Sassenach wrote:Surely it makes more sense to simply wait until after the election before implementing the changes. That way you guarantee that the minimum number of voters will be disenfranchised.

The problem with this comment is that every year is an election year. This year PA is voting for President, some U.S. Senators, entire U.S. Congressional delegation, some State Senators, entire State Representative, 3 other state level offices.

In 2013, we will be voting for County and Municipal offices, such as school boards, local town official

In 2014, we will be voting for the entire U.S. Congressional Delegation, some State Senators, entire State Representative, a Governor and some other state offices.

In 2015, we are voting County and Municipal offices

So when would it not be too close to an election?

Further, the bill was introduced on March 4, 2011, or a year and a half before the next Presidential election.

RJ, of course the poor and elderly are capable of getting ID but we live in a country where turn-out is never that high. Someone who does not have a car may not go through the hassle of getting an ID just to vote. My position is that we should want people to vote unless there is a real concern over fraud. It would be one thing if this voter ID thing was done in a way that was bipartisan and was done to ensure that it did not lower turn-out to the benefit of Republicans (with scant evidence of voter fraud). But when Republicans (except for RI) get these bills passed just prior to the 2012 election without a sufficient effort to make sure that every qualified voter can easily get an ID, it's clear that the main reason this is being done is to suppress the vote.

We can get voter iD laws passed for 2016. Pass the laws in 2013 then make sure in the succeeding years voters without ids get them and as long as some reasonable percentage get them then for 2016 we implement the laws. Before we turn people away from the polls first we make sure that there has been a strong effort to get everyone IDs. You cannot say that about the current election cycle and you can predict that voter turnout of legitimate voters will be reduced. That violate the Voting Rights Act in my opinion.

If it is not important enough to put forth effort, is that the kind of person that should be voting? An informed, active, participating electorate would be the best in selecting our representatives. Wouldn't you agree?]

Or would you want the ones who really don't care about the issues, and are voting for the best looking...

Russ:

The problem with this comment is that every year is an election year. This year PA is voting for President, some U.S. Senators, entire U.S. Congressional delegation, some State Senators, entire State Representative, 3 other state level offices.

In 2013, we will be voting for County and Municipal offices, such as school boards, local town official

In 2014, we will be voting for the entire U.S. Congressional Delegation, some State Senators, entire State Representative, a Governor and some other state offices.

In 2015, we are voting County and Municipal offices

So when would it not be too close to an election?

Further, the bill was introduced on March 4, 2011, or a year and a half before the next Presidential election.

Based on that list, I'd say 2013 or 2015 would make a lot more sense. Or how about this, pass the legislation and have it time lapsed to take effect January 1st 2013 ? That not only means it can't influence by far the most important election of the cycle but also gives a good 10-11 months after it comes into effect for disenfranchised voters to obtain ID before the next round of (relatively unimportant) elections. That would be fair and would probably assuage all the concerns about cynicism and attempting to manipulate the Presidential election.Having it take effect shortly before the election on the other hand smacks of deliberate voter suppression.

Do people have an inherent right to vote for those who are to govern them? If you live in a town for 10 years and your neighbor lives there for 10 years too, are you both not equally affected by whomever is mayor? Is it right for you deprive your neighbor of an equal right to vote simply because you can rig the system in your favor and deprive him?

Further, failure to evict an alien means you've diminished your claim to call them an alien. Their claim becomes stronger and stronger with time, an adverse possession, so to speak.

First and foremost why would a person vote unless they perceived an interest in the outcome, that perception is nearly enough on it's own to justify a need to vote. The most relevant fraud therefore would be voting extra times or miss counting the vote. I'd suspect the later is the way despots win elections.

Governments are just corporations based on locality. Living and participating in the locality be it city, county, state, or federal becomes basis to have a stake in that corporation.

Given that turnouts in US elections are low - 50-60% for a general election at best, and lower for mid-terms and others, there are more issues than potential fraud. Like a lack of real popular mandate.

freeman2 wrote:RJ, of course the poor and elderly are capable of getting ID but we live in a country where turn-out is never that high. Someone who does not have a car may not go through the hassle of getting an ID just to vote.

I'm trying to balance your argument with your statements about the GOP wanting to disenfranchise people. Nearly half of the eligible voters "disenfranchise" themselves. Now, you are proposing that the "hassle" of getting an ID is such a high hurdle that even more will disenfranchise themselves. So, they don't care enough to drive, need no medications, don't go to R-rated movies or buy alcohol, wait . . . don't you need ID to open a checking account?

What sort of folks have none of these needs/activities? The only folks I can think of are dead. Even Social Security recipients need a checking account.

My position is that we should want people to vote unless there is a real concern over fraud.

How would you prove fraud absent an ID requirement?

Answer: with great difficulty. It's been done, but it would be tough.

It would be one thing if this voter ID thing was done in a way that was bipartisan and was done to ensure that it did not lower turn-out to the benefit of Republicans (with scant evidence of voter fraud). But when Republicans (except for RI) get these bills passed just prior to the 2012 election without a sufficient effort to make sure that every qualified voter can easily get an ID, it's clear that the main reason this is being done is to suppress the vote.

That's your presupposition. However, there is no reason to go there. What makes Democrats less able to get ID than Republicans? Are Republicans just smarter? Are Democrats incapable of filling out a form with their name and address on it? If so, how do they work, get cable TV, or any other service?

Voter suppression is, in this case, an imagined crime.

We can get voter iD laws passed for 2016.

For the THIRD time, the Texas law passed in 2011!

Gov. Rick Perry (R) signed Texas’ voter ID law in May 2011. The state already required an ID to vote; the new law requires a photo ID. Those who don’t have a valid photo ID can apply for a new “election identification certificate.”

How many years does it take to get an ID card?

Pass the laws in 2013 then make sure in the succeeding years voters without ids get them and as long as some reasonable percentage get them then for 2016 we implement the laws.

If Obama is reelected, whoever replaces Holder (he will be "scandaled" out of office) will sue on the basis of discrimination. Democrats will never allow such laws to take effect. Why is that? Even most Democratic voters support such laws, but not Democratic lawmakers? Are they just smarter than Democratic voters?

Before we turn people away from the polls first we make sure that there has been a strong effort to get everyone IDs. You cannot say that about the current election cycle and you can predict that voter turnout of legitimate voters will be reduced. That violate the Voting Rights Act in my opinion.

Again, you neatly ignore provisional balloting provisions.

Sassenach wrote:Based on that list, I'd say 2013 or 2015 would make a lot more sense. Or how about this, pass the legislation and have it time lapsed to take effect January 1st 2013 ? That not only means it can't influence by far the most important election of the cycle but also gives a good 10-11 months after it comes into effect for disenfranchised voters to obtain ID before the next round of (relatively unimportant) elections. That would be fair and would probably assuage all the concerns about cynicism and attempting to manipulate the Presidential election.Having it take effect shortly before the election on the other hand smacks of deliberate voter suppression.

You know, I find the sentiment in this post quite interesting. Considering county and local municipal taxes count for a large portion of your tax obligation and are the officials you are most likely to have an immediate influence over, I personally think those are the more important elections.

However, having said that, I believe I read somewhere there is a discussion going on over delaying the implementation of the law for this year.

A couple of more points about voter ID laws. First, just about all of the voter fraud that I am aware of has been "internal" as opposed to "external" fraud. Political machines who controlled certain precincts would submit totally one-sided vote counts, because they controlled the counting of the votes and they could submit fraudulent votes. Internal fraud would not be affected by voter ID laws. Evidence of external fraud, individual voters going to polling places and voting when they are not supposed to, is scant.

But if someone wanted to commit external voter fraud how hard would it be to get false ID and how adept would the typically elderly volunteers at polling places be at spotting false ID? So the chances that you would be able to deter external fraud with voter ID would seem to be pretty low. But, of course, you would deter legitimate voters who do not have ID.

DF are you seriously trying to contend that the number of voters without ID is zero.? That seems to be what you are saying because you cannot understand how someone can get by without an ID. You ignore estimates of voters without ID and simply come up with your "impressions".

With regard to provisional ballots, a voter without ID is not likely to be aware that they can use a provisional ballot. So they may not even attempt to vote. Even if they go to a polling place and try to vote they not be aware after being told they cannot vote that they can submit a provisional ballot. Finally, many provisional ballots are not counted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_ballot

freeman2 wrote:A couple of more points about voter ID laws. First, just about all of the voter fraud that I am aware of has been "internal" as opposed to "external" fraud. Political machines who controlled certain precincts would submit totally one-sided vote counts, because they controlled the counting of the votes and they could submit fraudulent votes. Internal fraud would not be affected by voter ID laws. Evidence of external fraud, individual voters going to polling places and voting when they are not supposed to, is scant.

But if someone wanted to commit external voter fraud how hard would it be to get false ID and how adept would the typically elderly volunteers at polling places be at spotting false ID? So the chances that you would be able to deter external fraud with voter ID would seem to be pretty low. But, of course, you would deter legitimate voters who do not have ID.

Sure, but a fraudulent voter would be limited to his/her capacity to obtain fake IDs. What's the limit now?

DF are you seriously trying to contend that the number of voters without ID is zero.? That seems to be what you are saying because you cannot understand how someone can get by without an ID. You ignore estimates of voters without ID and simply come up with your "impressions".

No, I am saying I am dubious that any significant number of people have no ID and actually desire to vote. I ignore "estimates" because they are someone else's "impressions." When you consider everything that requires an ID, it is pretty mind-boggling that anyone could get by without one.

Go ahead. Go to a new bank and open an account without an ID.

Go to the store and buy some Sudafed with no ID.

Try to get unemployment benefits with no ID.

With regard to provisional ballots, a voter without ID is not likely to be aware that they can use a provisional ballot.

So, they would be aware that ID is required, but unaware they could cast a provisional ballot? So, they stop listening at "ID required?" Now who is going on "impressions?"

So they may not even attempt to vote. Even if they go to a polling place and try to vote they not be aware after being told they cannot vote that they can submit a provisional ballot. Finally, many provisional ballots are not counted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_ballot

Thanks for the link. From it:

Whether a provisional ballot is counted is contingent upon the verification of that voter's eligibility. Many voters do not realize that the provisional ballot is not counted until 7–10 days after election so their vote does not affect the calling of the states to different candidates.
A guarantee that a voter could cast a provisional ballot if he or she believes that they are entitled to vote was one of the guarantees of the Help America Vote Act of 2002.

First, note that a provisional ballot is guaranteed by a Federal statute. Second, the only reason it would not be counted . . . is if eligibility cannot be verified.

Doesn't that seem a fairly reasonable standard?

danivon wrote:The problem with the fantasy that 'if just one guy had a gun, they could have shot the gunman and ended it' is that it's not realistic. Cops are trained to shoot, and yet most of the time in live situations they will miss a target with one shot (because it's not easy to hit a moving target at a time of stress). Confusion could mean the wrong target is shot at. Given that the screening room was smokey, dark and noisy, if two potential heroes had decided to stand up and fire at the assailant, one of them could have fired at the other in error.

Case in point, the NYC incident today. A man shoots his former boss in the street (having been laid off a year ago), and walks off. Witnesses alert police, who approach. He pulls his weapon and points it at the police, and they fire.

It's not clear if he actually shot at the police, or shot at anyone. He was killed by police fire. 9 others were also injured by gunshot, and it seems likely that some, if not all, were hit by police bullets.

Now, this is not to have a go at the cops. It's to point out that even people who are trained to use guns in their job, using them on the job, and knowing exactly who the target is can miss and hit someone else. What hope do we have that a civilian who is armed and happens on a situation will perform better?