Voter ID Fraud: Political Folly Or Real Problem?

When local voters go to the polls in Riverside County this fall, they will not be required to show ID unless their poll book entries are marked “ID Required.”

During , some in the audience told the contenders they were worried about how voter ID fraud might affect election outcome.

There were allegations that groups like the now defunct Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) could derail Republican wins. The panel of all GOP candidates were generally sympathetic and expressed some similar concern.

The race for the 67th State Assembly District has now come down to two candidates, Melissa Melendez and Phil Paule, and neither is making voter ID fraud an issue on their respective campaign websites.

Some Republican candidates on the national campaign trail, however, contend that new state laws cropping up requiring voters to show a picture ID before casting ballots will curb fraud, while some Democrats contend the laws are simply political tools designed to suppress Democratic turnout, particularly in poor and minority communities.

When local voters go to the polls in Riverside County this fall, they will not be required to show ID unless their poll book entries are marked “ID Required.” In these cases, a photo ID such as a driver’s license is acceptable, but so is a non-photo ID, like a bank statement or current utility bill.

Moreover, more and more Americans are choosing to vote absentee, where no ID is required.

What are your thoughts on voter ID fraud? Is it a serious issue? Should photo ID be required of all voters who cast ballots, and should the absentee ballot system be reserved for only those who truly need it, such as military personnel serving overseas? Weigh in with your comments below.

Galactic Cannibal August 28, 2012 at 11:08 PM
Hey Dude , Clearly you know little or nothing about the world outside our racist country the U.S. Mexico is our 3rd. largest trading partner, behind Canada and China. And Russia is the one country that could neutralized our vast military arsenal should we decide to attack them . Attacking IRAQ and Afghanistan, N. Korea and Vietnam shows how weak we are . Yet in each of those WARS we lost. But millions of people were killed as a result.
Vince August 29, 2012 at 01:21 AM
G.C...."lost" is a rather harsh assessment....and yes, millions of people were surely killed, but The Globalist's/Bankers made bezillions of dollars off the wars you cited---AND, those deaths to them, are nothing more than "collateral damage"...so they were instituted by design, with profit as the intentional motivation behind them. The only truly profitable wars are the long drawn out kind....there is NO profit in going Nuke To Nuke with China, or Russia, since those would both be "Wam, Bam, Thank You Ma'am" type o' wars"---blink and you are vaporized..."they" can't turn a buck like that ya gotta know. And the country isn't racist, although some of the inhabitants of the country could be fairly characterized as RACIST, and those folks cover the color spectrum...
Vince August 29, 2012 at 01:38 AM
In 2005 The Rothschilds of The World Central Banking Concern Clan had a Net Worth estimated at $200 Trillion, yep,, TRILLION dollars...a few months back it was re-estimated at over $600 Trillion...now, how in the heck did they accomplish that. sound investing? Yeah...they invested in the stOOpidity of the world, and The U.S. Congress, and other governments across the globe turning a blind eye to their "Housing Ponzi Scheme", and other overall wild-azzed lending criteria...and voila!!! When they pulled the rug out from under THE WORLD, all those bad loans boomeranged right back to them in the form of overpriced Real Estate, and other tangible collateral...and mind you, they make currency from nothing, turn it into Federal Reserve Notes here in the U.S., "lend it" to We The Tax Payer for all intents and purposes, at a "fair interest rate" (that they name) , and then get fat off the interest...Oh, and eventually they buy even better tangibles, like gold fer instance, with the interest and collateral that comes back to them---and all of it with "money" created outta thin air...quite the trick, eh wot? When THEY want a war, we get a war....and when THEY get a war, THEY make money off it....and DO loan to ALL participants, since they is truly Equal Opportunity Lender's...and making a buck IS thier business, and that regardless how many lives are lost, families ruined, or business's put asunder...
anotherview September 01, 2012 at 06:21 PM
All over, both routine and important transactions require a picture identification for the individual, and without any politics involved. The objections (more like accusations) regarding the requirement of a picture identification for voters differs chiefly in their political context. The major political parties that control the election process see either gain or loss in requiring a voter to show identification in order to vote. Remove the political parties from the equation, and only another important transaction remains. This transaction (voting), however, occurs as part of a central activity of democratic government. One cannot compare this activity to, say, buying groceries at the supermarket. An election outcome may change the representation for many citizens and their interests. Sometimes, a handful of votes may determine the outcome; hence, every vote counts. Fraudulent votes could tip the election result one way or the other. Therefore, with the requirement of showing an identification to vote, citizens as a whole will have confidence an election outcome reflects the will of the eligible voters. Moreover, this citizen has never seen a rational argument in support of anonymous voting. Only showing an identification to vote makes any sense.
Vince September 01, 2012 at 07:21 PM
To: "Another View", 4th Reply down (newly placed today) on this thread...and "AV", sometimes it is best to get down to the BOTTOM, most recent spot of a Thread with a new reply, otherwise it may get missed in the mix---and that is just MY "Unified Theory On Reply's". In reply to your Post (See: Waaaaaaaay Above), California is LOST, and it has gone over to The Dark Side, and will forever remain in the hands of one Political Party (Democraps)---Therefore, in MY view Another View, garnering more votes for CA Democrap Politician's is NOT the reason for the push to fill the State up with potential Democrap Voter's....but there is a reason for the obvious push to get them well entrenched in The United States. From here, it is but a skip and a jump across our fair lands, and with their being "sanctioned, and made sorta kinda, almost LEGAL, AS ILLEGAL'S here in CA and protected by The present administration (for all intents and purposes), it is a foregone conclusion that in due time, they WILL spread out, and thusly become a powerful Democrap voting block EVERYWHERE in the nation....and then? Why, then the country is fully lost to a Socialist Ideal that will NEVER bear fruit. So you see...there really is a rhyme, and reason to let them stay, under even the most false of pretenses.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »