<<Your first sentence. "Voter fraud is something that's been around since there has been voting." I find voter fraud a VERY bad thing. >>
Don't we all!! But you know, murder has been around since Cain slew Abel. I find murder to be a VERY bad thing, worse even than voter fraud. You can be executed for murder but never for voter fraud.
<<What would YOU suggest the way to stop this should be?>>
Well, the first thing I would do is look at all the so-called "voter frauds" that have taken place to date. Count them all. Then look at how these so-called "frauds" were discovered. Whatever method was used to discover the most voter frauds to date is probably the best way to stop them to date.
How were the frauds committed? For each type of voter fraud, would photo ID have stopped the fraud any more effectively than the way in which the fraud was ultimately detected? Why wouldn't crooked politicians resort to fake photo ID if that was what it took to fix the election? How difficult would it be? I say we should know what photo ID can do and what it can't do. If it turns out to be easily circumvented and not very effective after all, why bother with it, particularly if it disenfranchises legitimate voters. People fought and died for the right of everyone to vote, why rush to something like photo ID, which the ACLU brief proves will take the vote away from large groups of citizens?
<<I, personally, think there is a push for a more VALID election system because the races are getting closer and closer. >>
I think that's a valid point, and one that I overlooked.
<<Also, people are tired of hearing about people breaking rules and getting away with it. (Voter fraud, illegal immigration, murderers being found innocent.) >>
Well nothing new there. No system is perfect, and we are always trying to clean up the problems and make the system work better. That goes for airport security, public safety, DVD players or whatever.
<<For my part, I'm willing to show my drivers license when voting. I don't know if ID's are the perfect answer, but it's a start towards protecting the electoral system that, as you put it, has been imperfect for a long time.>>
What you're really saying is, "I won't be disenfranchised because I already HAVE my photo ID, so WTF do I care if somebody poor, black, homeless or elderly gets disenfranchised - - as the ACLU brief proves they will - - because as long as I can vote, the others don't matter."
<<I disagree with the ACLU on both it disenfranchising anyone. Blacks can't get an ID card or drivers license? Elderly can't get ID's? As for the homeless and poor... >>
Blacks are much more likely to be poor and unemployed, therefore much less likely to own a motor vehicle or need a driver's licence, therefore much more inconvenienced by the need to get the photo ID. Working poor may not find the time to go for the photo ID, be sent home again because they came with incomplete documentation, come back, wait, be sent back again, etc. One of the state ACLU points made in their brief was that the state BMV sent back 60% of its driver licence applicants on their first attendance because they did not come with proper documentation. Actually if you read the brief that I linked to, you will see that this goes beyond your "agreeing" or "disagreeing" with the ACLU. Their brief is filled with cold hard facts that prove that blacks, elderly, the homeless and the poor WILL be disenfranchised if photo ID is required. So unless you have some facts to back you up, your "disagreement" with the ACLU brief is not convincing. Their opinion is based on facts, yours on what?
<<I do believe that state ID's should be free. Homeless, well... I don't know what to say about that, other than I can't imagine many homeless taking the time to go to a polling place and voting. (But that doesn't mean they don't have the right, so... ?)>>
The proposal DID include free photo ID at state expense for indigents. To avoid abuse by endless quibbling over who was indigent and who was not, this would have to be amended to free for all.
<<But while things like retinal scans sound good to me, I would see them just as "disenfranchising" as ID's. There would HAVE to be a cost in that that would have to come from somewhere.>>
Yes, the cost would come from the state. These devices are already in use in lots of places, my daughter's gym (Equinox) in Manhattan being one example. If the government can spend half a trillion dollars and thousands of U.S. lives so that Iraqis and Afghans can vote, then it can provide its American voters with simple retinal scanning equipment to protect the American right to vote.
<<With that being said, I'm not 100% sure on what disenfranchising means in this regard. I am understanding that it means "leaving out".>>
"Disenfranchising" in this case means taking away the right to vote or technically LEAVING them with the right to vote but rendering it meaningless by regulations which prohibit voting without photo ID to folks who have a lot of trouble getting photo ID.