PA Rep. Michael Turzai admits voter registration is a scam.

[Neally]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Awesome. I'll be sure to keep this in mind then next time you try to pimp the NDI or European healthcare as prescriptions for US policy.

For some people, special pleading is just easier than actual rational debate.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Neally

For some people, special pleading is just easier than actual rational debate.

And when were you interested in rational debate? You will now respond with silence or with some nonsensical quip, right?

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by RandFan

The point being that the rep believed that disenfranchising voters was necessary to ensure a Romney win. Never mind the lack of evidence that there was any evidence whatsoever that such legislation was necessary to "allow" a Romney win given voter fraud.

Can we be honest for a moment? The rep is either an ignorant fool or a cynical bastard. If I've excluded the middle then please, by all means, fill me in? As far as I can tell, there is NO evidence whatsoever that disenfranchising voters was necessary for Romney to secure the Pennsylvania vote in an honest fashion. But you be sure to let me in on any evidence to the contrary.

No, you are the cynic here. You believe that there is no possible reason for requiring voter ID other than to disenfranchise all those people who somehow don't have any identification. Look, when you go to the library to get a library card, do you have to provide ID? Sure. When you want to get a driver's license, do you have to provide ID? So why is it some sort of terrible imposition to provide the same ID in order to vote?

Let me flip it around on you. The reason Democrats oppose voter ID laws is because they like being able to stuff the ballot boxes. There's just as much evidence for that viewpoint as there is for the idea that voter ID laws are a scam.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Brainster

No, you are the cynic here. You believe that there is no possible reason for requiring voter ID other than to disenfranchise all those people who somehow don't have any identification. Look, when you go to the library to get a library card, do you have to provide ID?

Renting books isn't a right fundamental to democracy.

Quote:

When you want to get a driver's license, do you have to provide ID?

Driving a car is a privelage, not a right fundamental to democracy.

Quote:

So why is it some sort of terrible imposition to provide the same ID in order to vote?

Because it has been demonstrably shown to disenfranchise voters for no good reason.

Quote:

The reason Democrats oppose voter ID laws is because they like being able to stuff the ballot boxes. There's just as much evidence for that viewpoint as there is for the idea that voter ID laws are a scam.

Since voting is fundamental to democracy then the onus is on you to demonstrate that there is a need for voter ID laws that would justify disenfranchising voters. I would ask you for that evidence but you and I both know that is a big fail, right?

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by RandFan

Because it has been demonstrably shown to disenfranchise voters for no good reason.

So it should be simple for you to demonstrate both of those points:

1. Disenfranchises voters.
2. No good reason.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Brainster

So it should be simple for you to demonstrate both of those points:

1. Disenfranchises voters.

I've already provide links but, let me google that for you.

Quote:

2. No good reason.

So, let me see if I understand you correctly, you want me to prove a negative, right? Well, let me disabuse you of that. I've already conceded that I cannot do that (see previous posts in this thread). My claim is that there is no evidence that there is a good reason. But I await you proving me wrong. So looking forward to it. You will understand if I don't hold my breath though, right?

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Neally

Funny how many other countries including our nearest neighbors of Canada and Mexico, have some sort of voter ID requirement, and somehow there isn't any problem of voter disenfranchisement and cries of discrimination?

So you are a socialist now? Their evil extends beyond socialized medicine.

[marplots]

Here's a thought. Let's start enfranchising people by giving them IDs.

Alternatively, I am willing to look at other systems that match up people with:

1) They have the right to vote (proof of citizenship and not disallowed through other means like a felony).

2) They are registered to vote (although this could be modified with an "insta-check" kind of system)

3) They aren't duplicate voting (as in absentee or going to multiple polling places)

4) They are eligible to vote at the place they are voting (for local stuff).

If Amazon can tell me, a year later, not only what my credit card number is and what I've purchased in the past, but also my shipping address and what other books I might like -- it seems like voter tracking should be doable.

How could you possibly know if voter fraud is a problem or not without checking this kind of stuff? And even if it isn't a problem, wouldn't you like to keep it that way instead of relying on the good nature of ineligible voters?

Would you buy into a hybrid system, allowing someone to vote on the flimsiest of standards (they are present and breathing) but then helping them get ID for next time?

When I vote, they ask me for ID and there is a statement I can sign if I don't have any. It puts my vote into a "look closer if the election is close" category. If my vote won't make a difference, I don't think they bother.

How many current voters don't show ID at the polling place? I'll wager that is a pretty small number overall.

[Neally]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

So you are a socialist now? Their evil extends beyond socialized medicine.

Non sequitur.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by marplots

Here's a thought. Let's start enfranchising people by giving them IDs.

Alternatively, I am willing to look at other systems that match up people with:

1) They have the right to vote (proof of citizenship and not disallowed through other means like a felony).

2) They are registered to vote (although this could be modified with an "insta-check" kind of system)

3) They aren't duplicate voting (as in absentee or going to multiple polling places)

4) They are eligible to vote at the place they are voting (for local stuff).

If Amazon can tell me, a year later, not only what my credit card number is and what I've purchased in the past, but also my shipping address and what other books I might like -- it seems like voter tracking should be doable.

How could you possibly know if voter fraud is a problem or not without checking this kind of stuff? And even if it isn't a problem, wouldn't you like to keep it that way instead of relying on the good nature of ineligible voters?

Would you buy into a hybrid system, allowing someone to vote on the flimsiest of standards (they are present and breathing) but then helping them get ID for next time?

When I vote, they ask me for ID and there is a statement I can sign if I don't have any. It puts my vote into a "look closer if the election is close" category. If my vote won't make a difference, I don't think they bother.

How many current voters don't show ID at the polling place? I'll wager that is a pretty small number overall.

FWIW: I'm not per se opposed to voter ID laws. If such a law were phased in over two or 3 elections cycles and efforts were made to get everyone up to speed with ID by providing transportation and education. I like your idea of an exception for no ID so long as the election isn't close but to check on if it isn't.

As for how we know, well, there have been exhaustive studies and investigations. It's not as if it's impossible to check, as you yourself suggest, and people have done that in many states, counties, etc..

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by RandFan

I've already provide links but, let me google that for you.

From the #2 result, at the notoriously conservative New York Times:

Quote:

It’s not possible to show, he says, that many people have actually been deterred from voting by these laws. In part, that’s because many of these laws are new, and in part it’s because many of the people who lack an ID card tend not to be interested in voting in the first place.

And in whole, because there is no evidence. Note as well that the focus is on whether people have been deterred, not prevented from voting. And the laws are not all new; Arizona's Prop 200 passed in 2004, and has been in place since the 2006 election.

Quote:

So, let me see if I understand you correctly, you want me to prove a negative, right? Well, let me disabuse you of that. I've already conceded that I cannot do that (see previous posts in this thread). My claim is that there is no evidence that there is a good reason. But I await you proving me wrong. So looking forward to it. You will understand if I don't hold my breath though, right?

Here's a simple reason: Because it prevents somebody from voting in place of someone else.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Brainster

From the #2 result, at the notoriously conservative New York Times:

A.) I posted the same link yesterday. B.) It's actually been discussed in this thread. C.) You didn't bother to read the entire article, did you?

Originally Posted by Hasen; The New York Times

But even a few hundred votes can make a difference in a razor-thin election, Mr. Hasen notes – another reason why the laws are bad policy. And denying those few hundred voters their franchise even in a race that isn’t close deprives them of a basic American right.

(emphasis mine)

Quote:

Here's a simple reason: Because it prevents somebody from voting in place of someone else.

Demonstrate that the risk of this happening outweighs the very likely disenfranchisement of voters (see Hasen)? At the end of the day the problem you bring up is not new. It's not as if we don't have the data like we do for voter ID laws (IBID). And I'm sorry but it is so rare that it cannot justify disenfranchising voters. Unless of course you've got the data to disprove Hasen.

[marplots]

Originally Posted by RandFan

FWIW: I'm not per se opposed to voter ID laws. If such a law were phased in over two or 3 elections cycles and efforts were made to get everyone up to speed with ID by providing transportation and education. I like your idea of an exception for no ID so long as the election isn't close but to check on if it isn't.

As for how we know, well, there have been exhaustive studies and investigations. It's not as if it's impossible to check, as you yourself suggest, and people have done that in many states, counties, etc..

That's entirely too reasonable to make decent forum fare.

What I would like to see money spent on is informing people about the issues and encouraging them to vote. I can't remember the last time I saw a PSA on voting. At least if we diminish voter apathy, we'll then have a reason to pay closer attention to voter fraud.

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by RandFan

A.) I posted the same link yesterday. B.) It's actually been discussed in this thread. C.) You didn't bother to read the entire article, did you?

And in a race where the vote is extremely tight, a few hundred fraudulent votes might make the difference as well.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Brainster

And in a race where the vote is extremely tight, a few hundred fraudulent votes might make the difference as well.

Yes, now please to show that it is likely to happen or even probable. I concede that it is possible. I've seen evidence that it is likely. It's possible for people to go around punching police officers in the face. That it's possible doesn't make it probable. On the other hand, disenfranchising a few hundred voters isn't simply a plausible proposition.

[marplots]

Originally Posted by Brainster

And in a race where the vote is extremely tight, a few hundred fraudulent votes might make the difference as well.

But aren't those just the situations where recounts happen and votes are examined to find fraud? That just seems efficient.

[schplurg]

I think you guys are reading way too much into what this guy said (video in op). The way I hear it is "If there wasn't so much voter fraud, we would win for sure". I think it is very telling how some people here on this board are interpereting what he said as, "We can only win by making it more difficult for people to vote."

Quote:

Demonstrate that the risk of this happening outweighs the very likely disenfranchisement of voters (see Hasen)?

I think the whole idea that voter ID etc will "disenfranchise" voters is bull. You must show proof of ID to buy alcohol. How often do you think this keeps Americans - rich or poor - from getting their booze?

50% of the people in this country don't vote as it is, so what's the excuse for that?

What is more alarming to me is that Obama can give amnesty to 800,000 "16 - 30 year old 'children' of illegal immigrants", several months before an election, and very few people here even make a fuss. Hmmmm, 800,000 illegals, and a push for no voter ID. Smells, dontcha think?

[Corsair 115]

Originally Posted by Neally

Funny how many other countries including our nearest neighbors of Canada and Mexico, have some sort of voter ID requirement, and somehow there isn't any problem of voter disenfranchisement and cries of discrimination?

Here is Elections Canada's page on the ID requirements for voters in federal elections.

Basically, a driver's license that has your photo and current address is sufficient. Failing that, two pieces of ID, one of your identity and the other showing your name and address, e.g. a birth certificate and a telephone bill, are sufficient. Failing that, then you can swear an oath and be vouched for by a voter eligible to vote in that area who does have proper identification and is known personally to you.

In other words, the identification bar to pass is not particularly difficult. As a practical matter most folks have a driver's license, or if without that, have a birth certificate/health card/credit card/etc. plus utility bill/bank statement/etc.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by schplurg

I think you guys are reading way too much into what this guy said (video in op). The way I hear it is "If there wasn't so much voter fraud, we would win for sure". I think it is very telling how some people here on this board are interpereting what he said as, "We can only win by making it more difficult for people to vote."

The point was made, discussed and conceded.

Quote:

I think the whole idea that voter ID etc will "disenfranchise" voters is bull. You must show proof of ID to buy alcohol. How often do you think this keeps Americans - rich or poor - from getting their booze?

A.) Drinking alcohol is not a right. B.) I've no doubt that over the long haul voter ID laws would not disenfranchise voters. I support them to the extent they are not used for short term political gain.

Quote:

50% of the people in this country don't vote as it is, so what's the excuse for that?

It's called a right. America was founded on the proposition that people should be able to choose their political leaders, that includes the freedom to opt out of the process. Liberty is a radical concept I concede but, in my estimation, worth it.

Quote:

What is more alarming to me is that Obama can give amnesty to 800,000 "16 - 30 year old 'children' of illegal immigrants", several months before an election, and very few people here even make a fuss. Hmmmm, 800,000 illegals, and a push for no voter ID. Smells, dontcha think?

A.) Are you kidding? Since there is no clear and present reason for voter ID then it's the pushing of those laws that smells. Dontcha think?

[Neally]

Originally Posted by Corsair 115

Here is Elections Canada's page on the ID requirements for voters in federal elections.

Basically, a driver's license that has your photo and current address is sufficient. Failing that, two pieces of ID, one of your identity and the other showing your name and address, e.g. a birth certificate and a telephone bill, are sufficient. Failing that, then you can swear an oath and be vouched for by a voter eligible to vote in that area who does have proper identification and is known personally to you.

In other words, the identification bar to pass is not particularly difficult. As a practical matter most folks have a driver's license, or if without that, have a birth certificate/health card/credit card/etc. plus utility bill/bank statement/etc.

Yep. All reasonable security precautions that help insure honest elections. No one is disenfranchised, yet somehow here in the US this becomes an unreasonable hardship that gets the left in a rage.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Neally

Yep. All reasonable security precautions that help insure honest elections. No one is disenfranchised, yet somehow here in the US this becomes an unreasonable hardship that gets the left in a rage.

Can we be honest here for just a moment? It's not voter ID laws in general that are the problem. It's the idea of pushing them in an election year when those who are passing these laws know that many poor people who are also legitimate citizens do not have ID. Many poor people rely on public transportation and don't need a drivers license. Many don't drink alcohol or book hotel reservations. Many live in rural areas where ID, by and large, simply isn't necessary.

So, what I and others would like to see are laws that are not clearly a cynical ploy to disenfranchise voters. A reasonable suggestion has been discussed on this thread that would, IMO, mollify most people who are concerned about this. Now, I ask you, why are these bills so necessary this close to a presidential election without any effort to avoid disenfranchisement? Could you entertain the possibility that they exist, to some degree, for political purpose?

[jj]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

Suggest you research the history of Duval and Jim Wells Counties Texas. You are hanging your hat on the idea that voter fraud isn't there, anywhere, when it can crop up most anywhere, depending upon how clever a given set of operators is.

I grew up near Youngstown, Oh, so yeah.

Darth, have you any online pointer to those counties?

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by RandFan

I only note that seemingly objective experts and investigative journalists have argued time and again that there is a dearth of data to support the cl

Your lack of skepticism is noted, as is your confirmation bias.

You might wish to learn the history of this nation yourself.

You don't build the dyke after the flood, if you have a brain.

DR

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

Your lack of skepticism is noted, as is your confirmation bias.

You might wish to learn the history of this nation yourself.

Your arguments are fallacioius. A theist might as well accuse a skeptic of confirmation bias because the skeptic won't learn some bit of claimed bit of theological history. Telling me to do your homework is not skepticism and it's not critical thinking. It's not my job to prove a negative. If you can't be bothered to support your own claims then why should anyone else give a damn? Seriously. Attacking me in an ad hominem fashion is hardly evidence of your skepticism. It's just evidence of laziness and perhaps a good reason to be further skeptical of your claims. When someone asks me to back up my claims I don't then attack them and accuse them of lacking skepticism.

I mean seriously, really Darth? How long have you been on this forum and then you pull that? And with me. We've known each other for some time. Where on earth did you get the idea that I would fall for that?

[Corsair 115]

Originally Posted by Neally

Yep. All reasonable security precautions that help insure honest elections. No one is disenfranchised, yet somehow here in the US this becomes an unreasonable hardship that gets the left in a rage.

In Canada federal elections have national standards—the rules are uniform and apply equally across the country. The problem, if I'm understanding the U.S. system correctly, is that presidential elections are more like fifty separate state elections, with each one run by the individual state, and the results are then combined. Which means the rules from one jurisdiction to another may be different. In other words, no national standards, even though it's a national election.

[RandFan]

Texas Republican Party Platform Calls For Repeal Of Voting Rights Act Of 1965

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by schplurg

I think you guys are reading way too much into what this guy said (video in op). The way I hear it is "If there wasn't so much voter fraud, we would win for sure". I think it is very telling how some people here on this board are interpereting what he said as, "We can only win by making it more difficult for people to vote."

True enough (and I think the consensus here is in agreement with you), but if the only reason for supporting the voter ID law is to win the State of PA for Romney, presumably if he believed there were widespread pre-existing voter fraud that favored Romney, he would not support the voter ID law. That's the logical extension of his comment that I find objectionable.

I'm sure they honestly believe they're ferreting out widespread voter fraud (rather than intending to suppress votes), but I doubt very much they'd have any concern about doing so if doing so didn't benefit their party. (The tu quoque argument is right there and cuts the other way: many Democrats would probably not be against the voter ID laws if they didn't stand to hurt candidates in their party.)

ETA: I don't care much either way. I understand it's difficult for some people to get photo IDs, but it's not all *that* burdensome, and most of these laws come with the ability to cast provisional ballots that can be counted if valid. On the other hand, it seems to me like an unnecessary waste of time (and ironically, the creation of more government) given the scarcity of evidence of widespread voter fraud in most places.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by Corsair 115

In Canada federal elections have national standards—the rules are uniform and apply equally across the country. The problem, if I'm understanding the U.S. system correctly, is that presidential elections are more like fifty separate state elections, with each one run by the individual state, and the results are then combined. Which means the rules from one jurisdiction to another may be different. In other words, no national standards, even though it's a national election.

Oh it's uglier than that! It's really 50 separate state processes (which don't even have to be elections, but they all are) to decide what to do with their electors. It is the college of electors that actually chooses the president.

Article II section 1 clause 2 of the Constitution says:

Quote:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

And Amendment 12 (which supersedes the next clause in the above section) says:

Quote:

The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;

[Neally]

Originally Posted by Corsair 115

In Canada federal elections have national standards—the rules are uniform and apply equally across the country. The problem, if I'm understanding the U.S. system correctly, is that presidential elections are more like fifty separate state elections, with each one run by the individual state, and the results are then combined. Which means the rules from one jurisdiction to another may be different. In other words, no national standards, even though it's a national election.

Correct and since there is no constitutionally guaranteed right to vote in a federal election, states get to set their own standards within the limits as prescribed in the 15, 19, 24 and 26 amendments. Still, when states try to adopt reasonable standards for voter ID like most countries have, panties become bunched and "voter suppression" is screamed.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Neally

Correct and since there is no constitutionally guaranteed right to vote in a federal election, states get to set their own standards within the limits as prescribed in the 15, 19, 24 and 26 amendments. Still, when states try to adopt reasonable standards for voter ID like most countries have, panties become bunched and "voter suppression" is screamed.

IF there is no evidence of a clear and compelling need and IF the effect will likely be to disenfranchise and IF the laws are being rushed into place during an election year and GIVEN the past history of disenfranchisement (see voting rights act) then yes, they damn sure do, as they damn sure should, get upset about that.

Why can't the GOP introduce reasonable legislation that isn't likely to disenfranchise anyone? Phase it in over two election cycles and provide voter education programs and voter outreach? I think you know the answers Neally. You just won't respond. That's fine if you won't answer my question but understand this, your silence speaks volumes.

[Corsair 115]

Originally Posted by Neally

Correct and since there is no constitutionally guaranteed right to vote in a federal election, states get to set their own standards within the limits as prescribed in the 15, 19, 24 and 26 amendments.

Which, in all honesty, strikes me as more than a little weird. A nation-wide election for representatives to the national legislature and a national leader but there are no uniform national standards?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Originally Posted by Corsair 115

Here is Elections Canada's page on the ID requirements for voters in federal elections.

Basically, a driver's license that has your photo and current address is sufficient. Failing that, two pieces of ID, one of your identity and the other showing your name and address, e.g. a birth certificate and a telephone bill, are sufficient. Failing that, then you can swear an oath and be vouched for by a voter eligible to vote in that area who does have proper identification and is known personally to you.

In other words, the identification bar to pass is not particularly difficult. As a practical matter most folks have a driver's license, or if without that, have a birth certificate/health card/credit card/etc. plus utility bill/bank statement/etc.

I was disenfranchised by that law.

I misplaced my ID the day before the election a few years back. I ended up missing my chance to vote that year.

I handled it like a grown-up. I've made doubly sure ever since then to always have my ID ready on or before election day and it's never been a problem since.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth

I handled it like a grown-up. I've made doubly sure ever since then to always have my ID ready on or before election day and it's never been a problem since.

There are poor people who transportation problems and or don't know about the law. There's NO need to disenfranchise them. That you lost your ID has no bearing on them. If you are truly and sincerely interested in voter ID then just phase it in over a couple of election cycles and make voter outreach and education a priority to avoid disenfranchising people for no good reason.

Insisting this must be rushed through this year for no compelling reason just exposes your contempt and cynicism. Do you really think people can't see through that? Look, if there were evidence of significant fraud I'd be on your side. But it isn't a pressing matter. I'm not sure how important the law is but if someone tells me that voting is precious to them and any fraudulent vote stills from the principles then fine. I'm happy to support that. But that's not what's happening.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

EDIT: Response to deleted comment deleted.

[Corsair 115]

Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth

I misplaced my ID the day before the election a few years back. I ended up missing my chance to vote that year.

You didn't have a health card, birth certificate, or SIN card, and a telephone bill or bank statement to use instead?

[Earthborn]

What I want to know is: why is it that in the US there are so many people without ID cards?

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by Earthborn

What I want to know is: why is it that in the US there are so many people without ID cards?

People who do not drive often do not have them.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth

Yes I am. You're just projecting.

I thought better of it and edited it.

In any event, why do you feel the need to accuse people who are disenfranchised of not handling it as adults? Are you not projecting on them? More importantly, cCan you not see how the urgency to get all of these laws passed during an election year can at least be seen as cynical? If there is no pressing need then why ram them all through?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Originally Posted by Corsair 115

You didn't have a health card, birth certificate, or SIN card, and a telephone bill or bank statement to use instead?

It was the worst day of a bad week.

The point being that I learned my lesson and applied the knowledge gained to future behavior.

Something which is apparently beyond the capabilities of the American voting population.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Earthborn

What I want to know is: why is it that in the US there are so many people without ID cards?

In America, the "greatest nation of all time", the "richest" nation on earth we have pockets of extreme poverty. Near or at third world levels. Often rural these people walk or take the bus. There is no pressing need for them to have ID anymore than there was prior to the automobile.