Monday, April 09, 2012

VIDEO: Why We Need Voter-ID Laws

Polling station in DC would have allowed an imposter to vote as "Eric Holder."

From John Fund's NRO column "Why We Need Voter-ID Laws Now":

"Average voters understand that it’s only common sense to require ID because of how easy it is for people to pretend they are someone else.

In the video above, filmmaker James O’Keefe demonstrated just how easy it is on Tuesday when he dispatched an assistant to the Nebraska Avenue polling place in Washington where Attorney General Holder has been registered for the last 29 years. In Washington, it was child’s play for O’Keefe to beat the system. O’Keefe’s assistant used a hidden camera to document his encounter with the election worker at Holder’s polling place. 

Note that O’Keefe’s assistant never identified himself as Eric Holder, so he was not illegally impersonating him. Nor did he attempt to vote using the ballot that was offered him, or even to accept it." 

HT: Morgan Frank

29 Comments:

At 4/09/2012 2:13 PM, Blogger Paul said...

My Colombian wife is dual-citizen. She votes at the consulate here, and they require ID AND roll her finger in permanent ink to discourage multiple voting. You don't hear whining about "vote suppression" in her 3rd world country. That's strictly a pathetic Democrat pity party.

The embrace of illegal immigration, Motor Voter, and same day registrations all go hand-in-hand with Democrat opposition to voter id. It would be nice if they'd stop insulting everyone's intelligence and just admit the game is to steal elections.

 
At 4/09/2012 2:14 PM, Blogger Buddy R Pacifico said...

OK, then suppose real Eric Holder comes into vote and is told he can't vote twice. Would Mr. Holder offer his ID and claim fraud, or just walk away?

Excellent video.

 
At 4/09/2012 2:15 PM, Blogger AIG said...

THAT'S RACIST!! :p

 
At 4/09/2012 2:24 PM, Blogger AIG said...

My Colombian wife is dual-citizen. She votes at the consulate here, and they require ID AND roll her finger in permanent ink to discourage multiple voting. You don't hear whining about "vote suppression" in her 3rd world country. That's strictly a pathetic Democrat pity party.

Of course. I can't wrap my head around someone claiming that identifying yourself for the purposes of voting, somehow limits anyone from voting.

In my country, you're required to have a biometirc ID with computer chips and all sorts of security features to vote. And we're a poor East European country that first learned how to vote a few years ago.

I am very glad O'Keefe is targeting this now.

 
At 4/09/2012 2:42 PM, Blogger Jon Murphy said...

At the risk of nit-picking, this video hardly seems conclusive. The man never claimed to be Holder (which, as noted, would have been illegal). It seems to me that this shows more the need to properly train polling place workers to ask the right questions rather than a need for voter ID laws.

 
At 4/09/2012 3:03 PM, Blogger Paul said...

"It seems to me that this shows more the need to properly train polling place workers to ask the right questions rather than a need for voter ID laws."

Or, could do both. Pulling out id is easy, I do it almost daily without feeling harrassed.

 
At 4/09/2012 3:21 PM, Blogger morganovich said...

jon-

i think you are really missing the issue.

if he had wanted to get the ballot, he could have. if you use it to vote, that is already a crime, so adding pretending to be holder is no real additional issue.

training a worker to ask "are you holder?" does not fix that, nor does it address the massive issue of voter fraud and inflated voter rolls. in providence, the "dead guy vote" can be quite decisive.

what it really comes down to is this: US citizens have the right to vote. requiring id does not abridge that right, it demonstrates that you possess it. it prevents others from diluting that right by usurping either you vote or some other vote to which they are not entitled.

in a perfect world, sure, we'd all go in and vote and no one would need to check. but it is not a perfect world. in reality, lots of fraud takes place and it is unbelievably easy to prevent.

the claims of "voter disenfrancishement" from needing an ID are all apocryphal and hypothetical. there never seems to be any actual evidence of it. it's a complete sham to defend fraud.

 
At 4/09/2012 3:35 PM, Blogger NC said...

The Left needs a supine media, an ignorant electorate and a benefactor.

 
At 4/09/2012 3:47 PM, Blogger Jon Murphy said...

I'm sure I am missing the issue.

You know my stance on this issue, Morganovich.

I don't even like carrying an ID period. I like to move incognito.

Hell, if I wasn't threatened with jail time, I wouldn't even fill out a Census form.

My Facebook is more sterile than a Spartan barrack.

I do understand your point and all the points made here completely, Morganovich. But IDs make me cringe.


Thought: what if we do away with the whole "signing in to vote" thing. In lieu of that, each registered voter is mailed a card that just says "Barer entitled to one ballot in district whatever" or something similar. It would be up to the town/county/district to maintain voter registration records. That way, we'd prevent fraud from dead people.

Thoughts? I am sure there are problems wit this idea. It was conceived in about 5 minutes.

 
At 4/09/2012 4:14 PM, Blogger Paul said...

"Thought: what if we do away with the whole "signing in to vote" thing. In lieu of that, each registered voter is mailed a card that just says "Barer entitled to one ballot in district whatever" or something similar.

Wouldn't be long before Professor Perry had a new "Markets in Everything" post.

 
At 4/09/2012 4:33 PM, Blogger Benjamin said...

I would especially like to see the absentee ballots eliminated.

Now, why would there be so much less interest in fraud though absentee ballot than other types of fraud?

And how many cases of voter fraud are there?

Hundreds? Thousands?

 
At 4/09/2012 4:34 PM, Blogger Methinks said...

I don't think there are enough jails to handle all the people who refuse to fill out the census.

But, when black plastic bin liners stuffed with filled out "lost" ballots (all magically in favour of the losing candidate) arrive in Bridgeport after the polls were supposed to be closed and those polls are held open for hours after they were supposed to be closed as the local Democrats round up folks from the Bridgeport housing projects and pay them to get on the bus, go to the held-open polls and vote for the Democrat, you start wondering if THIS is where having some stricter standards might be in order.

Some of the observers (you know - the folks who are supposed to make sure the process is at least marginally better than it is in Iran) noted that they overheard people bragging about voting several times that night.

 
At 4/09/2012 4:50 PM, Blogger juandos said...

" It seems to me that this shows more the need to properly train polling place workers to ask the right questions rather than a need for voter ID laws"...

jon murphy I think you're exceedingly naive...

 
At 4/09/2012 4:53 PM, Blogger Marko said...

Jon, if you dislike showing an ID that much, then you don't have to vote (although I suspect I would want you to vote).

I wish fewer people would vote. Especially liberals. If everyone else stays home, I get to decide!

 
At 4/09/2012 5:50 PM, Blogger Jon Murphy said...

So, what I'm hearing is the idea needs work.

 
At 4/09/2012 6:05 PM, Blogger Marko said...

Jon, if we did it by a ballot sent to individuals and it is not tied to an ID, then someone will certainly go around buying those cards from people.

 
At 4/09/2012 6:08 PM, Blogger Jon Murphy said...

That's possible, Marko, but what's stopping them from doing that now? I mean, what's stopping Politician X coming by my place and saying "I'll pay you to vote for me."

But, you do raise a legitimate concern. Like I said, I conceived the idea in about 5 minutes.

 
At 4/09/2012 6:16 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

morganovich: "if he had wanted to get the ballot, he could have. if you use it to vote, that is already a crime, so adding pretending to be holder is no real additional issue."

Of course, I might have preferred this guy's vote to the actual Holder's anyway.

 
At 4/09/2012 6:19 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

Of course, the poll worker asking the Holder pretender for his address instead of offering that information to him, would have been nice.

 
At 4/09/2012 6:47 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

Jon M: "Hell, if I wasn't threatened with jail time, I wouldn't even fill out a Census form."

You aren't required to fill out a census form, no matter what they imply. The only authority the Census Bureau has is to count the number of people in a people in a household.

I returned my 2010 census form with that information only.

The whole purpose of the census is to determine representation in Congress, not all the demographic information that's asked for.

"Thoughts? I am sure there are problems wit this idea. It was conceived in about 5 minutes."

Jon, Jon, you are an honest person, and you have trouble thinking like a devious criminal.

What would keep "dead" people from registering and receiving "admit one" voter cards? Would anyone notice that 1500 people lived at the same address? It doesn't appear that the poll workers seen in the video would be much of a bulwark against fraud.

 
At 4/09/2012 6:57 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

Marko: "I wish fewer people would vote. Especially liberals. If everyone else stays home, I get to decide!"

I'm working on that - In late October I plan to start promoting the hell out of liberal candidates with lots of signs, and maybe even a radio spot that admonishes people to:

"Do your Patriotic Duty!

Get Out and Vote for Liberal Joe Scofflaw on Nov 7!
:)

 
At 4/09/2012 7:26 PM, Blogger Jon Murphy said...

You aren't required to fill out a census form, no matter what they imply. The only authority the Census Bureau has is to count the number of people in a people in a household.

I returned my 2010 census form with that information only.

The whole purpose of the census is to determine representation in Congress, not all the demographic information that's asked for.


That's what I'm saying, Ron. I don't even like doing that.

 
At 4/09/2012 8:57 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"That's what I'm saying, Ron. I don't even like doing that."

I agree. Apparently you, like me, would prefer NO government, but counting people for representation is at least constitutional. If every government action was narrowly confined within the limits of the Constitution, I would have few complaints.

And, compared to some things, the tyranny of being counted every to years is way down there on my list of complaints. :)

 
At 4/09/2012 9:08 PM, Blogger kmg said...

Democrats would not win many elections if voter ID laws were enforced strictly.

 
At 4/09/2012 11:43 PM, Blogger Cabodog said...

I'm a bit confused. I had to show ID in order to enter Grand Canyon National Park last week, yet I can vote without having to show an ID.

Something is drastically wrong with this country.

 
At 4/10/2012 1:30 AM, Blogger Ron H. said...

Of course that should read

"counted every 10 years"

 
At 4/10/2012 9:13 AM, Blogger juandos said...

"So, what I'm hearing is the idea needs work"...

No jon murphy I'm thinking that you're 'overthinking' what is relatively speaking a very simple problem...

 
At 4/11/2012 3:40 AM, Blogger OBloodyHell said...

>>> I do it almost daily without feeling harrassed.

Racist.

Clearly, you are privileged to do all those things -- drive, buy alcohol, get married, and so forth that poor minorities can't do.

:oP

 
At 4/11/2012 3:45 AM, Blogger OBloodyHell said...

>>> I mean, what's stopping Politician X coming by my place and saying "I'll pay you to vote for me."

The fact that that's outright illegal and all it would take is one person reporting you doing so to get you in deep doo-doo? LOL


No, bribery has to be much more subtle -- "Vote for me and I'll put a chicken in your pot!" (how you stuff it in the bong after that point is of marginal concern, of course).

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home