U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse
(D) Phil Weiser
(D) Jena Griswold
60%
60%
40%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Alexis King
(D) Brian Mason
40%
40%
30%
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) George Stern
(D) A. Gonzalez
(R) Sheri Davis
40%
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
(D) Jerry DiTullio
60%
30%
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(D) Joe Salazar
50%
40%
40%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
February 08, 2008 07:21 PM UTC
71 Comments
how is a little extra identification a hindrance to the poor or elderly? How is their access to documents like that limited?
If a person is too poor to drive, never learned to drive, or does not see well enough to drive are they going to go out to get a drivers license? A person too poor to travel is certainly not going to have a passport.
An state ID isn’t required for employment or much of anything except buying liquor. Even employment is perfectly possible without a photo ID. So what incentive to spend the time down at the DMV does a person who has one of these other documents have? Time is money after all, even though the state ID card costs next to nothing.
Back on the issue of the elderly, I doubt my own grandmother has official state issued ID at this point. She’s not been out of the country for years and she had to surrender her driver’s license due to being unsafe to drive. Going out is a big effort for her so she would almost certainly be disenfranchised by this law.
On the other hand I do not think it very likely that a illegal would register to vote. I mean that would produce a nice little paper trail, which is exactly the sort of thing they avoid if at all possible. And using someone else’s name… Well that would only work if they could know the person they were voting for would not show up later on to cast a vote and raise a stink, wouldn’t it? While that could happen someplace like Chicago our state has been pretty good about breaking corrupt machine politics. And if we did have voter photo ID and corrupt politics I’m not sure that it would do any good. They’d just produce fake IDs or take over the voter registration department.
is that a provision in the law could be made where election officials could drive out and issue state ids for free to anybody that called up and said they didn’t have an id. The second fact of the matter is if an illegal was afraid of producing a paper trail, then if we had such a system in place as I mentioned, then we could guarantee to everybody that there were no non-citizens voting because illegals would never want to invite an election official to their residence to issue them a state id.
Again, maybe not the exact solution, but surely you can see how we can work something out, by using some logic and reason.
Again, maybe not the exact solution, but surely you can see how we can work something out, by using some logic and reason.
Whatever happened to small government? Why should we be spending money on sending out officials to everyone who requests an ID and cannot show up in person? Show me evidence that something is wrong and I’ll get behind fixing it. But where’s the smoke?
If it isn’t broken, don’t try fixing it.
Actually, a state ID or and ID of some kind is required for employment.
Within three days of hiring someone, an employer must secuure from the employee, proof of identity and right to work in the US. That information is stored in employee records and becomes part of the I-9 form required by ICE. Proof of identity requires an ID. No ID no job.
Have you read the I-9 list? It is pretty loose. Many of the documents that ‘establish identity’ are not required to have a photograph.
If the federal government requires employers to verify identity, and fines employers if they do not comply, then it hypocritical not to at least apply the same standards to voter IDs.
We can use a Voter Registration card to validate ID for voter registration? 😉
It that they don’t remember where they put it.
Why don’t we just change the law so anyone can vote anywhere?
To make a statewide system work, you’d have to have a centralized voter database that could be polled in real time when a voter shows up at a voting center. The private sector makes this work routinely (e.g., ATM machines), but whether government can do it is another matter.
Many rural counties cannot get high-speed internet access at all voting centers, so polling the master database might not be feasible in some areas.
The voter registration records maintained by each of 64 counties in Colorado do not now “talk” to each other in real time. If you are registered in Saguache county and move to Huerfano, that change may take quite some time to filter through the system and cancel your registration in Saguache.
If you die in Huerfano county, I don’t know how (or if) that event ever finds its way back to Saguache.
If you get married in Huerfano county and change your name, but not your voter registration in Saguache county, I don’t know how (or if) that information finds its way back to your Saguache county voter registration.
In my county, in my experience with mass mailings, roughly 10% of the voter records have bad, outdated addresses. I suspect the proportions are similar in other counties. Where those people now live or why they still appear in the voter records in my county is a mystery. Could they vote in two counties? Probably.
If someone had a house in Florida and a house in Colorado, that person could probably vote in both states as there’s not a system for eliminating duplicates between states.
Showing an ID with a current address seems like a pretty sensible thing to me. You have to show an ID to cash a check, to drive a car, to apply for government benefits of any kind, to apply for a job. Hell, I had to show an ID to get a Safeway club card.
This is exactly why someone I know, who has been in the U.S. since he was 2 years old and is now going on 70, is unable to drive a car (well, there are other reasons for that, too, and I’m grateful for it), cash a check, apply for government benefits of any kind, or apply for a job.
Let’s fix that, instead of making the problem worse.
That’s not a bug. That’s a feature.
It’s perfectly okay if caucuses are absolutely chaotic and undermine voters confidence in the system, but oh no, the current system is supposedly inundated by illegal aliens voting. Get a clue.
What is un-American about proving your American? Does it not make sense for id-checks to prevent voter fraud? I mean this is common sense. How can we make sure that people are who they say they are and aren’t voting more than once? I mean doesn’t anybody else out there wonder how many of the 14 million plus democrats that voted on Super Tuesday compared to the republicans’ 8 million plus voters were illegals? Are people aware that it is unconstitutional for a non-citizen to vote? Again common sense. So let me get this straight, because I follow the rule of law and am trying to fight voter fraud I’m a racist and anti-elderly? This is outrageous. Am I missing something here? Am I misunderstanding that bill?
There’s the claim I was waiting for. I can’t believe it took 3 days to come out.
“More Dems showed up than ‘Pubs therefore the delta must be illegals”
Despite all evidence, reason and experience the energized voters of American should be discounted because we can’t believe Americans would be energized. Such optimism must be a political advantage.
How dare I ask such a question? You are right, I should not be allowed to question what is going on? I should not have the right to question the political process? How dare I do such a horrible thing? I should be jailed for asking out loud if illegal aliens had any kind of influence during the primaries and caucuses? How dare I use such hate speech? How dare I allege the possibility of voter fraud? Thats not allowed! I am sorry, please forgive me, I thought I lived in AMERICA.
…and in fact, it’s a good thing that you care.
However, when all the evidence is that non-citizens happens at some miniscule level, there is your answer. Stop asking.
This whole voter ID thing is something that Pubs created to have an issue to get suckers like you frothed up. If there is a problem, let’s tackle it. If there isn’t, shut up.
Considering that a hell of a lot more registered, citizen voters get DISenfranchised than a few illegals registering, your priorities are wrong. Katherine Harris alone committed more moral voting crime than all the non-citizens who voted many times over.
What evidence are you talking about, and who is supplying this evidence? Did it ever occur to you that the people who are telling us not to worry are the same people who are hiding the truth? Well, these are probably hopeless questions because we probably won’t even agree on credible sources.
But to say that the “Pubs” are just making all this up to rile up “suckers” like me, is stupid and irresponsible. The fact of the matter is that it is unconstitutional to vote if you are a non-citizen. And voter fraud is dangerous and undermines a democracy in every way possible. I am sorry, but I do not want to live in Venezuela where Hugo Chavez is in charge.
and you know that.
You need to prove that this is happening.
I accept it probably happens but rarely. And as a percentage, I doubt if it is anything statistically significant. Maybe .001 % of voters voting?
You really don’t understand logic, do you? You are all over the ball park telling me what’s constitutional, you don’t want to live in Venezuela, etc.
I said, just show me there is a problem, then I will consider needing an ID. I also said that disenfranchisment is a much bigger concern than illegal voting, but apparently, that doesn’t matter to you.
Typical Republican. (Apologies to Haners and Newsie.)
I am sorry that you can’t use common sense in your judgment. However,you are right that I don’t have the solid facts of how many illegal aliens voted this last Tuesday out in front of me for there is no where to go to get such information at least not right now. And my point was that people don’t exactly have a tally sheet where they mark off how many illegals went to vote. You forget that there are states that don’t check ids at all. Again, I just asked the question. I know such questions piss off many people who think that such a question is outrageous. But that is where I disagree.
Again voter fraud undermines democracies. And yes, in Venezuela there have been many strong allegations that Chavez used voter fraud during a 2004 recall referendum. And my point is I don’t want live in a country where such things happen.
I also think many voters are disenfranchised, but I bet we have different reasons for that too.
There was no primary so no one voted.
That is the most illogical, persecution complex-ridden, insulting, and blame shifting series of posts I have read in a long time.
First of all, no one called you a racist and no one called you anti-elderly. If they did and I missed it please point me to that post.
Next, as Native Son properly calls you out for you a ridiculous tinfoil accusation, you then try and put words in his mouth, and take on that mantle of victimhood for a second time.
Your third post (following the themes of one and two) piles on tin foilery, a nice red herring, and a general obtuseness to provided anything to back up your claims. Of course your position is that you only asked a question. A question, need I remind you, that is not grounded in either emperical evidence or reasonable inference. Your question really sounds like sour grapes to me.
Which brings us to the post that I am now responding. Starting with an insult you essentially concede the point. There is no evidence of illegals voting. All this bloviating about it only being a question is a poorly planned subterfuge to call into question not only the democrats super Tuesday blow out voter totals, but also a poor attempt to garner sympathy from anyone that doesnt already agree with you ridiculous assertion, er, I mean question. Of course throwing in that nice Venezuala red herring at the end only drives home the fact your multipost diatribe is only designed to inflame not to engage in debate.
May I apologize, I do not have any empirical evidence that non-citizens are voting, have voted, or will ever vote. I may very well be wrong.
May I apologize, for inferring that I was being called a racist or anti-elderly on this thread. That’s what people typically reply to someone who brings up such claims. I was wrong to bring it up.
May I apologize, I did not mean to put words in Native Son’s mouth. I felt like I was being attacked solely for holding a different opinion. I overreacted.
May I apologize, for throwing out “red herrings.” I was trying to get a point across, but seriously failed to do it.
May I apologize, for inflaming not engaging in debate. I did find it very amusing, but I was wrong to do so.
I do have an issue against not at least checking IDs before someone votes. Maybe I’m dead wrong about holding that opinion and I know how passionate everybody feels against that. Like I said above, there is no hard evidence that it is happening and I accept that. But my gut feeling tells me that even if there is a small percentage of it going on, how do I know that small percentage doesn’t make the difference in a tight race? Now maybe I’m stupid or stubborn about worrying about that as I am sure you agree. Fine. I know you hold the exact opposite opinion. I agree to disagree. Again I could be dead wrong. And I do accept that the evidence points towards that.
in that last paragraph where i said “Like i said above, there is no hard evidence it is happening and I accept that.” “it” was referring to illegals voting/voter fraud. Just wanted to make certain that was clear.
Differences of opinion are what make the world go round. I appreciate your response. We will probably butt heads soon, but at least I know that we can butt heads reasonably.
Testified two years ago that there was no evidence that even ONE illegal immigrant had voted in the previous election.
What do you think they are going to say?
Of course they will say that. Whether it is true or not. Do you honestly think they will say they knowingly allowed illegals to vote?
C’mon.
And with our current system in place now, how would they even know if thousands of illegals HAD cast votes? There is no checks and balances in place. At least not enough to prove or disprove the theory that illegals CAN VOTE IF THEY WANT TO.
I’m not saying there is corruption, I’m just saying there is nothing in place to stop them if they see fit to vote illegally.
who believes something like this without any proof?
A fool.
Wild suppositions get called out. You can say them, but expect to be challenged and asked for evidence.
My thought was more that the millions of people voting for the first time probably wouldn’t appreciate the implication that they must be illegal aliens or they would have voted before. As politically active folks, I’m sure you and I have both railed against voter apathy. That finally changed a little. My first reaction was to be happy, not suspicious.
Besides, wouldn’t it make more sense to think they showed up to the Republican caucuses/primaries? After all, McCain won.
You are right, I have been frustrated for years about voter apathy as you have and was happy with the turn out here in Colorado to the caucuses.
However don’t forget Romney “won” Colorado last Tuesday by a landslide, not McCain.
And In my opinion, McCain won big overall because millions of conservatives stayed home.
Why would millions of conservatives stay home allowing McCain to win by a landslide, except here in Colorado, if McCain is so reviled by conservatives? Doesnt that speak to the amount of apathy the millions of conservatives had towards the republican slate of candidates, except here in colorado?
the conservatives in Colorado are less apathetic than conservatives in other states and more scared of a Clinton or Obama presidency than most conservatives in other states.
I think that if anybody has been paying close enough attention to the GOP they would see that a lot of conservatives, lately, have felt disenfranchised by their own party regarding the border and spending and some about the war. And on top of that many conservatives were never happy with the crop of conservatives who were running for the nomination this election. So whether it was because of apathy, stupidity, or protest I believe most of the base stayed home. I think it shows in the numbers. I mean the last two elections were very very close, while this last Tuesday the democrats turnout almost doubled the GOP.
http://www.time-blog.com/swamp…
Maybe I’m just leaping out and making a wild conclusion, but I think its obvious. You may feel differently. And I really don’t think Colorado represented the rest of the country this time around.
Now it is my turn to apologize. My question was overly snarky, but the response was leveled.
Serious question: why do you think that Colorado republicans are more involved? I think it has to do with many top republicans here going to bat for Romney, but thats just a guess.
I dont know what you mean by “obvious.” Could you expand upon that?
I’m not too sure why Colorado republicans are more involved than the rest of the country. I mean if I had to guess I would say because of a large military population but then I would have expected McCain to have won big last Tuesday and that was not the case. Mitt Romney beat John McCain with 33,288 votes to 10,621 or 59.4% to 19.0% of the vote.
http://politics.nytimes.com/el…
Yes, I believe that conservatives in Colorado are less apathetic, but I don’t know why. I also think conservatives here are more scared of a democratic presidency, but I don’t know why they would be more scared of that than conservatives in other states.
Now I guess I can break it down like this:
1)My original theory is that in the majority of states that “voted” last Tuesday, most conservatives stayed home.
2) I assume that by default, the GOP in Colorado is primarily more conservative than other states.
3) My opinion that at the time the most conservative candidate was Romney.
If I add all that together, to me it makes sense then, that Colorado Republicans voted in favor of Romney because they are more conservative and voted for the most conservative candidate.
Now what I meant by “obvious” was that most of the conservative base stayed home. I can break that down in a similar fashion:
1) In the last couple years most conservatives have felt betrayed with the out-of-control spending in Washington, the lack of action with the border, and the mismanagement of the war.
2) That Romney was the most conservative candidate left standing at the time.
3) That McCain won big overall.
4)That democrats nearly doubled in turnout
5)That in the two previous presidential general elections, the races were very very close. (what I mean by this is that it is not like there are naturally twice as many dems that pubs.)
What I deduce from those five points is that conservatives in general stayed home, and the moderates came out and voted for McCain.
And that because of point 1, they stayed home out of bitterness or apathy and that some may argue that it was stupid because it allowed McCain to win.
I’m all for the first amendment. Shunned is good enough for me.
(Yes, I’m joking.)
My grandmother probably cannot prove that she’s an American. She was born in Basalt, CO in 1916 and as far as I know she does not have a copy of her birth certificate, a driver’s license, or unexpired passport.
She’s old. She had to surrender her driver’s license and she’s not been out of the country since the 1960s. And even then I it was just Canada, so she might not even have ever had a passport. So what exactly does an elderly person like her do? Go to the DMV for however long it takes to get a state ID? I’d drive her myself if she ever wanted to, but she’s lucky that she has a close family that’s caring for her. And it would still be very hard for her given how frail she is. She voted by mail the last time and if the law changes so that she has to get and present an ID I think that would be it for her.
I’m not sure the exact details on this last bill. But I do know there have been bills in other states where the elderly or handicapped just had to call the city, and government officials whether they be election officials, city officials, sheriff deputies or volunteers or whatever, would actually drive out to the citizen’s residence and give them state IDs for free (Granted I’m sure once the official arrived at their residence they had to go through the proper procedures before the IDs were just handed to them, at least I hope so).
I’m not saying that is the exact answer, but the point is, there are ways to find effective and harmless solutions.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04…
“Richard L. Hasen, an expert in election law at the Loyola Law School, agreed, saying: “If they found a single case of a conspiracy to affect the outcome of a Congressional election or a statewide election, that would be significant. But what we see is isolated, small-scale activities that often have not shown any kind of criminal intent.”
It’s a non-solution to a non-problem. Voter fraud is a fiction inside the mind of Karl Rove and his henchmen at a politicized DoJ, entirely concocted to disenfranchise voters he doesn’t approve of – mostly minorities and poor people more inclined to vote Democratic.
The problem we have is not enough people are voting.
What!? You mean the New York Times reported that there is no such thing as voter fraud??? No way!
try reading the story.
WASHINGTON, April 11 – Five years after the Bush administration began a crackdown on voter fraud, the Justice Department has turned up virtually no evidence of any organized effort to skew federal elections, according to court records and interviews.
I read the story, but I don’t trust the source hence the sarcasm.
The New York Times is generally accepted as a reliable source by all but the most ardent fringe. But, in an attempt to be accomodating, who do you trust?
I just take stories, articles, and editorials and weigh them against each other. Seeing what facts match and contradict each other. I might take a story from ABC news and compare it with say Fox news. I generally think the truth is somewhere in the middle. My main problem with news sources is that they claim to be objective, but due to the fact that I work in the media and got a related degree, I don’t trust them. I am a right-wing guy, so I do tend to go to conservative sources, but I don’t limit myself to that. My main thing is self-identification, I will trust someone more if they say “I am biased, I see things this way and this is my opinion on this matter…”
If I had a gun to my head and had to say what sources do I go to the most I would probably say for news: Fox News, CNN, ABC/nightline, Frontline, WSJ, Washington Times, Newsmax, CNS News, Assoicted Press, Reuters, BBC, Canada Free Press, Denver Post, COS Gazette…I do like the drudge report which of course uses all kinds of sources and so I pick and choose from there on an article by article basis…and again I am skeptical with every story I read at face value…
On opinion I’ll name a couple: Accuracy In Media and Human Events…I have more I can give you if you want…
Other than that I read books.
I think to have a meaningful debate we need to have sources both sides accept. Obviously, amongst your list there are some that I disagree with and dont trust, but the ones I do include: WSJ, Frontline, and BBC. At least we have a starting point.
Lets say, for the sake of argument, that everything he posted about his grandmother is true:
No BC, DL, or UEP.
Now, lets look at your parenthetical comment:
How would a 92 year old woman, who, for the sake of argument, is not lucky enough to have family to help her, but wants her independence, and like Precinct854’s grandmother has no BC, DL, or UEP prove that she is actually a resident is actually allowed to vote?
You my friend are right on the money.
I too think EVERYONE should have to PROVE who they are before being allowed to cast a vote.
A system could be put in place, with a little imagination, and bipartisan support, to overcome this “inconvienant” problem.
Of course the main hurdle to jump is that most Dem’s DON’T want this, as they could possibly stand to lose some votes. Heaven forbid!
That is the plain ugly truth.
If you took some time to understand the other side rather than painting opposing views in hyperbolic and fanciful visions of The Great Satan, you might get a bit more sympathy.
The Democratic Party was founded, informally, by Thomas Jefferson during the debate over passage of the Bill of Rights. Its initial purpose was the passage of those amendments, and it is to the ideal of those amendments that the Democratic Party still holds.
If you can design a system that works, doesn’t disenfranchise voters, doesn’t lead directly to a police state, and that you’re actually willing to see financed, I’m willing to take a look. I haven’t seen such a system yet.
How can the Democratic party still stand for the Bill of Rights, when they are constantly trying to impede on the Bill of Rights by limiting freedom at almost every turn. How is banning smoking in one’s own home as in some communities in CA considered standing for the Bill of Rights? How is putting thermostats in people’s homes that can be controlled by the government in CA standing for the Bill of Rights? How is banning trans fats standing for the Bill of rights? How is overbearing gun-control laws standing for the Bill of Rights? How is the Fairness Doctrine standing for the Bill of Rights? How is strong federal intervention in the market standing for the Bill of Rights? How is redistribution of wealth considered standing for the Bill of Rights? How is stealing 40% of an individual’s income and spending it on programs that don’t work standing for the Bill of Rights? How is strong economic control to combat “Global Warming” standing for the Bill of Rights? How is affirmative action standing for the Bill of Rights?
and supporting torture standing for the Bill of Rights? Or holding people in secret prisons indefinitely on secret charges standing for the bill of right?
We have people being tortured to death in our name and you’re worried about your damn thermostat? Are you kidding me?
I still have a problem with the double standard thing … one set of rules for business and another for politics.
Employers are required to verify identity AND the right to work in the US when hiring someone. They are subject to government imposed fines for failing to do that. Yet, the government does not apply the same standard to itself when it comes to verifying voter IDs.
Here’s the list of IDs that are considered adequate to establish both ID and right to work in the US. Note all of them have a picture on them.
Passport
Permanent Resident Card
Employment Authorization Document if it has a photo
Here’s the list of IDs that are OK if they are accompanied by an additional document to establish the right to work.
Driver’s License or State ID provided it contains a photo
Government ID card with a photo
School ID card with a photo
Voter Registration card
Military ID
Canadian Driver’s License
If the applicant produces one of the above, they must ALSO produce one of these:
Social Security Card
Birth Certificate
Native American Tribal document
US Citizen ID card
Why shouldn’t the same documentation requirements apply to voters? If it’s important enough to fine businesses if they fail to get these documents from job applicants, why is it inappropriate to use to establish ID and right to vote for voters?
Some of the people who would be affected by a voter ID law are those who aren’t working. The elderly, the disabled, the homeless… What do we do to ensure that they retain their right to vote?
Next November I am going to risk suffocation, heat exhaustion and starvation, and pay a coyote a couple of grand to sneak me and 30 of my compatriots over the border in the middle of the night in an old moving van, then I am going to hike 50 miles through 100 degree heat in the Sonoran desert, all so I can vote for Obama !
This is all going according to plan !
I thought it was jobs. But they are actually coming here to steal our Democracy.
I agree 100% that we should insure that only bona-fide citizens should be allowed to vote. I also think we should make it very easy to register as people tend to have very busy lives and tend to never get around to registering (like my middle daughter).
The thing is, this is not a problem. Vote fraud occurs but when it does it is people with control of the process stuffing the ballot box, from LBJ to Richard Daley to … None of this voter verification addresses that problem.
So, with all the real problems we are facing, why expend effort on something that is not an actual problem?
At least in the case of all the right-wing yelling about illegal immigration they are discussing an actual serious problem.
About 6 months ago my oldest daughter moved to Lakewood and registered to vote there. She told them she was registered in Boulder County.
Tuesday night she was still in the list of voters in Boulder. Granted we have Hillary Hall who appears to be incompetent but she should be able to handle a change in registration to another county…
Perhaps they never received notification from Lakewood or Moter-voter or wherever she registered?
Just because they haven’t been caught doesn’t mean it does not happen. The voter registration requirements are so loose you have to be a complete idiot to get caught.
It is not uncommon for a county election office to get a call from someone trying to get a visa. To prove they have been in the country, they call the county to get their certificate of voter registration.
Democrats always claim that republicans are just looking for an issue to get excited about. That’s crap. Illegals are voting. As I said, you have to be a complete idiot to get caught. And, if a county wants to refer a case to the district attorney, it doesn’t do much good because their offices don’t have enough man power to chase these kinds of claims. This issue is real and getting worse.
There would be a court case somewhere. The U.S. Attorneys have been directed to concentrate on this – they would have found one.
Until then your claims are identical to UFO sightings – lots of people claim it but none have been proved.
You claim there’s a problem. You need to provide evidence. I’m perfectly willing to examine that evidence and maybe even concede that there is a problem.
All you to do is keep claiming that it is happening, yet you have no evidence, neither anecdotal or specific.
Just because you say it is happening doesn’t mean it is.
What is so damned hard for the two of you to grasp here?
“Joe says that he just knows that Billy Bob tipped over the outhouse. Anyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot.”
Same caliber of “logic.”
I don’t think you get it. The voter registration laws are so ridiculously loose, it is next to impossible to catch them. Now, ask yourself why the laws are so loose…perhaps it’s because Latino’s turnout in large percentage for one particular party, and it’s not the republicans. Everytime the republicans try to stengthen voter reg laws to ensure that only American citizens vote, the dems shoot them down. Funny how that works!
http://www.junctiondailyblog.c…
“There is no history of illegal immigrants voting in Mesa County,” she said. “Aha,” I thought. That’s a pretty strong statement, so I asked her the logical follow-up. How would she even know? She told me, “when you register to vote, you must show positive identification and you must sign an affidavit that swears that you are a U.S. Citizen.” What kinds of ID are acceptable? Those are spelled out in HAVA, the Help America Vote Act, and include, among other things, a Colorado Driver’s License or State-issued ID card, a military ID, a passport, a birth certificate, and one that Ward doesn’t like, a utility bill proving that you reside within the County.
…Janice told me that prior to her term in office, and prior to the new HAVA identification requirements, there was an incident in which a person voted twice, once in Mesa County and once elsewhere. She said this was caught in a routine audit by the Secretary of State’s office and the person was prosecuted. It wasn’t a migrant farm worker, either. It was an affluent white person who owned homes in two different states.
provide a single, solitary shred of evidence that ANY non-citizens, let alone illegal aliens, are voting?
Please, someone explain to me why you believe this is happening if you don’t have this evidence.
Confidential to “Goldwater Conservative” – I’m sorry, but while the NY Times has it’s flaws your knee-jerk dismissal reveals you to be what I’ve suspected – that you’re a Repulsive Radical Republican (a phrase coined by Another Skeptic, who’s nearly one himself).
Say, where is AS anyway? Did my challenges finally get him to clam up about this issue?
I’ve been researching all night, and the conclusion I have come to is that there is no real evidence that any non-citizens or illegal aliens are voting. I’ll give you that. You are right and I was wrong.
I am sorry.
You can label me whatever the hell you want, it doesn’t phase me one bit, I’ve been called much worse. Your entitled to your opinion of me and anyone else. I stand by my principles and am very proud of that. Most of us on here are passionate about our views.
And as I just posted in response to Mr. Toodles above, despite what I began this post with about the evidence, I still hold an issue with IDs not being presented when someone votes. I’m sorry, but I just do. I may very well be dead wrong on that, but it just doesn’t make total sense to me not to. You’ll have forgive me on that.
THANK YOU. It is so rare here that someone listens to others, does some research, and then changes their mind.
Thank you for operating true to the ideals of political discourse.
And I agree with your ideal of everyone proving they can vote forst – but that conflicts with my ideal of not wanting a national ID card.
Tis a quandry.
I came on you pretty hard (just logic, hee hee), but you came around. It’s not that I won, you lost, but that we both are enriched by trying to understand one another.
It seems you are pretty new here. I hope you discover that except for a relative few, most folks here are willing to listen and learn. Often that means evidence. I hope that my statements that I would change my perspective once shown evidence means something to you like your admission does to me.
Welcome aboard.
So much for labelling you as I did. For me, inflexibility is a hallmark of extreme views, and you’ve just shown that you’re not inflexible. So let’s just call you passionate, eh? 🙂
I do understand the desire to confirm someone’s identity at the voting booth, but I think there are better reasons for doing so that the reason being used to sell the idea – that illegals are voting in our elections. No, there are other kinds of fraud that can be prevented by such a measure. But as others have already stated on this thread, any such solution has to be implemented so that it doesn’t inadvertently (or, if I’m feeling cynical, by design) disenfranchise any citizen who doesn’t have ID and can not easily get it. Maybe a national ID card is the way to go, but it ought to be provided for free. God alone knows how much of a nightmare creating the agency and getting everyone their card would be – they’d probably have to go through state driver’s license bureaus.
Anyway, when it comes to MSM sources of news, you need to rely on your experiences, your ability to assess stories critically and objectively, and the source’s long-term reputation. And keep in mind that disagreeing with a paper’s editorial board doesn’t mean that their news is of poor quality.
..the WSJ has neocon capitalist pigs ( 🙂 )on its editorial page, but the journalism is top notch. This very liberal Dem loves the WSJ. I’ll be interested in seeing how Murdoch changes it.
Similarly, the NYT is still the standard bearer of quality journalism, despite the occassional wart or screw up. (Hello, Judy!) Do keep in mind that they supported the Iraq invasion, so how left is that?
Yes, I was aware that the NY Times supported the Iraq invasion in the beginning, but I am also aware that they reported the Abu Gharib scandal 34 straight days on their front page. Now someone might argue many reasons to do so, and those reasons may or may not be legit, but c’mon man, you know that the NYT absolutely hates Bush. They did it on purpose to make him look as bad as they could. My opinion of course.
And it isn’t just looking bad…..