A couple of choice quotes from the linked article:

"Show me the examples of the problem you're trying to solve," demanded Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer, Maryland Democrat who accused Republicans of trying to appeal to the "fear and -- yes, perhaps -- the prejudices of people." A Republican cited a study by Johns Hopkins University that found 1,500 dead people who had voted in recent elections. Mr. Hoyer belittled the study, saying no criminal convictions for voter fraud had been won in any of those cases.

Well if they require ID, then how will the illegals vote? And we all know the democrats need the illegals this coming election season.

So far I haven't heard one legitimate argument against requiring ID to vote. Most excuses are based on the idea that the poor and old are too stupid to be able to get an ID (even if given to them free and they have two years to take care of it).

i understand your side of this terp, and it does make some sense and hold some water. i don't appreciate the hyperbolic headline, but that's your perogative.

voting is a right, not a priveledge however. why does the NRA resist every attempt for the powers that be to regulate guns more? because, as they see it, owning a gun is a right. they need not show id to buy it, register it with the govt. etc, etc...

no one need show id to exercize their right of free speech, or religion, etc, etc...

now, no analogy is going to be perfect here, so please don't try to nitpick it, that's not why i am replying...but the overall theory is that things that are "rights" under our constitution should require as little in the ways of ID and such as that takes things from being a right to a priveledge at some point. at what point that happens, is up for debate of course. some say that a voter need not show id or anything to vote, it is their right and no one has the right to question that. some demand more accountability and don't trust any "honor system" that may be in place.

i'm not exactly sure where i stand on the issue. but that is hardly the only voter issue being discussed when it comes to fraud. and the other major fraud issue concerns electronic voting machines. and here, it is the GOP, not the democrats on the side of less accountability. so, your headline could have cited either party as being "for fraud" as you put it.

in that debate, one side says that in our "right to vote", we have the right to CONFIDENTIALLY vote for anyone we choose. the other side is saying that there must be a paper trail in light of the fact that these machines can be hacked. a princton university study recently showed how one line of machines used in multiple states, could be hacked in about 30 seconds.

when it comes down to it, these debates are actually tied in to one another. and it's funny how 1 party stands on the side of accountability on one issue, yet wants annonymity on the other. to try to paint the democrats as "being for fraud" exclusively, implying the GOP was for "truth and justice" is just intellectually dishonest.

one could argue, on the issue of the right of annonymity in voting, that in having to register to vote, one loses that.

fact is, the whole issue is a little more complex and delicate than it has been painted here.

democrats want a paper trail. republicans don't. does that mean the GOP is supporting fraud? or are they trying to protect the annonymity of the voter?

i'm not asking you to agree with the above stance against ID's, like i said, i'm still not decided on the issue myself. but you asked for the other side's argument, so i provided it. at least as i see it.

take care:)

one more note,,,there is an old philosophy most americans embrace when it comes to our legal system. in our criminal system, we require the burden of proof to be beyond a reasonable doubt. the old saying goes "better to let 10 guily people go free than to convict 1 innocent man." sometimes that gets a little messy, but on the whole, that is what our constitution dictates.

the same applies in voting some would argue..."better to let 10 unregistered voters vote than to deny 1 person their right to vote because they lacked an Id."

just another viewpoint. again, i'm not sayin i'm sold either way here, just presenting different viewpoints.

WHY has the GOP controlled congress and Bush NOT passed laws that REQUIRE a paper trail for all electronic voting?

Quit it already with the blowhard b.s. here....

Just to disprove you quickly and easily enough - Governor Ehrlich, Republican, Maryland, a Bush supporter who has been championed by Bush as well, tried to get paper trails established in Maryland and was shot down by the Democratic legislature.

Has Bush not pushed hard enough for changes in the voting laws? Maybe, maybe not, but then again, as usual, it's not Bush that passes the laws - it is congress. Congress passes them, he signs them or vetos them. That's it for his involvement other than perhaps putting the bug into Congress' ears for programs that he'd like to see.

For the record, if you read the linked article, you'd see that the requirement for requiring this change -- and several others -- is coming from a BI-PARTISAN commission. It is one of several changes that have been proposed, and those other changes may (or may not) include the paper trails you seem to be demanding.

Also, for the record, I'd very much welcome the paper trail as it would obliterate complaints and accusations by idiots like yourself that elections were stolen and rigged. Of course that is also why Democrats don't want to make the changes that would be required because they'd lose out on potential issues to complain about.

If somehow it could be written that all GOP voters must show 6 forms of I>D> and the Democrats zero, then the left would vote for showing ID>

doesn't that kind of make your headline false? i assume a BI-PARTISAN commision consists of democrats too. have all votes on this issue been split down party line as the headline suggests? or have people of both parties taken stances on either side? while you have assumed party line splits on these issues, is that the case? again, this is the kind of talk that keeps us divided. treating another political party either overtly or in your head as "the enemy" will get us nowhere.

The commission may have been bi-partisan, but it hasn't stopped the Democrats in Congress, in the legislatures and courts in Georgia, and in the legislature in Maryland as examples from preventing the enaction of some of these very necessary reforms.


On this point:

i know why ya did it, i wasn't asking...but again, to imply only 1 side does that is intellectually dishonest. all headlines are desined to "incite a reaction"

I would hold that more often than not it's the left that uses the scare mongering headlines, sound bites and video clips to the detriment of all around them far more than does the right.

Gene

You have not explained WHY the GOP controlled Congress has not passed a law that REQUIRED a paper trail for electronic voting in Federal Elections!

There you go, showing your total ignorance again. There are no Federal Elections in this country, there are 50 state elections, each with their own laws covering how they will be conducted.

Is there anything you do understand about our nation and how it works?

Reply #10 WHY has the GOP controlled congress and Bush NOT passed laws that REQUIRE a paper trail for all electronic voting?

Reply #16 You have not explained WHY the GOP controlled Congress has not passed a law that REQUIRED a paper trail for electronic voting in Federal Elections!

and COL., i don't know you, but it seems to me you want to do the same,,,start a fight...and terp is right, there are no "federal elections" as it pertains here, our elections are 50 independent state elections which nominates the electoral college. but you are right that there are certain laws that are federal, such as the voting rights act, which is a federal statute.

as far as what kind of ballots and other methods of voting go, those things are still left up to the states, even more local in some cases.

they could change that and raising the national standard, but that seems as likely as the country abandoning the electoral college (which i am highly against, at least in it's present, unfair form).

That's a nonsensical argument because every time an illegal votes, someone else's vote is canceled out thus disenfranchised.

Very wise words, that I doubt we will hear from the democrats. But that should be the campaign slogan for Voter ID (We have Voter ID here in Va. I was a bit surprised we did not make the list).

I agree on needing ID in order to vote. I'm tired of the walking dead and people that meow and bark vote for presidents.

yes, I'm a Democrat.