I did it over the first time they changed the ID laws.
Re-registered in time for the next election.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Call Gov. McDonnell: New Law Would Eliminate CHP As Valid Voter ID
- Thread starter The Donkey
- Start date
I did it over the first time they changed the ID laws.
Re-registered in time for the next election.
va_tazdad
Regular Member
OMG, There is a Democrat on here??????
Even though you are a ^%$&crat (Just kidding), I have found that not all of them are bad. I have a buddy that is a hard core Democrat and we argue politics and then go have a beer or a cup of coffee and laugh. My oldest daughter claims to be an "independent" yet has never voted for a Republican in her 12 years of voting. Democrat, Republican, Baptist, Catholic, are all choices and protected by our Constitution.
As to the picture ID, I thought the bill had funding for the registrars to produce the IDs. DCJS and DMV have been using the same picture for my license and ID cards since 2000.
I don't really see the problem getting an ID, but more importantly, why do we need the permission of the feds to change our laws? This is 2013 and about time they got out of our business. The discrimination and prejudice problems are far worse in up northj in the “Blue states” than in Virginia.
Even though you are a ^%$&crat (Just kidding), I have found that not all of them are bad. I have a buddy that is a hard core Democrat and we argue politics and then go have a beer or a cup of coffee and laugh. My oldest daughter claims to be an "independent" yet has never voted for a Republican in her 12 years of voting. Democrat, Republican, Baptist, Catholic, are all choices and protected by our Constitution.
As to the picture ID, I thought the bill had funding for the registrars to produce the IDs. DCJS and DMV have been using the same picture for my license and ID cards since 2000.
I don't really see the problem getting an ID, but more importantly, why do we need the permission of the feds to change our laws? This is 2013 and about time they got out of our business. The discrimination and prejudice problems are far worse in up northj in the “Blue states” than in Virginia.
Last edited:
grylnsmn
Regular Member
I have no problem with removing a CHP as a valid ID document. After all, under 18.2-308, you are required to carry a photo ID when you are using your CHP, so anyone who has a CHP is extremely likely to already have a valid photo ID, and keep it with their CHP. My CHP even says so explicitly:
The new voter ID law would eliminate concealed carry permits as valid voter ID:
http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?131+ful+SB1256
Governor McDonnell could line item veto this part of the law, or veto the law entirely.
E-mail him:
http://www.governor.virginia.gov/AboutTheGovernor/contactGovernor.cfm
Or call him:
Phone Numbers:
Office: (804) 786-2211
Fax: (804) 371-6351
TTY/TDD (For the deaf or hard-of-hearing):
1-800-828-1120, or 711
Tell him: WE DON'T NEED THIS STINKIN' LAW!!!
As a result of that requirement, what is the problem with removing the CHP as an option?
(As a toss out to peter, doesn't that simply remove a P4P, too?
)(As a toss out to peter, doesn't that simply remove a P4P, too?
It does but it doesn't really give them any perks, they just get to use it for ID. They can use it for toilet paper for all I care.
The ID part is what gets me.
I was extremely proud when Va opted out of REAL ID.
I'm not so proud that we are slipping into it.
I'm goingto buy a pack of EZWiders and when they want to see my papers, I'll show them.
Last edited:
The Donkey
New member
. . .
The ID part is what gets me.
I was extremely proud when Va opted out of REAL ID.
I'm not so proud that we are slipping into it.
I'm going to buy a pack of EZWiders and when they want to see my papers, I'll show them.
"One of the more obvious questions that The Daily Caller's exclusive "some stuff someone heard about a grade-point average" story immediately raised was, "Is it true that the honorary degree that Barack Obama received from the University of Michigan was printed on rolling papers?" This is a subject that has been the source of much speculation, for many hours. But we need wonder no longer.
Seven sources who have email accounts and know how to type words have contacted The Huffington Post Friday to independently confirm that the honorary degree that Obama received from the University of Michigan was totally printed on rolling papers. We have agreed to protect the anonymity of these sources, as each has expressed a certain amount of fear for their livelihoods, should they become known as the sources for this story. We feel, however, that their accounts, which corroborate one another, are reliable enough to go ahead and write a blog post about this.
Naturally, these accounts are contradicted by the evidence -- by which I mean, the lack thereof. Obama has thus far refused to release his honorary degree from the University of Michigan to confirm whether it was printed on rolling papers, or if the degree, once obtained, was utilized as an enclosure for -- as it's known on the streets -- "dat sticky-icky." In refusing to release the degree, the White House has fallen back on the excuse, "Well, this is actually the first time we have ever been asked about this." But, remember, Barack Obama promised to make his administration the "most transparent White House in history."
To use the parlance of The New York Times, a portrait emerges, of a president who is all too willing to just receive, into his hands, an honorary degree from the University of Michigan that is printed on rolling papers. Given the fact that Obama's fondness for what the kids call "the chronic," is well documented, it would not be unfair to speculate that the president has already used the honorary degree to roll what are commonly referred to as "blunts." It is possible -- indeed, even likely -- that the president took some of these "blunts" to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, to "smoke up" with the jobs numbers wonks ahead of the past few months' positive jobs reports. That could mean that the glowing reports feature statistics that were both figuratively and literally "baked to perfection.""
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/02/obama-honorary-degree-rolling-papers_n_2068044.html
But I digress.
The Donkey
New member
What is the problem with removing the CHP as an option? . . .
Here are a few:
1. It makes it more difficult to vote;
2. It is a solution in search of a problem;
3. We just changed the law to allow a CHP last year;
4. Many people voted with their voter registration card only in 2012 because they were told that would be enough ID;
5. People have developed an expectation that what worked last year will work again this year;
6. Distributing picture ID to every registered voter, like they did with voter registration cards, will not work;
7. Unsuccessfully trying to do this will cost Virginia gobs and gobs of YOUR MONEY which has not been budgeted for, and which would be better spent on cops, teachers, roads, tax relief, firearms safety education -- ie real problems.
8. Administering this will take lots of election officials' time. Their time is better spent dealing with fixing the real problems they already have -- like lines, old malfunctioning equipment and lost voter registration applications.
Last edited:
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
Hmm...
I wonder. Do you suppose my RKBA is similarly diluted by those nasty illegals if they choose to be armed?
Last edited:
As to the ID part in general, either we don't learn from our mistakes or more likely, the powers that be have learned what works, and don't consider them mistakes....just very effective tools.
Consider this:
If a wood cutter props logs on his knee and cuts them with a chainsaw, then one day cuts his leg off....it would seem rational that everyone who heard about it would avoid propping logs on their knees.
But...If someone that didn't want people to be able to outrun Novacop heard the story, it only seems rational to assume he would lobby to require everyone to prop logs on their knees when using a chainsaw.
History has spoken but we had TV up too loud to hear it.
Proverbs by Nap:uhoh:
Consider this:
If a wood cutter props logs on his knee and cuts them with a chainsaw, then one day cuts his leg off....it would seem rational that everyone who heard about it would avoid propping logs on their knees.
But...If someone that didn't want people to be able to outrun Novacop heard the story, it only seems rational to assume he would lobby to require everyone to prop logs on their knees when using a chainsaw.
History has spoken but we had TV up too loud to hear it.
Proverbs by Nap:uhoh:
optiksguy
Regular Member
I think it's unfortunate that we need ID to vote. I think it's unfortunate that we need ID for anything. A man's word should be his bond. But that's not the world we live in. So would you accept this trade: No ID need to vote, so your grannies and destitute etc can vote (just hope they can walk to the polls since they won't be driving), and in exchange there is a minimum 20 year jail sentence for fradulently casting a vote?
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
Fraud is tortious, but not criminally aggressive, so no.
The Donkey
New member
20 years is a really long time for most crimes, and I do not like mandatory sentences, but I sympathize with this idea.
I could probably go along with 5-10 if specific fraudulent and criminal intent were proved.
Last edited:
Uh....a Drivers License is a license to drive...NOT ID even though they want it to be and just where did you get the idea that Grannies and Destitute's are the only people without ID.
optiksguy
Regular Member
I don't think that, That's the stereotypical groups used by the left to claim certain groups would be unable to vote if more stringent voter ID laws were passed.
The whole idea of being upset over not being able to use a CHP as ID strikes me as silly but aside from giggling at the image of legions of trench coat wearing CHiPpers flashing their ID's, it doesn't bother me.:lol:
The idea of requiring a special ID to vote bothers me a lot.
Just one more nail in this country's coffin.
What this law will do is reduce the number of participating voters which is already painfully low.
I like Obenshain, he's a friend as well as a fine member of the General Assembly except he can't get this ID bug out of his system.
He spends a lot of time getting me to vote for him as AG, but the ironic part is this bill he pushed will result in me not voting for anyone.
I thin he'll still be elected but in a close race...who knows.
The idea of requiring a special ID to vote bothers me a lot.
Just one more nail in this country's coffin.
What this law will do is reduce the number of participating voters which is already painfully low.
I like Obenshain, he's a friend as well as a fine member of the General Assembly except he can't get this ID bug out of his system.
He spends a lot of time getting me to vote for him as AG, but the ironic part is this bill he pushed will result in me not voting for anyone.
I thin he'll still be elected but in a close race...who knows.
grylnsmn
Regular Member
Let's go through your responses.
First, my comments only applied to dropping CHPs from the list of allowed identification (which is what you focused the initial post on). Your responses 4-8 (with the possible exception of 5) have nothing to do with that, and so are irrelevant.
So let's look at your responses 1-3 and 5:
1. As I pointed out, every Virginia resident CHP requires that you carry photo ID to be valid. If you are carrying a CHP, then you are supposed to be carrying photo ID which would also meet the requirements of this law. As a result, how would it make it more difficult?
2. I would disagree. The security and integrity of our electoral process is extremely important. This past election, we had evidence of an aide (and son) of a sitting Congressman giving advice on how to bypass the ID requirements to conduct voter fraud. While in that case, the focus was on utility bills, it would be relatively trivial to falsify a CHP for similar purposes. Although there isn't evidence that such fraud actually happened on a wide scale, it still exposed a critical flaw in our current system. The proposed law would solve that critical flaw.
3. When the law was last changed is irrelevant. What matters is if it actually addresses a critical flaw or not.
5. By this reasoning, we should never change any laws, ever. The laws on the books change every year. As it applies to using a CHP to vote, this is even less of a factor, as I said above, because you are required to carry valid photo ID with your CHP, so the odds of a person not having valid ID other than a CHP are negligible.
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
Non sequitur – rest of argument disregarded.
Last edited:
grylnsmn
Regular Member
That isn't a non-sequitur. You don't have to actually show that someone is exploiting a critical flaw in order for it to actually be a critical flaw.
For example, I work in computer security (which means that I am professionally paranoid
). If I discover a hole in a system that could be used by an attacker, I don't need to show that someone is actually attacking in order to justify closing that hole. All I have to demonstrate is that it could be compromised.Now, there is often a cost associated with closing a vulnerability, and you have to do a cost-benefit analysis to determine whether it is worth closing, but that doesn't mean that it's not a vulnerability. In our security audits, we regularly find potential flaws that can be fixed with minor changes, and we recommend those changes unless they would actively break something that is necessary. (For example, we have one flaw in a version of Oracle database 10g that we can't fix because upgrading it to 11g breaks the application that uses the database. Because the application is being phased out, and is primarily used on a "closed" network, they chose to accept the risk offered by the vulnerability rather than close it.)
The incident with Patrick Moran demonstrated a very real and possible vulnerability in our electoral system. If you require "ID" which can be easily falsified (like a utility bill, or CHP), it could be trivial for someone to commit fraud. Just because we can't show that it has happened doesn't negate that possibility. The vulnerability is still there, even if it hasn't been exploited yet.
That's why there is a difference between a vulnerability and an exploit. An exploit requires a vulnerability to function, but you do not need the exploit in order to identify (or justify closing) the vulnerability. In fact, it is almost always better to close the vulnerability before the exploit can occur.
Last edited:
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
Key word: "critical".
Security analogies fall flat, considering that a single breach there constitutes a critical failure.
Hypothetically, if only one person commits voter fraud, there is no critical issue as its existence, or lack thereof, has no possible bearing on the outcome of interest (the election). It's simply noise in the system.
In order to demonstrate criticality you must demonstrate statistical significance, a task I imagine would be quite difficult.
Security analogies fall flat, considering that a single breach there constitutes a critical failure.
Hypothetically, if only one person commits voter fraud, there is no critical issue as its existence, or lack thereof, has no possible bearing on the outcome of interest (the election). It's simply noise in the system.
In order to demonstrate criticality you must demonstrate statistical significance, a task I imagine would be quite difficult.
Last edited:
grylnsmn
Regular Member
A critical vulnerability is one that undermines the overall integrity of the system.
Remember, with elections, we aren't just talking about the statewide vote. A fraudulent voter can affect everything from a local office up to who gets the electoral votes for the state. In 2010, Gerry Connolly won VA-11 by less than 1000 votes (out of a voting population of just under 250000). What you call "noise in the system" could have tipped the balance one way or the other in such a close race. We've seen similar close votes in other races in the Old Dominion, at all levels of government.
eye95
Well-known member
That isn't a non-sequitur. You don't have to actually show that someone is exploiting a critical flaw in order for it to actually be a critical flaw.
For example, I work in computer security (which means that I am professionally paranoid
Now, there is often a cost associated with closing a vulnerability, and you have to do a cost-benefit analysis to determine whether it is worth closing, but that doesn't mean that it's not a vulnerability. In our security audits, we regularly find potential flaws that can be fixed with minor changes, and we recommend those changes unless they would actively break something that is necessary. (For example, we have one flaw in a version of Oracle database 10g that we can't fix because upgrading it to 11g breaks the application that uses the database. Because the application is being phased out, and is primarily used on a "closed" network, they chose to accept the risk offered by the vulnerability rather than close it.)
The incident with Patrick Moran demonstrated a very real and possible vulnerability in our electoral system. If you require "ID" which can be easily falsified (like a utility bill, or CHP), it could be trivial for someone to commit fraud. Just because we can't show that it has happened doesn't negate that possibility. The vulnerability is still there, even if it hasn't been exploited yet.
That's why there is a difference between a vulnerability and an exploit. An exploit requires a vulnerability to function, but you do not need the exploit in order to identify (or justify closing) the vulnerability. In fact, it is almost always better to close the vulnerability before the exploit can occur.
What a rational and cogent explanation. You need to post more in the general forums. I'd love to hear you analyze some of the issues there.
On the topic at hand (and I am an outsider who was attracted to the thread title): Initially, I thought this might be an attempt to reduce the pro-2A vote, but it appears to be a measure to prevent voter fraud. Since voter fraud has swayed one election, providing the vote that rammed through some unsavory legislation, I am all for voter ID that bears a photograph.
Why don't you just work to get a photo added to CHPs?
No one needs to answer, just throwing that out there. Again, I am an outsider who thinks Michigan ought to do what Michigan wants regardless of anythiong someone from Ohio thinks.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
<o>