Mike Kelly - Go, man, go!

[Gravdigr]

Originally Posted by BigV

...for that matter, those who govern us here also govern illegal aliens, so, there's the whole lack of representation thing going on there too...

Well, the illegal aliens can go back home and vote be represented there, or not, for all I care.

I wasn't listing reasons, but, why else would photo IDs at the voting places even be wanted? I admit to assuming that was the reason. Or voter fraud.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Gravdigr

I wasn't listing reasons, but, why else would photo IDs at the voting places even be wanted? I admit to assuming that was the reason. Or voter fraud.

Most experts believe that most voters who cannot get photo IDs are Democratic. Repubicans are passing these laws to increase the likelihood of their being elected.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Gravdigr

Well, the illegal aliens can go back home and vote be represented there, or not, for all I care.

I wasn't listing reasons, but, why else would photo IDs at the voting places even be wanted? I admit to assuming that was the reason. Or voter fraud.

What Spexxvet said.

This is the story I read. As you can see, both sides agree, on the record, that no evidence of such fraud exists. What else then could be the reason for the law?

Pennsylvania admits it: no voter fraud problem
By Jamelle Bouie

A court filing by the state of Pennsylvania, ahead of a trial starting later this week on a lawsuit filed by civil rights groups against the state’s new voter fraud law, contains an astounding admission:

The state signed a stipulation agreement with lawyers for the plaintiffs which acknowledges there “have been no investigations or prosecutions of in-person voter fraud in Pennsylvania; and the parties do not have direct personal knowledge of any such investigations or prosecutions in other states.”

In other words, the state knows that voter fraud is a nonexistent problem, but will nonetheless defend a law that could potentially disenfranchise a huge number of the state’s voters.

[Gravdigr]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

Most experts believe that most voters who cannot get photo IDs are Democratic.

Uh...I know I'm gonna regret this, but...

Why can't Democrats get photo IDs?

(I assumed you meant Democrats, instead of 'ppl in favor of democracy')

[BigV]

Why not make a literacy test in order to permit someone to vote? Like the political quizzes that are sometimes featured here. Make the "passing grade" 100%, and make the test, say, 100 questions long. The justification could be that we don't want people making frivolous uninformed votes. Voting is important after all. Then I would ask you your question back to you "Why can't people learn this stuff?"

...

You might have an answer because of this or because of that, but regardless, the effect would be to reduce the number of people qualified to vote. Furthermore, there would be no guarantee that the law would prohibit frivolous voting anyhow. The PA law is like this. It is an obstacle. It will prevent some people from voting. People who otherwise have a *right* to vote, but because of this arbitrary rule, a rule that is promoted as a response to a problem that isn't actually happening. It's a farce.

What about setting up only one polling place per precinct or district. Put that polling place in the slum, in the most crime-filled, police-scarce, bushy-haired-stranger scary place you can imagine, and make that the only one. Say you're doing it so the "underprivileged" can access the polls. Despite this apparently laudable goal, the effect would be to inhibit voting by some people. How is this a good thing *despite* the stated reason for the law? Your question backatcha "Why can't people just drive to the polls?" Why not make the law so that the polls are only open from 12:00 to 1:00 so the business community wouldn't have any loss of production as voters would now be voting on their lunch hour. We all want better business productivity, right? What would be the actual effect though and why is that a good idea?

Why is it a good idea to suppress voter turnout?

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Tw, don't you dare claim moderate, normal, or natural thinking anywhere near here -- it isn't in you, and that shows a lack of situational awareness. It quite offends the wa.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Urbane Guerrilla, don't you dare claim moderate, normal, or natural thinking anywhere near here -- it isn't in you, and that shows a lack of situational awareness. It quite offends the wa.

ftfy

You know, in the interest of Koyaanisqatsi suppression.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Gravdigr

Uh...I know I'm gonna regret this, but...

Why can't Democrats get photo IDs?

(I assumed you meant Democrats, instead of 'ppl in favor of democracy')

The demographics of the Democratic party is older and poorer than the repubican party. Many Democrats who don't have a photo ID will not be able to get one - can't afford it, can't get transportation to the ID center, don't have a checking account, don't have or have access to supporting documentation, what have you.

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by Gravdigr

Uh...I know I'm gonna regret this, but...

Why can't Democrats get photo IDs?

(I assumed you meant Democrats, instead of 'ppl in favor of democracy')

Even FOX News is willing to report what is going on here.

FOX News
By Juan Williams
Published August 03, 2012

GOP's fictional voter fraud charges aim to keep Democrats from voting
What is going on here is that the GOP is yelling ‘Fire’ when there is no fire.

Their goal is to reduce the number of Democrats casting ballots in the November election.
The GOP has created a fictional controversy about voter fraud
to hide the reality of efforts to suppress likely Democratic voters.
<snip>
The George W. Bush administration’s controversial firing of US Attorneys
was rooted in their upset that Republican appointees said
they could not find evidence of significant voter fraud to prosecute.
<snip>

But the reporters concluded that after five years only 86 people
in the whole nation had been convicted and most of those involved
misunderstandings of the rules, not intentional fraud.
<snip>

But to address your question directly as to the reasons
Democrats are more affected by such laws than Republicans

Their latest Brennan report shows that more than 10 million eligible voters live
“more than 10 miles from their nearest state ID-issuing office.”
Many of these voters do not have public transportation readily available to them
and many of the offices that issue the IDs are only open during weekdays
for limited hours when most people are working.

The report also says that copies of birth certificates needed to get these
ID scans cost between as much as $25.
It shows how marriage licenses, which are required for women whose birth certificates
only show their maiden name, can cost up to $20.

Adjusted for inflation, those fees are more than the poll tax in many
Southern states during the Jim Crow era.
Poll taxes have historically been used to disenfranchise minorities and poor people.

[Spexxvet]

It sounds like a poll tax to me.
Wiki:

The Twenty-fourth Amendment (Amendment XXIV) prohibits both Congress and the states from conditioning the right to vote in federal elections on payment of a poll tax or other types of tax. The amendment was proposed by Congress to the states on August 27, 1962, and was ratified by the states on January 23, 1964.

[Gravdigr]

Thanks for the additional insight, gentlemen.

I'd still be in favor of it, photo ID's for voters.

As a matter of fact, now that I think of it, I think Kentucky requires photo ID for anyone over eighteen, period. Voter or not.

[BigV]

I need an photo ID to come to Kentucky?

Really?

[Gravdigr]

No, but you do need one to live here. You got a drivers license? You're covered.


Posted from my new to me Nook Color. $35 thank you very much!

[classicman]

Minnesota Majority took the information to prosecutors across the state, many of whom showed no interest in pursuing it. But Minnesota law requires authorities to investigate such leads. And so far, Fund and von Spakovsky report, 177 people have been convicted -- not just accused, but convicted -- of voting fraudulently in the Senate race. Another 66 are awaiting trial. "The numbers aren't greater," the authors say, "because the standard for convicting someone of voter fraud in Minnesota is that they must have been both ineligible, and 'knowingly' voted unlawfully." The accused can get off by claiming not to have known they did anything wrong.

I don't particularly care for the source, but still.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Bad link.