Anyone Want a $1000 - Simply Prove Voter Fraud in Minn

I have to call this post exactly what it is....plain ol' dumb....

 

....and this one is even dumber....

 

Why would someone who can't walk be disadvantaged by stairs?

 

Yawn, stretch, time for some more coffee I think.

 

Perhaps Russia could have prevented voter fraud had they implemented some sort of voter ID system:

http://news.yahoo.com/voting-fraud-allegations-mar-putins-presidential-win-213146006.html

 

Ok, thought I'd start at the begining and work from there. Here's some info I found:

Registering to vote in Minnesota is easy:
http://www.sos.state.mn.us/index.aspx?page=204

The debate though is over requiring photo IDs:
http://www.866ourvote.org/tools/documents/files/Voter-ID-Cost-Review.pdf

An estimated 144,000 people who would be required to get a photo ID if they intended to vote.
An estimated 10,000 of those people would immediately apply for the subsidized ID.
An estimated 67,000 of those people are expected to eventually apply for the subsidized ID.
The estimated cost of the photo ID program is $84,000,000.

The legislation would require the distribution of equipment, extended hours for offices, and increased staff presence to take care of the demand for photo IDs but the costs for these necessities are not factored into the legislation.

 

You seriously believe those figures? $1,250 for each ID? If I charged them 10% of that, I guarantee I could make money from it.

 

The associated costs are for everything involved, and not simply the ID itself. Equipment and supplies must be bought, people must be hired, etc. So essentially yes, the cost per person is exorbinant, but that is to be expected under the circumstances... where demand peaks and resources need to be mobilized to counter it.

That said, this data was preliminary... a "first look" at the fiscal situation, and is from one view-point that certainly has bias against the legislation. I intend to continue to search for additional information.

The points I'm taking from the previous search was that the legislation is a bit sloppy and there are expenses to account for.

From what I can tell so far the IDs themselves are to be made available to all free of charge, but there are some hitches in the legislation that don't account for all associated costs some certain individuals will face in order to get the IDs. I'm not looking into that so much, since it's an extremely minor point.

 

... or they could just have them made at the local Driver's License office. Or combine it with the Driver's License with a check mark that they've registered to vote (sort of like an Organ Donor identification). No additional equipment. No additional personnel.

 

Tell them all to join Sam's and the state will pay for it. That would save the state $82,000,000. At Sam's, you get a photo ID when you join for $40 each and then these people can then use their discount buying. Oh, and Sam's will gladly pay "The associated costs are for everything involved, and not simply the ID itself. Equipment and supplies must be bought, people must be hired, etc." And if you think I am being facetious, I am not.

 

The link I provided gets into that kind of detail.

While the local DL offices are ideal, they are insufficient in all cases. In any case, it is certainly an extra work-load. At the DL, only minor equipment upgrades will be needed, but additional equipment must be purchased, transported, and staffed to help with the volume of expected applicants.

 

I'll eventually find the legislation and post it (no time now). It should have an "expected expenses" (or whatever) section in it. What I did today was look into the registration and ID costs which are virtually zero, so your side wins that point.

I'm assuming you are referring to Sam's Club, a Wal-Mart brand. I worked at Wal-Mart for a seasonal job. They had some good points (like wages per minute/timecards) and some bad (pay was extremely low). It's harder for me to put the general feel of the place into words, but an example of the nature of the place may be in how I saw a guy fired for putting a sunflower seed into his mouth that he had picked-up off the floor. I find that more than a bit of an over-reaction.

Sam's probably uses a computer system to pick applicants now. You no longer go in and ask for an application, instead you fill-out a questionaire on a computer with multiple-choice answers and the computer determines whether or not you're eligible to come in for a person to person interview. They probably have the questionaire online, but you probably can only access it by applying.

 

The main point we are trying to make is that the link you cited has an agenda. They were trying to prove to those who do not look into their figures that ID's are too expensive. There are 2 reasons why their figures presented are nothing more than fantasized BS.

 

Possibly not when you are talking about Government departments, over here back in 2009 when they were debating the introduction of them the estimated costs to the treasury soared to some £5 billion and the individual would have faced a £30 ($45) cost!! a simple replacement passport costs £77.50 ($116.25) most of the cost is burocracy

 

You just supported what I said - their figures presented are nothing more than fantasized BS. Even your hand picked example of high pricing did not even come to 10% of the "estimated cost".

 

Which begs the question: What do you believe the cost is likely to be to implement the program and provide photo IDs to anyone who desires one? Less than a million? A million? Ten million? Any guesses?

The point I'm making is that, until the facts are known... in this particular case we're talking cost... until we know what the cost actually is, any guesses, or denials, are bound to be wrong.

I did say the link I provided was certainly biased, so that is already known and acknowledged. That doesn't mean that all the information on the site is completely wrong, but it should be suspect.

If you have concrete information on the estimated cost of the program by all means provide it. Until that estimate is determined It's reasonable to assume the costs to be somewhere in the low millions. We are talking about the manufacturing and distribution of a product and the wages of services needed to distribute that product there... and at a bare minimum that'll cost a couple million.

 

A Michigan driver's license costs $10 each. Why on earth should it cost more than that to get an ID. That means if you figure of 67,000 needing public assistance to obtain an ID is correct, a figure of 1/2 M should be more than ample. However, considering what they did with the ID costs, my guess is that 67,000 is also greatly exaggerated.

 

I'm assuming that is the cost for the ID to the consumer. My son doesn't remember exactly, but he says more like $50. I'm taking that to mean associated costs not necessarily reflected on Michigan's site, such as the requirement for other documents (such as a Birth Certificate). In any case, you're not accounting for the costs to the State.

As mentioned earlier, the costs to consumers is negligible, and is free for most. The State's costs however are not "zero". If the legislation is enacted, what happens? How is it enacted? It's reasonable to assume an agency of the State will become responsible for ensuring the compliance of the law. At a minimum, the IDs must be designed and any design must be approved. Software is likely necessary that, along with hardware, must be capable of creating the IDs. In all likelyhood those IDs can be created on existing machines in the Secretary of State offices and other State offices Statewide, but that hasn't been confirmed as true. If that is the case though, costs will be very low to the State, especiially if those offices do not need to order specialized equipment or supplies. Costs that are certain are supplies and wages. Supplies include things that the IDs are made out of as well as inter-office needs. Wages reflect the costs associated with the staffing of offices where the IDs are to be created. These wages are seperate from the other work the staff do, but may not be directly declared as such except on ledgers or worksheets sent to the State detailing the work done to provide the IDs. In any case, additional workhours are necessary to perform the additional task but those workhours are vague and ill-defined apparently.

 

So you are telling me that Michigan is selling their driver's licenses at a loss of $40 each?
They already have the software - wherever your son got his ID. Why on earth would they need anything else. BTW, my guess is that it is zero software. The machine pastes a photo on a card. i.e. a blank license or ID card or at least that is what they do here.

You are making this so complicated. How are you expecting someone to issue them a voter's card? I assume that they do have those in your state. Why should this be anything else but a voter's card with a picture attached. Those machines are not particularly expensive. I mean you computer with a camera and a laminating machine is all that is really required.

 

No, I am not, you are making a premature conclusion based on limited info... and that's a major point of mine about Minnesota's photo ID legislation as well, that without proper and accurate information reasonable conclusions cannot be attained.

At this point in my research, I can't say the law is reasonable or unreasonable... but I can say it's somewhat suspicious with a Presidential election coming up.

I will also give credit where credit is due... by acknowledging the Republican think-tank's skill on this, they are certainly masters at political manipulation. Their efforts in Michigan have been wholly successful, their efforts in Wisconsin largely successful, and here again in Minnesota... likely to be mildly sucessful. The real problem for them is that sooner or later the people will tire of that manipulation and turn on them.