Rand Paul to GOP: Our voter ID push is “offending people”

[Matt Collins]

Matt, stop pestering Gunny. You aren't really interested in changing your opinion. And Gunny already recognizes that hard facts are necessary to form a valid conclusion. Your request would be valid if you planned to take action based on the link that Gunny might provide, but obviously you're trying to trap here. The least you can do is try to make an effort to frame the same request more like,

'That goes against what I think I know and it is truly relevant to me to find out that my assumptions may be wrong. Is this based on impression from talking to people or an actual survey?'

No, he made an assertion, I'd like to see it backed up.

 

[Natural Citizen]

It's not just this one thing that's making grassroots conservatives mad. If it were just this it wouldn't be any big deal, at least to me. But there's now a pattern emerging with Rand's recent comments on abortion, Obamacare, and now this. It's just my view that he must just have really bad political advisors.

He should spend less time and energy on the cookie cutter issues in my opinion. Folks whose energy focusus primarily upon these kinds of things are outnumbered by those who question more across the board both geo-politically and domestically every day. And I think this will show at the polls. Whatever though.

 

[Brett85]

He should spend less time and energy on the cookie cutter issues in my opinion. Folks whose energy focusus primarily upon these kinds of things are outnumbered by those who question more across the board, both geo-politically and domestically every day. And I think this will shhow at the polls. Whatever though.

I've just never seen any GOP candidate win the nomination by running to the left. Huntsman did that and didn't get anywhere. Romney was thought to be a moderate, but he had to run way to the right in order to win the GOP nomination. Rand is miscalculating badly here. I can't even imagine how badly he's going to get ripped in the debates on issues like voter I.D and abortion by Cruz and other like minded candidates.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Trying to win an election having pissed off 55.4% of the electorate is an exercise in futility. You will also notice that 43.4% strongly support VoterID and 31.6% support it less passionately. The position Rand is staking out is opposed by 75% of the electorate in North Carolina, most of those being Republican Primary voters. Spam one ad in NC that claims Rand opposes VoterID and he loses NC - an early State in 2016. I guarantee. This is a serious tactical error.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

No, he made an assertion, I'd like to see it backed up.

LOL you don't care about facts and data, I hurt your feelings by calling out the failings of Paul Inc, to whom you have hitched your wagon, so now you are stalking me on other threads trying to hurt me. That's just childish.

 

[Natural Citizen]

I've just never seen any GOP candidate win the nomination by running to the left. Huntsman did that and didn't get anywhere. Romney was thought to be a moderate, but he had to run way to the right in order to win the GOP nomination. Rand is miscalculating badly here. I can't even imagine how badly he's going to get ripped in the debates on issues like voter I.D and abortion by Cruz and other like minded candidates.

I think there is more to be had outside of debates that evolve from the mainstream but I believe that for different reasons than the hardcore base would disagree with what they are doing. I don't even take the debates seriously. Cripes, they are about as mickey-moused as they can possibly get.

Rand is just about the only political representative that gets any kind of positive support from foreign interests at the level of his father and in the longterm this is where focus should really be. The more relevant issues will not come into debate domestically but they will most certainly come. With thunder and lightening too. As I said, we're dealing with two demographics and there simply is no counterweight down the pipe. I don't know. I'm probably off topic here but some relevance exists, I suppose. We have a different demographic of so called libertarian leaning people evolving. And they're reproducing like ants.

 

[Brett85]

If people don't understand why we need voter ID laws, let me make the case for it. Let's say that you're living in a major city and are registered to vote. Since you don't have to show a photo ID to vote, you decide to read your local obituary to read the names of all the people who recently died. You then look and see how many of these people are registered to vote. It usually takes quite a while for election officials to get the names of these people off their voter rolls. So you could simply show up and do the early voting and give your name as someone who just recently died. In a major city, it's likely that you wouldn't have the same people working the polls every day. Even if they were, it's not likely that the poll workers would even remember a particular person voting. So you could just go early vote multiple times using a dead person's name, and then show up on election day and give them your real name. It would be extremely easy to vote multiple times if a photo ID isn't required.

 

[Crashland]

If people don't understand why we need voter ID laws, let me make the case for it. Let's say that you're living in a major city and are registered to vote. Since you don't have to show a photo ID to vote, you decide to read your local obituary to read the names of all the people who recently died. You then look and see how many of these people are registered to vote. It usually takes quite a while for election officials to get the names of these people off their voter rolls. So you could simply show up and do the early voting and give your name as someone who just recently died. In a major city, it's likely that you wouldn't have the same people working the polls every day. Even if they were, it's not likely that the poll workers would even remember a particular person voting. So you could just go early vote multiple times using a dead person's name, and then show up on election day and give them your real name. It would be extremely easy to vote multiple times if a photo ID isn't required.

I agree with this, but adding voter ID is adding an extra burden that would *only* be felt by individuals who do not already have a government-issued photo ID. You would have to make significant efforts in the law to make sure no one would be in effect disenfranchised, and a lot of the laws don't do that.

 

[nayjevin]

Who is disenfranchised? Everyone who doesn't have a voter ID. Who shouldn't be disenfranchised? Legal voters without a voter ID. When does it matter? When the disenfranchised would have voted if they did have an ID, and when the sum of their votes would change the outcome of an election. Disenfranchisement does not have as much real world impact as it sounds at first, though obviously, if you're going to have majority rule democracy, it's best that everyone who should be able to legally vote, can.

How to ensure people who can't get an ID but should be able to legally vote can vote? Persistent database of biometric data, biometric readers at every precinct, major government contract! The plot thickens.

The unforeseen consequences of 'more law' are too often foreseen by those who would benefit.

The best part, to me, is that it's so dang obvious that majority rule is unjust in the first place: up to 49% of people can end up under laws/politicians they do not agree with. The bigger the election, the more unjust majority rule becomes.

 

[Brett85]

I agree with this, but adding voter ID is adding an extra burden that would *only* be felt by individuals who do not already have a government-issued photo ID. You would have to make significant efforts in the law to make sure no one would be in effect disenfranchised, and a lot of the laws don't do that.

Part of the law is that if people don't have a photo ID, the government will actually come to their house and provide them with one. No one is being disenfranchised.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

I agree with this, but adding voter ID is adding an extra burden that would *only* be felt by individuals who do not already have a government-issued photo ID. You would have to make significant efforts in the law to make sure no one would be in effect disenfranchised, and a lot of the laws don't do that.

North Carolina's law does. Anybody who cannot afford an ID will be given one for free.

And TONS of people have come to the polls in the last decade only to be told they had already voted. I hear it every day from someone. It's one of the reasons why the law is so popular. And that's not even counting the infamous dead vote.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Part of the law is that if people don't have a photo ID, the government will actually come to their house and provide them with one. No one is being disenfranchised.

Aye, and if we want to talk about disenfranchisement, what about the people who come to the polls only to be told they have already voted? Are they not disenfranchised? I think so.

ETA - and there is something that CAN be done under VoterID - get an ID. So not actually disenfranchised at all. When you go to the polls to vote only to be told you have already voted when you actually have NOT, then there is NOTHING you can do. You are just SOL. That is actual disenfranchisement.

 

[Brett85]

Aye, and if we want to talk about disenfranchisement, what about the people who come to the polls only to be told they have already voted? Are they not disenfranchised? I think so.

Exactly. I live in a small town where everyone basically knows everyone, but what you described can definitely happen in a big city. If you were a Republican and knew a Democrat that you wanted to prevent from voting, all you would have to do would be to give the poll worker the name of that person when you go to vote. Even if you only vote once, you would still be depriving someone else of their right to vote.

 

[Crashland]

Excuse my ignorance-- when you say they will come to your residence and give you a photo id, what does that mean exactly? They actually come to your place with a camera and take your picture and create your ID right there?

 

[Brett85]

Excuse my ignorance-- when you say they will come to your residence and give you a photo id, what does that mean exactly? They actually come to your place with a camera and take your picture and create your ID right there?

That must be what it means.

 

[Brett85]

Making enemies out of allies.

https://twitter.com/marklevinshow/status/464871402403663872

 

[Natural Citizen]

That must be what it means.

I hope not. If that's the case we'll see lobbying for government to come into your home to slap a bar code on yer rear end next. You know how the old "Well, they were OK with it last time" gag works. Comparable to what I read earlier regarding the aeroplane speak. Papers please...

This is another reason why states have rights and constitutions that would protect their citizens against such practices. We forget state rights when they aren't convenient to our cause sometimes. Of course the light bulb do come on when those rights and constitutions are something that we need them for.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Excuse my ignorance-- when you say they will come to your residence and give you a photo id, what does that mean exactly? They actually come to your place with a camera and take your picture and create your ID right there?

They do not have a "come to your house" provision in the NC V-ID law, but the voter is authorized to use their voter registration card as identification, which is mailed directly to their house for free. Or, they can go to the DMV fill out an affidavit that they cannot afford to pay for an ID and receive a NC State identification card for free.

As a matter of fact, when crafting the 'free ID' portion of the V-ID law, we had some hope that people would take advantage of it...given that you need ID to cash checks, apply for work, even to receive welfare (although that last one was not the intent). Someone, merely by having a state-issued ID card, will in a much better position to escape from the poverty trap. Now that you have an ID, you can actually start applying for jobs.

The notion that the poor do not have IDs is silly. You have to have an ID to receive welfare. Granted, not all of the poor are on welfare, but the segment of the poor who will vote for more welfare is on welfare, and they all already have IDs. All the V-ID law does here is expand the ability for others t get a free ID and vote, and now that they have an ID they can apply for jobs.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

I hope not. If that's the case we'll see lobbying for government to come into your home to slap a bar code on yer rear end next. You know how the old "Well, they were OK with it last time" gag works. Comparable to what I read earlier regarding the aeroplane speak. Papers please...

This is another reason why states have rights and constitutions that would protect their citizens against such practices. We forget state rights when they aren't convenient to our cause sometimes. Of course the light bulb do come on when those rights and constitutions are something that we need them for.

I don't actually see how any of this relates to the thread. Nobody is talking about chips or barcodes or any such thing, and I pretty much singlehandedly killed RealID in NC in 2011. Even further out of context, who is talking about Federal anything in this thread? Supporting the fact that a State can exercise powers not delegated to the federal government, is a violation of States Rights....how exactly?