Subscriber Login



Forgot Your Username?
Forgot Your Password?
Voter ID would maintain integrity of our elections PDF Print E-mail

Dear Editor:

Recently, there was a news story on TV about the Northland Pines High School scanning driver’s licenses — and only driver’s licenses — of every visitor. This scanned license goes into a computer program which will check it for information to see if it is connected to a child predator.

I am all for keeping our children safe. However, what will the school do when the visitor does not have a driver’s license? Will they issue one for free? Will they not let the person make the visit or conduct their business at the school? Would that really be fair?

There are many people out there that believe requiring a voter ID would not be fair. If keeping our children safe is important enough to check a driver’s license, it sure seems that a voter having to show identification when voting would also keep safe the integrity of our electoral system.

Jean Nitz

Eagle River

Tuesday, May 06, 2014 9:47 AM
 

Comments  

 
-7 #112 Frank Gabl 2014-05-29 07:26
John,

I’m sorry you had no other choice than to storm off again.

But haven’t you figured out by now that I am fully aware of your tactic - which consists of strategically employing a red herring at the outset of certain debates - to not only deflect attention away from the primary issue at hand by manufacturing an entirely different one, but it also gives you something to still beat your drum with even when you’re out of ammunition in general - like you just illustrated in your last post, “100+ posts and you won't back up all the claims of widespread fraud.”

The first time you put it to work was in the Common Core debate when you manufactured the narrative that the Right was solely responsible for all of the “testing, testing, testing…” even though Arne Duncan is the king of testing, and my argument against Common Core had nothing whatsoever to do with Arne Duncan’s obsession for “testing, testing, testing...”

Cont. below:
Quote
 
 
-7 #111 Frank Gabl 2014-05-29 07:23
Continued:

The second instance was the DDT debate in which you manufactured the narrative that I was advocating for bringing back DDT for use in this country as a general “pesticide, pesticide, pesticide…” which I never even remotely implied.

And of course in this debate, you immediately went into your “widespread, widespread, widespread” shtick. In all three instances you employed the red herrings of “testing,” “pesticides,” and now “widespread” 25-50 times in each thread in order to manufacture your own narrative in which to debate to.

So since you just pounded the drum yet again with “widespread, widespread, widespread,” I’ve decided to give you the exclusive opportunity to be the deciding factor in whether or not the following rises to your level of “widespread.”

Cont. below:
Quote
 
 
-6 #110 Frank Gabl 2014-05-29 07:21
Continued:

“Frank...your links have backed up everything I said. Thanks for posting them! The Carter link: ‘In 2005, we led a bipartisan Commission on Federal Election Reform and concluded that both parties' concerns were legitimate.’” – John Graber (post 59).

And just so I can understand: - is that question that I just asked of you - in which I quoted exactly what your fingertips typed – your example of: “All you do is attack to deflect?”

That, of course, is beyond silly.

Cont. below:
Quote
 
 
-8 #109 Frank Gabl 2014-05-29 07:20
Continued:

Now, as promised to keep myself accurate, I indeed checked the accuracy of my claim that your vaunted 1.2 % was actually “cut below half when all things were considered.”

You quoted Carter in your last post, “A study by American University's Center for Democracy and Election Management found about 1.2 percent of registered voters lacked a photo ID in a few states.”

From my post 43: - Wait for it – From the Brennan Center:

American University's Center for Democracy and Election Management: (same study as Carter referenced and you quoted)

Voter IDs Are Not the Problem: A Survey of Three States - (2008)

“We anticipated before conducting the survey that 88 percent of Americans would have driver’s licenses and thus photo IDs. For the population that we surveyed – registered voters – that proved to be a significant under-estimate:”

Cont. below:
Quote
 
 
-8 #108 Frank Gabl 2014-05-29 07:16
Continued:

* 1.2 percent lack photo identification.

* Fewer than 3% of the overall respondents could not produce documentation to prove their citizenship.

* Overall, fewer than half a percent (.05) – (.025 per party) of those surveyed had neither photo ID nor citizenship documentation.”

“These data suggest that access to IDs and the documents necessary to obtain a valid photo ID, for registered voters, is not a serious problem. These findings are consistent with a report written by Dr. Toby Moore, who observed the Indiana midterm elections in 2006. In his report, he found that voters were aware of the new law and brought the required ID to the polling place. He found no evidence of citizens being prevented from voting because they did not have photo IDs. One obvious explanation is that virtually all registered voters had photo IDs.”

http://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/research-and-publications-voter-id
(23rd citation)
Quote
 
 
+5 #107 2014-05-28 14:58
100+ posts and you won't back up all the claims of widespread fraud. All you do is attack to deflect. We see through it Frank. I made the mistake of posting again hoping you would for once back up these claims your side push. I see you won't.
Quote
 
 
-9 #106 Frank Gabl 2014-05-28 13:13
CONTINUED:

-- INSTEAD OF SEEKING TO REVISE THAT LEGISLATION TO PROMOTE ACCESSIBILITY."

Now, about your reference to "1.2 percent of registered voters lacked a photo ID in a few states," ironically, that data was taken from the BRENNAN CENTER, that I used to debunk one of your - wait for it - vaunted BRENNAN CENTER studies long ago in this thread.

Actually, as I noted at the time, the 1.2 percent was cut below half when all things were considered (I will check that for accuracy) - not to mention halving it again due to party affiliation - and lower still because it was only "IN A FEW STATES."

In any event, the 1.2 percent is merely a HYPOTHETICAL and based upon no one actually trying to obtain a photo ID which registered voters most certainly would do.

Couple this "SMALL PERCENTAGE" with Carter's words and I can see why you believe, "both parties' concerns are legitimate," and photo ID should be provided to eligible citizens."
Quote
 
 
-8 #105 Frank Gabl 2014-05-28 12:50
John,

Strange how you've proclaimed several times that you're done with me, yet keep coming back for more.

Your convictions that you thanked me for posting, "both parties' concerns are legitimate" and "states should provide photo voter ID to eligible citizens," is not something taken out of context -since that is the context.

The part that I left out is merely about the process of distribution that would take place once the general consensus (which you agree with) is agreed to, i.e., of "providing voter photo ID to eligible citizens, since both parties' have legitimate concerns."

You on the other hand are the one who has a habit of leaving out pertinent context, such as the following in caps:

You quoted, "The laws on the books, mainly backed by Republicans, have not made it easy enough for voters to acquire id. AT THE SAME TIME, DEMOCRATS HAVE TENDED TO TRY TO BLOCK VOTER ID LEGISLATION OUTRIGHT

CONTINUED:
Quote
 
 
+6 #104 2014-05-27 20:47
And you are VERY predictable in taking what others say out of context. You left out this part of what I said in post 59 " mobile units would be sent out to provide the IDs and register voters. . The laws on the books, mainly backed by Republicans, have not made it easy enough for voters to acquire an ID. A study by American University's Center for Democracy and Election Management found about 1.2 percent of registered voters lacked a photo ID in a few states". Even this study's 1.2% is still WAY more than the couple of cases of fraud! WI's law was one of THE most restrictive in the country. THAT is why it was blocked by the court." STILL waiting for you to post up all this widespread fraud you and your side have claimed exists. Care to try or will you deflect and continue to run away from the question?
Quote
 
 
-11 #103 Frank Gabl 2014-05-27 12:24
John,

You are free to dream up whatever narrative and dissembling you want to turn things around in order to save face - that's all part of your normal routine and was all very predictable.

But what you can't reconcile is your own words, which not only ended this debate at post 59, but you yourself debunked whatever claims you just made in your last post:

Post 59, "Frank...your links have backed up everything I said. Thanks for posting them! The Carter link: 'In 2005, we led a bipartisan Commission on Federal Election Reform and concluded that both parties' concerns were legitimate. To help with the transition, states would provide free voter photo ID cards for eligible citizens.'"

You could not have been any clearer.
Quote
 

Add comment

Comments exceeding 1,000 characters will not be accepted. Please refrain from using texting language and spell out all words. All comments are reviewed and must be approved before they are posted.


Security code
Refresh