bbauska wrote:Weren't those two just checking ID?

Yes, it sounds so reasonable to just show id. It's not like a poll tax was unreasonable, was it? Voters who don't have ID are poor, elderly and black. If they don't have ID it's because they don't need it for daily life. Pennsylvania has something like 750,000 voters who don't have ID. And it costs money to get a driver's license or other government ID and people who are poor are not likely to want to spend money just to vote. In the lawsuit filed in Pennsylvania the state has stipulated that they will not submit any evidence of voter fraud. What was so bad about the poll tax, it was just a minor little fee wasn't it?

It Republicans want to show that voters ID laws are not a politically motivated move to disfranchise legitimate voters then want they should do is extremely simple: instead of not allowing someone to voter who doesn't have ID you simply have each voting location record the names of people who voted but did not show ID. After the election, you can then randomly visit those voter and see if they are who say they are. The reality is that Republicans are doing these voter ID programs as a way of reducing the Democratic vote. .

freeman2 wrote:Yes, it sounds so reasonable to just show id. It's not like a poll tax was unreasonable, was it?

When in doubt, a liberal cries "racism!"

Please.

Voters who don't have ID are poor, elderly and black. If they don't have ID it's because they don't need it for daily life. Pennsylvania has something like 750,000 voters who don't have ID.

Because they don't buy alcohol, cold medication, or any type of prescription drug?

And it costs money to get a driver's license or other government ID and people who are poor are not likely to want to spend money just to vote. In the lawsuit filed in Pennsylvania the state has stipulated that they will not submit any evidence of voter fraud. What was so bad about the poll tax, it was just a minor little fee wasn't it?

Conveniently left out: provisional ballots. They cost nothing.

The actual text of the PA bill.

Voter fraud? I can see why it would concern you--it seems to be a Democratic pasttime. Not only in VA, but in FL, where the Department of Justice sued to stop Florida from removing non-citizens from the rolls. Why? In any event, they lost there.

It Republicans want to show that voters ID laws are not a politically motivated move to disfranchise legitimate voters then want they should do is extremely simple: instead of not allowing someone to voter who doesn't have ID you simply have each voting location record the names of people who voted but did not show ID.

Maybe you should read the law and give your professional opinion after you do?

After the election, you can then randomly visit those voter and see if they are who say they are. The reality is that Republicans are doing these voter ID programs as a way of reducing the Democratic vote. .

If the Democratic vote depends on dead people, illegal aliens, and felons, then maybe Democrats are in worse shape than I thought.

freeman2 wrote:Pennsylvania has something like 750,000 voters who don't have ID.

That number is very weak. That list has a large number of false postives on it. Including some rather high profile ones such as a sitting U.S. Congressman (Rep Barletta) a sitting County Commissioner (Diane Ellis-Marseglia - Bucks), a Former Phila Mayor (Wilson Goode), a State Supreme Court Justice (Seamus McCaffery) and 5 out of 17 sitting Phila City Council member. All of whom have confirmed they actually have driver's licenses. The issue was a difference between the name on the driver's license and the name on the voter's registration is different. Here is an article confirming this information.

freeman2 wrote:And it costs money to get a driver's license or other government ID and people who are poor are not likely to want to spend money just to vote.

Also, Pennsylvania offers a free photo id that is acceptable id under the voter ID law.

freeman2 wrote:It Republicans want to show that voters ID laws are not a politically motivated move to disfranchise legitimate voters then want they should do is extremely simple: instead of not allowing someone to voter who doesn't have ID you simply have each voting location record the names of people who voted but did not show ID. After the election, you can then randomly visit those voter and see if they are who say they are. The reality is that Republicans are doing these voter ID programs as a way of reducing the Democratic vote. .

It already does this. A voter who shows up at the polls without ID is to fill out a provisional ballot at the polling location. The Judge of Elections will turn said provisional ballots in at the end of the night with all the other votes. The voter then has 6 days to appear at one of the county's Voter Registration offices with valid id for the vote to be counted.

First of all, are you disputing that there many voters that do not have ID? Are you disputing the figure of 750,000 Pennsyvlania voters don't have ID? If not, then your point about buying alcohol and prescription drugs is irrevelant . Your comment about liberals crying racist is not relevant because I didn't say Republicans are racist now--they could care less about whether a Democrat who doesn't vote is black or not. I mentioned the poll tax as an example of a seemingly minor roadblock to voting that signifcantly affected voting.

Your comment about provisional ballots left out attempts by Republicans to stop early voting.

Do all states that have passed voter ID laws allow for this free card ? And it is realistic that voters will enough time before the election to get this card? Doing this right before the election makes this provision uselss. There is not time to allow people know that they can get this card, for them to go to the local DMV office and sign for it and for the DMV to send it out to them.

There are questions on the accuracy of those non-citizens lists in Florida. In any case, a minor issue compared to voter ID laws. How many non-citizens have they found that voted?

You have demonstrated no proof that dead people and illegal aliens have voted As for felons of course Florida prevented many people from voting because of a flawed list that they used in 2000.

Voter ID laws represent the desparate gasp of a party that has gone too far to the right--many Republicans are becoming independent.

freeman2 wrote:Your comment about provisional ballots left out attempts by Republicans to stop early voting.

Pennsylvania does not allow early voting beyond absentee voting.

Freeman, total props for goalpost moving and shifting the debate!

freeman2 wrote:First of all, are you disputing that there many voters that do not have ID? Are you disputing the figure of 750,000 Pennsyvlania voters don't have ID?

Um, I think the Archduke already disproved it.

If not, then your point about buying alcohol and prescription drugs is irrevelant

No, because to engage in life one needs some form of ID. That's reality. Again, one cannot even buy some forms of over the counter cold/allergy medication without ID.

Your comment about liberals crying racist is not relevant because I didn't say Republicans are racist now--they could care less about whether a Democrat who doesn't vote is black or not. I mentioned the poll tax as an example of a seemingly minor roadblock to voting that signifcantly affected voting.

Okay, so the fact that a tax historically used to try and keep blacks from voting was your example was an accident of convenience. Sure.

Your comment about provisional ballots left out attempts by Republicans to stop early voting.

I don't blame the GOP here. The more days there are for voting, the higher the likelihood of fraud. Even now, there are only two things that keep me from making sure Romney carries MA: 1) only one election day (if there were more, I could visit many more polling places); 2) the morality of it.

Since #2 doesn't apply to Democrats, I don't blame Republicans.

Do all states that have passed voter ID laws allow for this free card ?

You have google. Look it up. Don't go all Danivon on me. If you want to prove a point, do it.

And it is realistic that voters will enough time before the election to get this card?

Yes.

Doing this right before the election makes this provision uselss. There is not time to allow people know that they can get this card, for them to go to the local DMV office and sign for it and for the DMV to send it out to them.

You're just used to the inefficiencies of California's DMV. The election is three months away!

There are questions on the accuracy of those non-citizens lists in Florida. In any case, a minor issue compared to voter ID laws. How many non-citizens have they found that voted?

You have google.

In any event, ONE is too many.

You have demonstrated no proof that dead people and illegal aliens have voted As for felons of course Florida prevented many people from voting because of a flawed list that they used in 2000.

That's your opinion.

Voter ID laws represent the desparate gasp of a party that has gone too far to the right--many Republicans are becoming independent.

Okay, see you in November.

I think you do have to question the passing of laws that potentially restrict the franchise so close to the date of the election. Whether or not you think the laws may be justified, surely it's only right and proper to give much more than 3 months for people to a) realise the law has changed in the first place and b) get around to obtaining valid ID.

Not entirely sure what this has to do with guns, but I haven't really been following the thread.

Colorado shooting to gun rights to constitutional rights to voting rights (that is the progression, for those following along at home!)

Sassenach wrote:I think you do have to question the passing of laws that potentially restrict the franchise so close to the date of the election.

If that was situation across the board, I would agree. However, it is pretty consistent: this administration opposes ID laws. The Texas law passed last year. DoJ sued. The hardest part? Texas has to prove its intent was not discriminatory:

Elizabeth Westfall, in her opening for the Justice Department, said the evidence would show as many as 1.4 million voters lack any form of acceptable identification under Texas' new law. She also stressed Texas wouldn't be able to prove there was no intent to discriminate against minority voters when it passed the law.

Why is that so difficult to prove? Well, two of the three judges hearing this case were appointed by Democrats, one by President Obama.

Do dead people vote?

Testimony from witnesses began immediately after opening statements, with Texas calling Brian Keith Ingram, an official with the Texas Secretary of State's Office. Ingram told the court he knew of at least four verified instances when someone voted who had recently passed away according to records and said there could be as many as 239 such instances.

"It's more common than we thought, and it is troubling," he said.

Under cross examination, Ingram said that there's a possibility some of those instances are the result of clerical errors.

Whether or not you think the laws may be justified, surely it's only right and proper to give much more than 3 months for people to a) realise the law has changed in the first place and b) get around to obtaining valid ID.

Okay, how does that apply to Texas? There are other examples. This DoJ hates the idea of identification.

Here's a crazy idea: what if, instead of keeping the door propped open for fraud, the DoJ helped PA? What if the Federal government expedited delivery of those picture ID's?

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.

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.

Again, Texas passed the law last year. How long is long enough?

Several States have passed such laws. If I recall correctly, South Carolina passed one and even offered free ID--and to bring mobile ID-providing vehicles into neighborhoods.

I think the question is really this: what are Democrats afraid of? Americans overwhelmingly support this. In fact, I don't think you can find a single poll that this did not get at least 60%. Most are about 80%.

No it doesn't make sense to wait until after the election Sassenach to implement these voter ID laws because the whole point is to unfairly effect this election. It's so disingenous for Republicans to pretend that they are not doing this for purely political reasons to give them an advantage If Republicans has passed these laws 4 years ago and make strong efforts to get voters who needed them IDs then you might think that these laws are about voter fraud (even though they can't really come up with evidence of voter fraud). But getting these laws passed shortly before elections indicates these laws are purely designed to lower Democratic vote totals

Well, DF, all Archduke showed is that the 750,000 figure may be wrong. But even if we based our estimate on Archuduke's anecdotal total (1/3) then we would have 250,000 voters. Let's say a low turnout for those voters so maybe 1/3 voter so we have 80,000 votes. I am going to estimate 75% vote for Obama so a net loss of 40,000 votes--that's still a lot.

Republicans have been manipulating voter turn-out for years. Every recent presidential election we'll get states voting on gay marriage or on abortion laws, designeded to ensure a higher turnout of conservative voters.


As for popularity of the voter ID laws any poll that doesn't inform the pollee that voter ID laws reduce voter turnout and doesn't give them balanced information on evidence of voter fraud is worthless.

Aren't we supposed to be discussing mass shootings? Trolls nowadays...

Just one comment before we get back to the shooting,

Freeman:

Voters who don't have ID are poor, elderly and black.

Freeman, is your opposition to voter ID premised on the fact that poor, elderly, black people are incapable of getting i.d.? That sounds racist and age-ist to me. I've been hearing that argument for at least 30 years; surely elderly black people are more capable than you think.