Pennsylvania Admits There’s No In-Person Voter Fraud

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

Quote

Do you think Ally bank requires ID as a policy they initiated? Perhaps you didn't bother to read that part of the Ally bank statement that says, "Federal law requires us to obtain, verify, and record information that identifies each person that opens an account." You may have bankers that don't follow the law, but to imply that a typical seasoned citizen should expect that is wrong. As you know, they are required to have direct deposit.

and when do you think that law was implemented? With a 94 year old lady, SS and MC and banking accounts were taken care of decades ago. What is true now often wasn't necessary then. Or perhaps she had the requisite form of ID then, but hasn't bothered renewing her driver's license since 1985. Will Voter ID laws permit a form of identification that expired 20 years ago? or even last year?

Advocating that proposed voter ID laws be revised to be less of a burden as you describe is reasonable. To advocate that there should be no ID requirement is not reasonable, IMO.

I do remember that some states were going to devote a lot of resources to assisting people to get the ID if needed (something along those lines). That is a very possible reason for the high cost of such laws - I wonder. Liberals think government spending is an economic stimulus, so why shouldn't they be all in favor of spending whatever it takes to help people get the ID required?

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[kallend 2,147]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Do you think Ally bank requires ID as a policy they initiated? Perhaps you didn't bother to read that part of the Ally bank statement that says, "Federal law requires us to obtain, verify, and record information that identifies each person that opens an account." You may have bankers that don't follow the law, but to imply that a typical seasoned citizen should expect that is wrong. As you know, they are required to have direct deposit.

and when do you think that law was implemented? With a 94 year old lady, SS and MC and banking accounts were taken care of decades ago. What is true now often wasn't necessary then. Or perhaps she had the requisite form of ID then, but hasn't bothered renewing her driver's license since 1985. Will Voter ID laws permit a form of identification that expired 20 years ago? or Ceven last year?

Advocating that proposed voter ID laws be revised to be less of a burden as you describe is reasonable. To advocate that there should be no ID requirement is not reasonable, IMO.

I do remember that some states were going to devote a lot of resources to assisting people to get the ID if needed (something along those lines). That is a very possible reason for the high cost of such laws - I wonder. Liberals think government spending is an economic stimulus, so why shouldn't they be all in favor of spending whatever it takes to help people get the ID required?

The ID needs to be free and the state needs to be proactive (horrible word) in getting the ID to ALL eligible residents with penalties for poor performance.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Advocating that proposed voter ID laws be revised to be less of a burden as you describe is reasonable. To advocate that there should be no ID requirement is not reasonable, IMO.

I do remember that some states were going to devote a lot of resources to assisting people to get the ID if needed (something along those lines). That is a very possible reason for the high cost of such laws - I wonder. Liberals think government spending is an economic stimulus, so why shouldn't they be all in favor of spending whatever it takes to help people get the ID required?

Most of the costs seemed centered around publicity that people were losing their voting rights and how to fix it.

With Voter ID or voter purges, the requirement is that substantial numbers of people don't lose their ability to vote in November, and preferably not the primaries as well. That's why I think a ban on election year purges is in order.

Since at best people can point to tens of cases of voter fraud in a state of millions, any action that results in even 100 people losing their vote is unacceptable.

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

Quote

I do this for a living. I am well aware of the requirements for getting SS benefits.

Then why did you say "ID was never requested?"

because they never requested it.

Quote

I was ready to accept that you had forgotten. The fact you did not admit it might lead a person to think that you want to obscure the facts.

You can think that if you want.

Quote

There is a substantial, and very ordinary burden on citizens to have ID, including having a job as you admit. To assert that the proposed ID burden for voting is too great is not reasonable. I could understand if you argued that a birth certificate and SS card should be enough (non-picture ID), that might be a reasonable position against a picture ID requirement.

At no point have I stated anything with regard to voting ID requirements being a burden. You are attributing positions to me based on something else.

Quote

Even though picture ID is not required for SS benefits, the burden is substantial, including military service records and tax forms.

Right, I really only posted to point out that your original statements about needing an ID every month to get a Social Security check was incorrect. Just for the record, a social security card is not a form of ID.

Quote

I'm amazed that people think their own limited experience of the world and how things work applies to everybody

Do you think Ally bank requires ID as a policy they initiated? Perhaps you didn't bother to read that part of the Ally bank statement that says, "Federal law requires us to obtain, verify, and record information that identifies each person that opens an account." You may have bankers that don't follow the law, but to imply that a typical seasoned citizen should expect that is wrong. As you know, they are required to have direct deposit.

Why would people go to so much trouble to get fraudulent voter registrations if it was not with the intent to commit voting fraud? If conservatives are found to be collecting fraudulent registrations, I would assume it if for the purpose of voting fraud. Why should I think differently of any group that would do it? Voting fraud is unfortunately too easy to do, and difficult to catch, which is why it is so easy to conclude that it isn't happening.

I think the "solution to a problem that doesn't exist" argument is not going to be enough, and we've been over the supposed "ID is too much of a burden" contention. Liberals should think of a better argument. It doesn't matter that I think it doesn't work, what should matter for liberals is that it won't convince the general (voting ) public.

If there was reason to believe that voting fraud was happening to the overall detriment of liberals, then I am confident that they would be very eager to spend the money needed and inconvenience the voters to prevent it.

Again, my comments really were not directed at teh ID requirement for voting.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[muff528 3]

Quote

.....

The ID needs to be free and the state needs to be proactive (horrible word) in getting the ID to ALL eligible residents with penalties for poor performance.

This is reasonable. But in addition to penalties for poor performance (I presume by the issuing agency), there should also be a mandatory penalty ("tax" if you prefer) for an applicant falsifying information for the ID. The question then goes to "how do we define 'eligible'?" There is always room for disagreement there. I think that is really a lot of the disagreement right now.

proactive (horrible word) -- I agree. It sounds like a hemorrhoid or acne medication. ...or a septic tank additive.

[billvon 3,112]

>No voter fraud, right! Liberals will have to spend a lot of money to sell that.

So from a conservative perspective -

Voter fraud is a huge problem. There's no evidence of it, but it must be there, and we must pass new laws to combat this potential problem - and only people who support fraud think otherwise. Any inconvenience to voters is a non-issue.

Mass shootings are not a problem. They happen with alarming regularity, but any new laws attempting to deal with the issue are a hysterical overreaction to a nonexistent problem. Any resulting inconvenience to gun owners is completely unconstitutional.

[muff528 3]

Quote

>No voter fraud, right! Liberals will have to spend a lot of money to sell that.

So from a conservative perspective -

Voter fraud is a huge problem. There's no evidence of it, but it must be there, and we must pass new laws to combat this potential problem - and only people who support fraud think otherwise. Any inconvenience to voters is a non-issue.

Why is there concern over the number (no matter how small) of voters who might be merely inconvenienced, not disenfranchised. but no concern whatsoever over the number (no matter how large) of voters whose votes would be completely negated by fraudulent voters?

Quote

Mass shootings are not a problem. They happen with alarming regularity, but any new laws attempting to deal with the issue are a hysterical overreaction to a nonexistent problem. Any resulting inconvenience to gun owners is completely unconstitutional.

So far I haven't read any post from any poster on any thread in this forum that suggests a specific solution or legislation (reasonable or otherwise) to the problem of mass shootings. Just platitudes and pontifications. How about something to respond to?

[billvon 3,112]

>Why is there concern over the number (no matter how small) of voters who might be
>merely inconvenienced, not disenfranchised. but no concern whatsoever over the
>number (no matter how large) of voters whose votes would be completely negated by
>fraudulent voters?

I guess for the same reason there's no concern over the crime of toe theft.

[muff528 3]

Quote

>Why is there concern over the number (no matter how small) of voters who might be
>merely inconvenienced, not disenfranchised. but no concern whatsoever over the
>number (no matter how large) of voters whose votes would be completely negated by
>fraudulent voters?

I guess for the same reason there's no concern over the crime of toe theft.

Fair answer. I take that to mean that you either don't believe voter fraud is taking place at all or that there is simply no evidence to support an investigation (or no investigation has revealed any evidence).

[deltron80 0]

Folks defending this law are really showing their ignorance of US history and politics here. Pretty disappointing.

[muff528 3]

Quote

Folks defending this law are really showing their ignorance of US history and politics here. Pretty disappointing.

How do you mean? Because if you want to go back into US history you will find real disenfranchisement ...not just a little inconvenience.

ETA - I'm not really defending the PA law since I don't know the details. I am only arguing for a photo ID to verify your identity to the poll worker ...something that is already being done across the country. Either we need IDs or we don't. If not, the folks already voting under that system (I am one of them) might be able to someday escape that oppression.

[ChangoLanzao 0]

Quote

Folks defending this law are really showing their ignorance of US history and politics here. Pretty disappointing.

They feel the same way about us.

All we can do is present our view the best we can so that history records all sides of the issue.

[ChangoLanzao 0]

Quote

Quote

Folks defending this law are really showing their ignorance of US history and politics here. Pretty disappointing.

How do you mean? Because if you want to go back into US history you will find real disenfranchisement ...not just a little inconvenience.

Indeed. A poll tax is "just a little inconvenient" for those who can afford it.

Quote

ETA - I'm not really defending the PA law since I don't know the details. I am only arguing for a photo ID to verify your identity to the poll worker ...something that is already being done across the country. Either we need IDs or we don't. If not, the folks already voting under that system (I am one of them) might be able to someday escape that oppression.

Voter I.D. is not required everywhere in order to cast a vote at the ballot box. I've never had to show an I.D. to vote. I tell them my name, they look it up and add a check mark and hand me a ballot. I have never had them tell me that I already voted. It wouldn't inconvenience me at all if I had to show an I.D. I would not feel oppressed by a voter I.D. requirement.

However, there are thousands of people who would be seriously inconvenienced by new voter I.D. requirements, for many reasons. The people who are systematically pushing for new voter I.D. laws around the country know this. They also know that the laws will inconvenience particular demographic groups more than others. They consider most of the people in these groups as "lazy" people. That makes it all O.K. because nobody likes "lazy" people. Apparently they have convinced you that only "lazy" people will be discouraged from voting by the "little inconvenience" of getting a voter I.D.

So it seems to me as if you're just fine with the voter I.D. requirement despite the fact that they have admitted that they cannot base the need for it on evidence that in-person voter fraud is taking place to any significant extent. You think it's justified simply because it sounds like a good idea. You say that this isn't "real disenfranchisement". I guess you think that it's perfectly OK to disenfranchise "lazy" people because that's not "real disenfranchisement".

One thing that you will notice if you look back into U.S. history is that it used to be a lot easier to disenfranchise groups of people. At various times in the past it was perfectly reasonable to disenfranchise Native Americans, slaves, paupers, people who own no property, people who won't pay a poll tax, and women. Nowadays we all agree that the Constitution guarantees all of those groups the right to vote. But what about "lazy" people? Well, nobody's going to complain about a voter I.D. law which, on it's face, seems like a good idea and only slightly inconveniences "lazy" people. The added bonus, of course, is that most (not all) "lazy" people (defined as those for whom it's a "little inconvenient" to obtain a voter I.D.) just happen to lean Democrat. This is just "real disenfranchisement" by another name. Perhaps we should call it "stealth disenfranchisement".

[billvon 3,112]

> I am only arguing for a photo ID to verify your identity to the poll worker

We already have penalties for voter fraud. If you do this, the only people who will be disenfranchised are the people who follow the law. Photo ID's are a piece of cake, as anyone who's been through high school knows. And there's no way this law will stop criminals who try to vote illegally. They're criminals; they don't follow the law.

[muff528 3]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Folks defending this law are really showing their ignorance of US history and politics here. Pretty disappointing.

How do you mean? Because if you want to go back into US history you will find real disenfranchisement ...not just a little inconvenience.

Indeed. A poll tax is "just a little inconvenient" for those who can afford it.

Quote

ETA - I'm not really defending the PA law since I don't know the details. I am only arguing for a photo ID to verify your identity to the poll worker ...something that is already being done across the country. Either we need IDs or we don't. If not, the folks already voting under that system (I am one of them) might be able to someday escape that oppression.

Voter I.D. is not required everywhere in order to cast a vote at the ballot box. I've never had to show an I.D. to vote. I tell them my name, they look it up and add a check mark and hand me a ballot. I have never had them tell me that I already voted. It wouldn't inconvenience me at all if I had to show an I.D. I would not feel oppressed by a voter I.D. requirement.

However, there are thousands of people who would be seriously inconvenienced by new voter I.D. requirements, for many reasons. The people who are systematically pushing for new voter I.D. laws around the country know this. They also know that the laws will inconvenience particular demographic groups more than others. They consider most of the people in these groups as "lazy" people. That makes it all O.K. because nobody likes "lazy" people. Apparently they have convinced you that only "lazy" people will be discouraged from voting by the "little inconvenience" of getting a voter I.D.

So it seems to me as if you're just fine with the voter I.D. requirement despite the fact that they have admitted that they cannot base the need for it on evidence that in-person voter fraud is taking place to any significant extent. You think it's justified simply because it sounds like a good idea. You say that this isn't "real disenfranchisement". I guess you think that it's perfectly OK to disenfranchise "lazy" people because that's not "real disenfranchisement".

One thing that you will notice if you look back into U.S. history is that it used to be a lot easier to disenfranchise groups of people. At various times in the past it was perfectly reasonable to disenfranchise Native Americans, slaves, paupers, people who own no property, people who won't pay a poll tax, and women. Nowadays we all agree that the Constitution guarantees all of those groups the right to vote. But what about "lazy" people? Well, nobody's going to complain about a voter I.D. law which, on it's face, seems like a good idea and only slightly inconveniences "lazy" people. The added bonus, of course, is that most (not all) "lazy" people (defined as those for whom it's a "little inconvenient" to obtain a voter I.D.) just happen to lean Democrat. This is just "real disenfranchisement" by another name. Perhaps we should call it "stealth disenfranchisement".

You are saying that "there are thousands of people who would be seriously inconvenienced". Presumably these are folks who have lawfully registered to vote but do not have an ID. How did the opponents of the ID requirement arrive at this number? How did they quantitatively determine that "this group" of folks have IDs and "that group" doesn't? I'd like to see how this was determined. Otherwise it is only a number pulled out of someone's ass. As has been mentioned earlier, these legally registered voters who have trouble getting an ID still have the option of using absentee ballots. I suspect that the issue has nothing at all to do with the disenfranchisement of "groups" of folks who are Constitutionally guaranteed the right to vote and who have lawfully registered. I think the issue has more to do with eligibility and the need to mask the number of dead folks, dogs, illegal aliens, phantom voters, goldfish, voters who cast multiple votes, etc. Using the constant claims of racism and disenfranchisement is really getting tiresome and when the real deal happens people are going to be too desensitized to listen.

[muff528 3]

Quote

> I am only arguing for a photo ID to verify your identity to the poll worker

We already have penalties for voter fraud. If you do this, the only people who will be disenfranchised are the people who follow the law. Photo ID's are a piece of cake, as anyone who's been through high school knows. And there's no way this law will stop criminals who try to vote illegally. They're criminals; they don't follow the law.

These arguments really are getting ridiculous. Making fake IDs is also illegal. So how do you discover voter fraud? Why make voter fraud illegal if you have no intention of pursuing cases? Lame.

[billvon 3,112]

> Making fake IDs is also illegal.

Criminals don't obey the law.

>These arguments really are getting ridiculous.

And are word-for-word the same arguments used against gun laws.

[muff528 3]

Quote

> Making fake IDs is also illegal.

Criminals don't obey the law.

>These arguments really are getting ridiculous.

And are word-for-word the same arguments used against gun laws.

IDs are required to buy guns. An illegal gun purchase/transfer is just that ...illegal and should be prosecuted. Do we need more gun laws? "Criminals don't obey the law". Do we need more voter laws? No, we just need to verify that the laws are being followed ...just like the gun laws.

[ChangoLanzao 0]

Quote

You are saying that "there are thousands of people who would be seriously inconvenienced". Presumably these are folks who have lawfully registered to vote but do not have an ID. How did the opponents of the ID requirement arrive at this number? How did they quantitatively determine that "this group" of folks have IDs and "that group" doesn't? I'd like to see how this was determined. Otherwise it is only a number pulled out of someone's ass. As has been mentioned earlier, these legally registered voters who have trouble getting an ID still have the option of using absentee ballots. I suspect that the issue has nothing at all to do with the disenfranchisement of "groups" of folks who are Constitutionally guaranteed the right to vote and who have lawfully registered. I think the issue has more to do with eligibility and the need to mask the number of dead folks, dogs, illegal aliens, phantom voters, goldfish, voters who cast multiple votes, etc. Using the constant claims of racism and disenfranchisement is really getting tiresome and when the real deal happens people are going to be too desensitized to listen.

CLICKY!Even the Republican inspector of elections for Radnor Township said she believes the law is politically motivated!

Quote

This is a move by people to suppress the vote in the city of Philadelphia," she told the Inquirer. "We never had an issue with people coming in to fraudulently vote.

[muff528 3]

Quote

Quote

You are saying that "there are thousands of people who would be seriously inconvenienced". Presumably these are folks who have lawfully registered to vote but do not have an ID. How did the opponents of the ID requirement arrive at this number? How did they quantitatively determine that "this group" of folks have IDs and "that group" doesn't? I'd like to see how this was determined. Otherwise it is only a number pulled out of someone's ass. As has been mentioned earlier, these legally registered voters who have trouble getting an ID still have the option of using absentee ballots. I suspect that the issue has nothing at all to do with the disenfranchisement of "groups" of folks who are Constitutionally guaranteed the right to vote and who have lawfully registered. I think the issue has more to do with eligibility and the need to mask the number of dead folks, dogs, illegal aliens, phantom voters, goldfish, voters who cast multiple votes, etc. Using the constant claims of racism and disenfranchisement is really getting tiresome and when the real deal happens people are going to be too desensitized to listen.

CLICKY!Even the Republican inspector of elections for Radnor Township said she believes the law is politically motivated!

Quote

This is a move by people to suppress the vote in the city of Philadelphia," she told the Inquirer. "We never had an issue with people coming in to fraudulently vote.

How does she know? Did she check IDs?

[ChangoLanzao 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

You are saying that "there are thousands of people who would be seriously inconvenienced". Presumably these are folks who have lawfully registered to vote but do not have an ID. How did the opponents of the ID requirement arrive at this number? How did they quantitatively determine that "this group" of folks have IDs and "that group" doesn't? I'd like to see how this was determined. Otherwise it is only a number pulled out of someone's ass. As has been mentioned earlier, these legally registered voters who have trouble getting an ID still have the option of using absentee ballots. I suspect that the issue has nothing at all to do with the disenfranchisement of "groups" of folks who are Constitutionally guaranteed the right to vote and who have lawfully registered. I think the issue has more to do with eligibility and the need to mask the number of dead folks, dogs, illegal aliens, phantom voters, goldfish, voters who cast multiple votes, etc. Using the constant claims of racism and disenfranchisement is really getting tiresome and when the real deal happens people are going to be too desensitized to listen.

CLICKY!Even the Republican inspector of elections for Radnor Township said she believes the law is politically motivated!

Quote

This is a move by people to suppress the vote in the city of Philadelphia," she told the Inquirer. "We never had an issue with people coming in to fraudulently vote.

How does she know? Did she check IDs?

Send her an email and ask her.

[billvon 3,112]

> I think the issue has more to do with eligibility and the need to mask the number of
> dead folks, dogs, illegal aliens, phantom voters, goldfish, voters who cast multiple
> votes, etc.

Fair enough. Show your data. How many goldfish and dogs voted in the last presidential election, and how did you determine this?

[muff528 3]

Quote

> I think the issue has more to do with eligibility and the need to mask the number of
> dead folks, dogs, illegal aliens, phantom voters, goldfish, voters who cast multiple
> votes, etc.

Fair enough. Show your data. How many goldfish and dogs voted in the last presidential election, and how did you determine this?

How the hell would I know? Nobody checked IDs. But I'd be willing to bet that "none" is the answer for my precinct. They check IDs there.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

> I think the issue has more to do with eligibility and the need to mask the number of
> dead folks, dogs, illegal aliens, phantom voters, goldfish, voters who cast multiple
> votes, etc.

Fair enough. Show your data. How many goldfish and dogs voted in the last presidential election, and how did you determine this?

How the hell would I know? Nobody checked IDs. But I'd be willing to bet that "none" is the answer for my precinct. They check IDs there.

He asked how many voted in the election, not at the polls. That check isn't going to cover absentee.

[Remster 30]

Quote

> I am only arguing for a photo ID to verify your identity to the poll worker

We already have penalties for voter fraud. If you do this, the only people who will be disenfranchised are the people who follow the law. Photo ID's are a piece of cake, as anyone who's been through high school knows. And there's no way this law will stop criminals who try to vote illegally. They're criminals; they don't follow the law.

Well played, sir... Well played.

Remster