turnout, and we are just not going to do it." She has since left DOJ.

So to recap: The feds delayed and then said "time expired" under a law it selectively enforces.

Full story here at the Miami Herald.

Meanwhile the purge has detected lots of folks who aren't illegal immigrants, but who have committed OTHER crimes including - surprise, surprise, vote fraud.

give me doughnuts: Lord Dimwit: Silly Jesus: [www.jookos.com image 640x480]

What part of "The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election...shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax" do you not understand? Even if it isn't racist, requiring someone to give money to the government is, according to every conservative ever, a tax. If you have to pay money to the state to get an ID, and you have to have an ID to vote, then you are de facto paying a tax to vote.

State required voter IDs are provided for free. Some states will even send someone to haul your ass to the DMV (or wherever they are made).

In many states, those IDs are provided for free only if you can prove economic need, which is still a problem. Even in those states that make them free for everyone, you need another form of state-issued ID (issued for a fee) to get the free ID, so it's really just moving the problem up one level.

ObeliskToucher: Unmentioned in this entire thread is that the states are required to conduct these drives, and to complete them by 90 days prior to the election (42 USC § 1973gg-6 - Requirements with respect to administration of voter registration).

Specifically, "each State shall (4) Conduct a general program that makes a reasonable effort to remove the names of ineligible voters from the official lists of eligible voters by reason of: (A) the death of the registrant; or (B) a change in the residence of the registrant, in accordance with subsections (b), (c), and (d) of this section."

Even the form and procedure for the so-called "voter purge" are specified earlier (in para 2) -- they mail a form with stamped reply form, and if the voter doesn't respond they can be removed from the rolls.

Finally, guess what happens if the voter doesn't respond and shows up to vote... the registrar updates the information, and the voter votes. No big deal.

It's the law!

/Much ado about nothing

But, but, but when you explain it that way, we can't say....

Silly Jesus: Lord Dimwit
Silly Jesus: It costs money (tax dollars) to manufacture the ballots. It costs money (tax dollars) to pay the people to run the polling places and to count the votes. Etc. etc.OMG POLL TAX

The elections are run by the government! ZOMG SOCIALISM!!!!

Of course, you know that it's possible that you don't pay those taxes and can still vote, right? My nineteen year old cousin has never had a job, and has therefore never had any income to spend. He's never paid income taxes. He owns no property, so he has never paid property taxes. He's never bought anything with his own money, so he personally has never paid sales taxes. He still gets to vote.

Lord Dimwit: Silly Jesus: Lord Dimwit
Silly Jesus: It costs money (tax dollars) to manufacture the ballots. It costs money (tax dollars) to pay the people to run the polling places and to count the votes. Etc. etc.OMG POLL TAX

The elections are run by the government! ZOMG SOCIALISM!!!!

Of course, you know that it's possible that you don't pay those taxes and can still vote, right? My nineteen year old cousin has never had a job, and has therefore never had any income to spend. He's never paid income taxes. He owns no property, so he has never paid property taxes. He's never bought anything with his own money, so he personally has never paid sales taxes. He still gets to vote.

Huh?

I thought your argument was that paying for an ID was a "poll tax."

Then, several of us pointed out that several other things would have to be categorized as "poll taxes" if your definition is used. Things like the ballots (paid for through tax dollars). This was to point out the absurdity of calling the "free" ID a "poll tax."

Then, you told a story about your deadbeat cousin.

I'm lost....

Diogenes: Thunderpipes: Farkers are okay with voter fraud because Democrats get the votes. News at 11:00.

And you're OK with all manner of imaginary "threats" because it keeps Republicans in office and the populace fearful and complacent.

THIS

Lord Dimwit: The elections are run by the government! ZOMG SOCIALISM!!!!


They should be privatized.

Everyone should be allowed to vote as long as they don't have any outstanding arrest or traffic warrants, or missed any probation office check-ins in the previous 2 years.

irving47: Damn it. I want to know why this is being mocked.
The obvious reason is Democrats thrive on the votes of the ineligible, therefore, fark and most media outlets decry it as raaaaaaacist.
Answer me this:
Why is it "bad" to confirm people voting are ELIGIBLE. (This is not an invitation to argue that everyone should have the right to vote, regardless of their citizenship.)
Why would the federal government cause problems for ANY state or local government that want to make sure that those who ARE voting, SHOULD be. (Besides the obvious above statement.)

Why is it "okay" to turn away people who have the right to vote as citizens because they forgot their wallet?

As for the "Democrats thrive on the votes of the ineligible" thing...really? I mean, really? I remember reading about how the Bush Administration spent millions of dollars and months of time investigating voter fraud in this country and found not a single case with sufficient evidence to bring to trial - out of an electorate of over 100,000,000 people.

(And before you say "ACORN" or whatever, please remember that there is a difference between registration fraud and voter fraud. Voter ID laws do nothing to prevent registration fraud.)

Vlad_the_Inaner: Silly Jesus: Is SCOTUS gravely mistaken?


The right to vote is protected in more than the initial allocation of the franchise. Equal protection applies as well to the manner of its exercise. Having once granted the right to vote on equal terms, the State may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person's vote over that of another.


It would seem that if SCOTUS can rule on the protection of "The right to vote", they have pretty much conceded that a right to vote can exist (and did exist in the case you cited)

/btw, electing the members of the Electoral Collage is far from the only federal election

Quickly, get word to U.S. Representative Jesse Jackson Jr., the folks at FairVote.org, and the current members of SCOTUS!! Clearly, you have shed new light on this longstanding misunderstanding. There are also quite a few Constitutional law professors, other members of the legislature, legal scholars etc. that you need to get word to. You're gonna need a lot of money for stamps!

relcec: Zasteva: - There is no requirement to show id to apply for a job. I've done it many time.

the requirement is for new hires, not when you turn in your app to mcdonalds.

Of course. I'm guessing you understand that still makes the graphic wrong on that count?

12349876: domenad: There were over 100k names on the rolls of dead and ineligible people.

Are there actually people voting under those names? I don't give a shiat if Benjamin Franklin is on the voter roll so long as nobody is voting under that name.

Exactly.

When somebody dies, or moves out of the jurisdiction, it's usually not a first priority to strike them from voter registration.

How many of these entries on the rolls were actually voting when they shouldn't have been?

This purge shortly before a national election is rather suspicious, they could have begun it some time back.

Silverstaff: 12349876: domenad: There were over 100k names on the rolls of dead and ineligible people.

Are there actually people voting under those names? I don't give a shiat if Benjamin Franklin is on the voter roll so long as nobody is voting under that name.

Exactly.

When somebody dies, or moves out of the jurisdiction, it's usually not a first priority to strike them from voter registration.

How many of these entries on the rolls were actually voting when they shouldn't have been?

This purge shortly before a national election is rather suspicious, they could have begun it some time back.

As I said upthread, the Bush Administration spent millions of dollars and months of time, and didn't find a single case of this happening.

So...between "none" and "very few".

Whereas some of the voter ID laws either in force today or under consideration would effectively disenfranchise millions and millions of people.

So, why is it that Republicans are so gung-ho about solving a problem that doesn't exist, but whose solution just so happens to prevent millions of people from voting, people who tend to vote Democratic? Why indeed...

Silly Jesus: Lord Dimwit: Silly Jesus: Lord Dimwit
Silly Jesus: It costs money (tax dollars) to manufacture the ballots. It costs money (tax dollars) to pay the people to run the polling places and to count the votes. Etc. etc.OMG POLL TAX

The elections are run by the government! ZOMG SOCIALISM!!!!

Of course, you know that it's possible that you don't pay those taxes and can still vote, right? My nineteen year old cousin has never had a job, and has therefore never had any income to spend. He's never paid income taxes. He owns no property, so he has never paid property taxes. He's never bought anything with his own money, so he personally has never paid sales taxes. He still gets to vote.

Huh?

I thought your argument was that paying for an ID was a "poll tax."

Then, several of us pointed out that several other things would have to be categorized as "poll taxes" if your definition is used. Things like the ballots (paid for through tax dollars). This was to point out the absurdity of calling the "free" ID a "poll tax."

Then, you told a story about your deadbeat cousin.

I'm lost....

...because my cousin didn't pay any of those taxes and still got to vote? So they aren't by definition poll taxes? But if he has to have an ID that costs money to vote, then he has to pay a tax to vote, and that's a poll tax?

Silly Jesus: List of things that require ID
None of those examples is constitutionally-protected either, with the exception of buying a firearm, and in that circumstances, the courts have ruled that reasonable limits on the purchase of firearms can include an ID requirement.

So that's 2 cases of actual fraud vs. thousands of cases of elderly/poor ailienated. The reality is though, most states do this as routine behavior. The only reason it is news is because how farked Florida is when it comes to handling their elections.

cleek: Wangiss: I bet you could use that record for all kinds of stuff!

how would those records be any better for shenanigans than the records that any other govt agency has?

Seriously. You ever applied for a bank loan and had to answer those identification questions about where you lived and worked? Since the moment you started paying taxes your entire life history has been a matter of public record.

We're not putting up with that Florida election BS that got Georgie Porgie "elected" anymore, so deal with it. It's not hard to prove you're eligible to vote, so STFU and let democracy continue.

Man, Jesus is trolling the hell out of Fark since Friday night.

Did someones alt get banned?

Silly Jesus: I have always been asked for ID [to board an airplane]. Especially post 9/11. The one time that I forgot it I was made to go all the way out to the parking lot to retrieve it from my car before I could go further.

If you had told them that you simply didn't have it, then you would have gone through the TSA question and answer bit. Try it sometime -- though I recommend you do it when you have time to spare and preferably at an uncrowded airport to avoid creating unnecessary hassle for everyone. I did this about 6 months ago when I lost my drivers license just before a business trip.

[other examples clipped for brevity]

Just because things aren't how you've experienced them does not mean that they are not that way for anyone.

Agreed. And just because things like IDs are often used to make things easier for people, doesn't mean that IDs are required. Wanna fix your graphic? Just change it to say "IDs are commonly used for:"

The larger point being that there are things in everyday life that many, many people use ID for and no one is OMG THAT BURDEN IS INSURMOUNTABLE !!!1!!!!1!!!111!! OMG, ID'S ARE RAAAAACIST!!!!!11!!!1!!

First, you don't serve your larger point by posting false information to back it up.

Second, I'm not claiming that IDs are racist, but that a requirement for IDs disproportionately impacts people who are inclined to vote Democratic.

Third, I use a photo ID when I vote, for convenience, but don't wish to be denied my right to vote if I happen to lose my ID on election day or forget to bring it to the polling station.

In almost all of these cases there are exceptions made for people who don't have IDs available. Even driving you might get a ticket if you don't have your operators license on you when pulled over, but they won't prohibit you from continuing to drive as long as the records show that you are a licensed driver, and that ticket is dismissed if you appear in court with your license in hand.

So, the larger point that you are missing is that in almost none of these cases is the ID mandated by law in order to perform the activity. Given that we aren't really seeing any significant problem of voting by ineligible people, why put people through unnecessary hassles to prevent it? Especially when there is a real risk that it will disenfranchise people who legitimately should be able to vote?

Phinn: Everyone should be allowed to vote as long as they don't have any outstanding arrest or traffic warrants, or missed any probation office check-ins in the previous 2 years.

What if they are campaigning against what they see are unjust laws and want to vote for the person who they believe will best act to change those laws?

Lord Dimwit: Why is it "okay" to turn away people who have the right to vote as citizens because they forgot their wallet?

Goes back to my point of wanting an informed, prepared electorate. I know it's a pipe dream. Too many birthers and lefty loons for that to happen.

StrangeQ: Phinn: Everyone should be allowed to vote as long as they don't have any outstanding arrest or traffic warrants, or missed any probation office check-ins in the previous 2 years.

What if they are campaigning against what they see are unjust laws and want to vote for the person who they believe will best act to change those laws?

This is why I dislike convicts' being prevented from voting in some polities. They are a group with the most potential for having been wronged by the state, so they must definitely should have a voice in how the state operates. For someone to say that convicts gave up their right to vote by committing a crime against the state means they think that there has never been a false or unjust conviction.

Anderson's Pooper: Lord Dimwit: Why is it "okay" to turn away people who have the right to vote as citizens because they forgot their wallet?

Goes back to my point of wanting an informed, prepared electorate. I know it's a pipe dream. Too many birthers and lefty loons for that to happen.

Right, but in my example, the punishment far outweighs the crime. If I spend months researching the issues of the election, research their historical context, and understand the consequences of the election, I shouldn't be denied participation in my democratic government because I was mugged on the way to the polling place.

Anderson's Pooper: The reason I don't have a problem with an ID check is that there are too many idiots, on both sides, who decide on the day of the election that the system is rigged against them because they haven't bothered to get their ducks in a row. Intelligent, reasoned voting is not a one day experience. You have 5 months between now and election day. Primaries have been going on since March. If you want to vote, go to your election board NOW. If you wait until the day of or the day before, don't be surprised when you run into problems. You're not being suppressed, you're being unprepared.

There is no requirement that people vote in an intelligent, reasoned, organized or prepared fashion.

That should be obvious by looking at who people vote for!

Lord Dimwit: So, why is it that Republicans are so gung-ho about solving a problem that doesn't exist, but whose solution just so happens to prevent millions of people from voting, people who tend to vote Democratic? Why indeed...

Whatever it is, it isn't racism, and it isn't partisan. As long as we can all agree that its technically bad for people ineligible to vote to vote, then all costs are justified, and you're the REAL partisan if you disagree!

...so, if only 2 people were affected, what's the problem -- one way or the other? Seems like an almost non-event.

Anderson's Pooper:
That's probably the strongest argument I've heard from the anti-ID side but I still don't buy it. The state ID has many and various uses, only one of which involves going to the polls. If I pay $40 for a driver's license, how much of it is a "poll tax?" I drive daily but only vote 2-3 times per year. I can also use my license to cash checks, get on an airplane and many other things.

It's precisely because this is targeted at the people who don't regularly drive or cash checks or get on an airplane that this is so nefarious. They are selecting the one group that is most disadvantaged to begin with and further marginalizing them. They're not going to take something away from somebody who actually has rights, they're stripping rights away from people who've already lost so many.

And to take your argument to an extreme, I pay taxes on the gas I use to drive to the polls, is that a poll tax? If I vote by absentee ballot, does the cost of the stamp count? It's all money paid to the government so I can exercise my right to vote.

It is perfectly possible to vote without buying gas. Absentee ballots, in my experience, are postage paid to return them to a county clerk, and even if they're not, it's possible to vote without voting absentee. Because you choose to drive to the polls or not be in the precinct when the election is held does not mean that you are paying a poll tax. A poll tax is an expense that cannot be avoided like the expense of procuring ID.

The reason I don't have a problem with an ID check is that there are too many idiots, on both sides, who decide on the day of the election that the system is rigged against them because they haven't bothered to get their ducks in a row. Intelligent, reasoned voting is not a one day experience. You have 5 months between now and election day. Primaries have been going on since March. If you want to vote, go to your election board NOW. If you wait until the day of or the day before, don't be surprised when you run into problems. You're not being suppressed, you're being unprepared.

All of this is true. People should make informed decisions about elections and all the rest of that. But when legislators rush a bill through session that will take effect immediately, then have a lengthy court battle over whether it applies, and then have the supreme court strike it down with less than three weeks to go before the election, and have poll workers who are still demanding to see ID even though the law was struck down, you end up with a clusterfark that is not the fault of the voter. And that's exactly what happened in Missouri in 2006.

And when you give poll workers the power to turn away people, and make a big political issue out of something that shouldn't be politicized, then you let evil little people act out against their neighbors and try to take their rights away. And that's what happened in Maryland in 2006.

StrangeQ: Phinn: Everyone should be allowed to vote as long as they don't have any outstanding arrest or traffic warrants, or missed any probation office check-ins in the previous 2 years.

What if they are campaigning against what they see are unjust laws and want to vote for the person who they believe will best act to change those laws?

No, those people shouldn't vote.

No one should vote, really. It's evil.

Phinn: StrangeQ: Phinn: Everyone should be allowed to vote as long as they don't have any outstanding arrest or traffic warrants, or missed any probation office check-ins in the previous 2 years.

What if they are campaigning against what they see are unjust laws and want to vote for the person who they believe will best act to change those laws?

No, those people shouldn't vote.

No one should vote, really. It's evil.



/surprised nobody's stuck this in here yet...

o5iiawah: lennavan: Because under the guise of "voter fraud," they can suppress the vote from groups that tend to vote (D) and win more elections. This is about winning elections for one side, not about fairness in elections.

If you think trying to identify people who are non-citizens, non-residents of a particular voting area and those who are unregistered to vote is "voter suppression" then I have a bridge to sell you.

Haha, you think this is about identifying people who are not eligible to vote. Man you're stupid.

It's not the voter registration removal that I have a problem with.

It's the timing I have a problem with. I don't think too many people would have had a problem if they had started on November 7th 2012.

Asking for a government issued ID isn't too much in my opinion.

/white male in AZ

Every state should do this.

Silly Jesus: Lord Dimwit: Silly Jesus: [www.jookos.com image 640x480]

What part of "The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election...shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax" do you not understand? ...

Lol.

There is no "Right to Vote" in Federal elections.

Let's try this again.

Amendment 24

The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

It's right in the farking Constitution. It's not something to be interpreted - it's explicitly stated that there is a right to vote in federal elections.

Somacandra: I think there should be an official mechanism at the FEC level to clean state voter rolls every 5 to 10 years, like a census. But it shouldn't be done at the local level because that invites far too much corruption for a sleaze merchant like Rick Scott. Clearly people move around a lot and other factors make it necessary to remove people ineligible to vote. The problem is how to handle this in as little a partisan way as possible.

There is one side who fights this, don't you ever wonder why, or are all of you this dense?

I know that here in Atlanta one of the union offices I did work for actually spoke about driving homeless to the polls just to let them vote, even though they weren't legally living in the state. His exact words were, I just give em $5 and tell them how to vote.

steamingpile: Somacandra: I think there should be an official mechanism at the FEC level to clean state voter rolls every 5 to 10 years, like a census. But it shouldn't be done at the local level because that invites far too much corruption for a sleaze merchant like Rick Scott. Clearly people move around a lot and other factors make it necessary to remove people ineligible to vote. The problem is how to handle this in as little a partisan way as possible.

There is one side who fights this, don't you ever wonder why, or are all of you this dense?

I know that here in Atlanta one of the union offices I did work for actually spoke about driving homeless to the polls just to let them vote, even though they weren't legally living in the state. His exact words were, I just give em $5 and tell them how to vote.

And yet after dozens of investigations by the DOJ across two presidencies with hundreds of officers, nothing like that was ever discovered to have been happening.