Law of averages, maybe. 
- Edit 1
- Edit 1Before modification by Joel at 10/04/2012 04:47:04 PM
I pretty much agree with most of what you said there, though.
I would also add that, as much as Democratic "disenfranchisement" arguments disgust me, the linked video in this original post is probably conveniently ignoring one very important proof of identity: the person's signature. If DC is anything like New York, what that person was asking him to do in order to get a ballot was sign the book. Since a copy of the signature is already there, printed out, the person would then compare the two signatures. If they weren't similar, the person at the polling site would likely report potential voter fraud (and the guy in the video would have just shot the evidence needed to put him in jail).
As a result, you need to know the name, the address and be able to fake the signature of the person you're trying to vote for. Not impossible for some, but a lot harder than it looks and certainly not something that crazy homeless people are going to be able to accomplish.
I would also add that, as much as Democratic "disenfranchisement" arguments disgust me, the linked video in this original post is probably conveniently ignoring one very important proof of identity: the person's signature. If DC is anything like New York, what that person was asking him to do in order to get a ballot was sign the book. Since a copy of the signature is already there, printed out, the person would then compare the two signatures. If they weren't similar, the person at the polling site would likely report potential voter fraud (and the guy in the video would have just shot the evidence needed to put him in jail).
As a result, you need to know the name, the address and be able to fake the signature of the person you're trying to vote for. Not impossible for some, but a lot harder than it looks and certainly not something that crazy homeless people are going to be able to accomplish.
Part of the problem is that since the Constitution authorizes states to regulate elections (except in FL, of course...
) there is no uniform standard, encouraging the belief ones own system is flawless but those in enemy territory are rife with corruption. If memory serves, the places I voted in TX just compared signatures to those on registration cards (requiring photo ID when cards were absent/unsigned,) hence my comment about stealing someones vote by stealing their card: Back home, county registrars mail them out a few months before elections, so anyone could raid mailboxes then fraudulently vote repeatedly (while the cards' rightful owners would be unable to vote at all.) That has somewhat horrified me since my first election, but maybe they had a list of past signatures I did not notice then and do not recall now.In short, though, free ID cards = solution.
Yeah, I really do not see what objection is possible under those conditions; SOME proof of voter identity is neither unreasonable nor novel.
The development of photo ID laws has been interesting. As I recall, IN led the way, and cries of "poll tax!" originated there, because the law did not provide for IDs to be issued at no charge. However, I did a little googling the last time it came up on RAFO, and every state photo voting ID law I found (including Indianas) explicitly requires IDs be issued at no charge to voters (beyond general state sales tax etc.; contrary to popular belief, getting something from the government does not make it free.) Cynical liberal that I am, I did not expect Republicans to cave on what always struck me as a Trojan horse for disenfranchising the poor, but they have apparently done just that, strongly suggesting fears of fraud were sincere, whether or not justified.
With that off the table, I honestly cannot see what debate remains, because there is some justification for fraud fears, if only potential fraud.