We must protect ourselves from the voter fraud problem we do not have!

[seasoned]

Exactly, lets just say it's the right thing to do. I understand about the poor and the elderly, I get that. Lets make it easier for them to vote, but not just letting any, and everybody, walk in and vote, no. There may not be voter fraud going on, but ID is a good stop measure to put in place to be assured of that. It only makes sense.

Except we don't let 'just anybody' walk in and vote.

As I've said before, doesn't anyone on this thread besides myself ACTUALLY VOTE? If you did, you'd know that the comment you made about voting isn't true.

I get all that. I've been voting you 50 years.

Register
Go in to vote, and they look up your name.
Sometimes they ask for ID sometimes they don't.
I have no problem showing it.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I get all that. I've been voting you 50 years.

Register
Go in to vote, and they look up your name.
Sometimes they ask for ID sometimes they don't.
I have no problem showing it.

In my state, I need to show my Voter ID card which is mailed to me by the Secretary of State every year.

So I have to have already registered ahead of the election (I believe the cutoff is 90 days prior).
I have to have my Voter ID card.
And my name has to appear on the rolls maintained in the precinct in which I vote.

Photo ID would add an additional level of security. For a problem which does not exist. And those who do not, for whatever reason, have a photo ID, would not be able to vote. So I see downside, but no upside.

I'm glad you have no problem showing photo ID. Please don't give away my rights while you are giving away yours.

And in the meantime, people who do understand how voting works - like you - continue to drop offhand remarks to the effect that all a person has to do is stroll in off the street and vote, when you know that's not the case.

And now that the GOP in PA has announced - in the press but behind closed doors - exactly why they want photo ID for voters in PA (to ensure the election of Mitt Romney), I don't think there's any question anymore about the real purpose of this photo ID for voters thing.

EDIT: Correction, I forgot that Michigan now has a photo ID law for voting. So I did have to show my photo ID:


Don't Vote 2008 by Wigwam Jones, on Flickr

And anyone who didn't have a photo ID could not vote. I wonder how many people that was?

FYI - I like seeing my old photo. I really have lost a lot of weight since then.

 

[Tgace]

In my state, I need to show my Voter ID card which is mailed to me by the Secretary of State every year.

So I have to have already registered ahead of the election (I believe the cutoff is 90 days prior).

That's nice for your state Bill...but in ours, as long as you know the address, you can vote for Eric Holder.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

 

[Bill Mattocks]

That's nice for your state Bill...but in ours, as long as you know the address, you can vote for Eric Holder.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

Only one person can, though, and they have to go to the polls before Eric Holder does. And when Eric Holder goes to vote and finds that someone has claimed to be him and voted in his name, he'll file a protest, be given a provisional ballot, vote, and the 'phoney' Eric Holder vote will be thrown out.

And in any case, that's a 'what if' problem. It's not happening. And in PA, the state officials themselves testified to that fact in court.

 

[Haakon]

How will they know which ballot is from the false voter? In a WA back when they actually had polling places ballots didnt have names on them and were put in a secure box so they supposedly cant be tampered with. We are suposed to have secret voting in the US to prevent people from being punished for how they voted, so tell me how are they going to know which ballot to toss out?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

How will they know which ballot is from the false voter? In a WA back when they actually had polling places ballots didnt have names on them and were put in a secure box so they supposedly cant be tampered with. We are suposed to have secret voting in the US to prevent people from being punished for how they voted, so tell me how are they going to know which ballot to toss out?

OK, good point. I stand corrected. Someone can vote as Eric Holder and the election will be ruined because of it. Clearly a widespread problem. But yes, you're right. I have no idea how they'll find and toss the fraudulent vote. Clearly it makes sense now to infringe on everyone's right to vote to protect Eric Holder. Against theoretical abuse.

 

[Tgace]

But cant you see any scenario where that ability could be problematic?

See who passed away recently and send out your activists to vote for them.

Go around to the projects and get people to register who will most likely never vote...then vote for them.

Sure..neither may actually ever happen...but do we enact process to solve problems or to prevent them in the first place?

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

 

[WC_lun]

Tgace, I understand what you are saying, but the way it is happening now is restricting people right to vote for something that could happen. In at least one state it is being used to game the system. Making it more difficult for people to vote in order to correct a problem that isn't happening is too high a price. It is cutting off your nose to spite your face. If there is a way to keep those things from happening without infringing on people's right and ability to vote, I wouldn't have issue with it.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

But cant you see any scenario where that ability could be problematic?

Yes. It would take a determined effort by many people to change the results of an election, though. Since only one fraudulent person can vote as Eric Holder, many fraudulent voters would have to each vote for someone they are not.

And it would only work in locations where no non-photo voter ID was required.

And everyone who went to the polls and discovered that their vote had been 'stolen' would obviously be complaining about it, so it would be a police/media event.

And it's never happened.

So I while I accept that it could be done, I do not see any danger that it's going to happen, has happened, or needs to be protected from happening.

See who passed away recently and send out your activists to vote for them.

One vote, one person. So you'd need 100 people to vote for 100 dead. And 1,000 people to vote for 1,000 dead. And if the voter rolls are validated against the SSN death lists (public and available online), then even that could not happen.

You propose a lot of hypotheticals that do not happen in PA. Their own officials testified under oath that they don't.

And for that reason, you want to restrict the right to vote.

Again, it's protecting against a problem we do not have.

Go around to the projects and get people to register who will most likely never vote...then vote for them.

Sure..neither may actually ever happen...but do we enact process to solve problems or to prevent them in the first place?

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

We don't restrict civil liberties to protect against problems that do not exist, typically. Even if they 'might' happen, that's not a valid reason to restrict liberties.

If voting were not a civil liberty, then no problem - the state can restrict whatever it wishes.

But voting is a right. Rights can and are restricted, but only under some fairly serious circumstances.

Some courts in some states have held that the potential for voter fraud is a sufficient reason. I don't agree.

We will see what PA has to say about it.

And you seem to be ignoring the fact that a fat-head GOP bigwig in PA stated out loud that the reason for voter photo ID in PA was to ensure Mitt Romney is elected President. Why won't you talk to that point? Why keep pretending it didn't happen?

 

[ballen0351]

So how is showing an ID to vote infringing on someones right to vote? I don't get that? How is showing an ID to buy a gun not infringing on someones 2nd amendment right but showing an ID to vote is a violation? I already had to preregister to vote to prove I can vote in this district so what's wrong with then showing ID at the poll to prove I am who I say I am and not just taking my word for it.

 

[ballen0351]

As for the PA guy that said he wants the law for mitt to win that's just silly. How is a voter OD law going to keep democrats from voting? Are you dems to stupid to figure out how to get an ID?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

So how is showing an ID to vote infringing on someones right to vote? I don't get that? How is showing an ID to buy a gun not infringing on someones 2nd amendment right but showing an ID to vote is a violation? I already had to preregister to vote to prove I can vote in this district so what's wrong with then showing ID at the poll to prove I am who I say I am and not just taking my word for it.

There is nothing 'wrong' with it except that it isn't needed; since no threat exists. Restricting liberties should not be done unless there is a credible threat that the restriction fixes. This isn't difficult stuff here.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

As for the PA guy that said he wants the law for mitt to win that's just silly. How is a voter OD law going to keep democrats from voting? Are you dems to stupid to figure out how to get an ID?

I'm not a Dem, though, am I? Well, Twin Fist thinks so, but I assure you that I'm not.

 

[cdunn]

As for the PA guy that said he wants the law for mitt to win that's just silly. How is a voter OD law going to keep democrats from voting? Are you dems to stupid to figure out how to get an ID?

I have my ID - a driver's license. However, frankly, we do have two real cities in this state, and in them, the lower income brackets are better served by not wasting money on a vehicle. These people tend to have been showing up to vote with things like their employer IDs, the state registration IDs... and the state hasn't bothered to publicise the new law very much; nor that you have to have your birth certificate(possible $22 and 4-6 weeks) to get the proper ID... which costs $13.50 for the non-driver version, which takes weeks to do the paperwork for in normal times, let alone a pre-election crush, plus a trip to a PennDOT center... which tends to require taking a day off work.

Furthermore, the state has not been doing very much to get the word out that you're going to need an ID at the polls. So, the state is set up to bushwack you at the polls, denying your vote this year, and making you pay a poll tax to vote NEXT year.

Our state is such that the rural, sparsely populated counties tend to vote Republican, and the two big cities vote massively Democratic. Rural voters have to drive, they have licenses. City voters... not so much. Anything that keeps the city dwellers from voting while not impeding the rural voters tilts the state towards the Republicans.

It also turns out that up to 43% of Philadelphia may not have IDs. Philly votes VERY Democratic. Disenfranchise Philly, and viola, your election has been fixed. Earlier, they were talking about assigning electoral votes by county, specifically to dilute the elective power of Pittsburgh and Philadelphia. Then they found a more effective way to throw the election.

This is OBSCENE.

 

[ballen0351]

I have my ID - a driver's license. However, frankly, we do have two real cities in this state, and in them, the lower income brackets are better served by not wasting money on a vehicle. These people tend to have been showing up to vote with things like their employer IDs, the state registration IDs... and the state hasn't bothered to publicise the new law very much; nor that you have to have your birth certificate(possible $22 and 4-6 weeks) to get the proper ID... which costs $13.50 for the non-driver version, which takes weeks to do the paperwork for in normal times, let alone a pre-election crush, plus a trip to a PennDOT center... which tends to require taking a day off work.

Furthermore, the state has not been doing very much to get the word out that you're going to need an ID at the polls. So, the state is set up to bushwack you at the polls, denying your vote this year, and making you pay a poll tax to vote NEXT year.

Our state is such that the rural, sparsely populated counties tend to vote Republican, and the two big cities vote massively Democratic. Rural voters have to drive, they have licenses. City voters... not so much. Anything that keeps the city dwellers from voting while not impeding the rural voters tilts the state towards the Republicans.

It also turns out that up to 43% of Philadelphia may not have IDs. Philly votes VERY Democratic. Disenfranchise Philly, and viola, your election has been fixed. Earlier, they were talking about assigning electoral votes by county, specifically to dilute the elective power of Pittsburgh and Philadelphia. Then they found a more effective way to throw the election.

This is OBSCENE.

So then yes your saying they are too stupid to figure out they need an ID.

 

[ballen0351]

There is nothing 'wrong' with it except that it isn't needed; since no threat exists. Restricting liberties should not be done unless there is a credible threat that the restriction fixes. This isn't difficult stuff here.

And needing to show you are who you say you are is not restricting liberties its common sense

 

[cdunn]

So then yes your saying they are too stupid to figure out they need an ID.

No. Functionally, the state has lied AND charged a poll tax.

 

[Makalakumu]

"The state and the parties challenging the law agreed in the court document that neither side knows of cases of in-person voter fraud in Pennsylvania."

:BSmeter:

Every state and every election has "problems" that could be construed as fraud. Pennsylvania is no different. My guess is that if one side brings something up, the other side will bring something up and then the whole shady **** iceberg of fraud perpetrated by both parties will be visible. Therefore it's mutually beneficial for both parties to deny that it happened.

Check out this website if you are serious about people who may actually be researching this in Pennsylvania.

www.blackboxvoting.org

People who look at voter fraud around the world congregate there and share resources. Also, for a little background, this interest greatly interested me from 2000 to 2006. During three election cycles I volunteered to monitor polls in Minnesota and Wisconsin, in particular I was concerned with the chain of people who handled the ballots. From what I remember, in 2004, a statistical analysis of the vote totals was done at Penn State regarding Pennsylvania's elections. The official vote totals were statistically significantly different from the scientifically determined exit polling results. According to election monitors world wide this is prime circumstantial evidence of fraud.

So, sorry, these party wonks are either incredibly naive or outright lying. I don't believe it.

 

[cdunn]

:BSmeter:

Every state and every election has "problems" that could be construed as fraud. Pennsylvania is no different. My guess is that if one side brings something up, the other side will bring something up and then the whole shady **** iceberg of fraud perpetrated by both parties will be visible. Therefore it's mutually beneficial for both parties to deny that it happened.

Check out this website if you are serious about people who may actually be researching this in Pennsylvania.

www.blackboxvoting.org

People who look at voter fraud around the world congregate there and share resources. Also, for a little background, this interest greatly interested me from 2000 to 2006. During three election cycles I volunteered to monitor polls in Minnesota and Wisconsin, in particular I was concerned with the chain of people who handled the ballots. From what I remember, in 2004, a statistical analysis of the vote totals was done at Penn State regarding Pennsylvania's elections. The official vote totals were statistically significantly different from the scientifically determined exit polling results. According to election monitors world wide this is prime circumstantial evidence of fraud.

So, sorry, these party wonks are either incredibly naive or outright lying. I don't believe it.

Oh, I'm sure there's plenty of fraud in the US. Disenfranchisement, gerrymandering, intimidation, lost ballots and voting machines, those happy little phone calls that went around in Michigan saying that if you signed the petition to recall the governor, you didn't need to vote against him in his election... These are frauds we have. But what we have no evidence of is impersonation, the only thing the voter IDs can find. Tens of thousands of dead voters on the rolls... but they so rarely seem to show up and vote.

 

[Makalakumu]

Oh, I'm sure there's plenty of fraud in the US. Disenfranchisement, gerrymandering, intimidation, lost ballots and voting machines, those happy little phone calls that went around in Michigan saying that if you signed the petition to recall the governor, you didn't need to vote against him in his election... These are frauds we have. But what we have no evidence of is impersonation, the only thing the voter IDs can find. Tens of thousands of dead voters on the rolls... but they so rarely seem to show up and vote.

It's actually depressing because once you realize all of the ways elections can be thrown, the only way candidates can win a major close election is by outfrauding the other guy. Democracy sucks sometimes.