Mike Kelly - Go, man, go!

[classicman]

works for me???

[xoxoxoBruce]

Works for me now. I had looked at the properties of the link to try and parse it. It's now different.

[SamIam]

Originally Posted by 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!

WHAT???? God damn. Kentucky - the state of my birth - has gone to hell. When I still lived there no one ever asked me for my papers please. What have ya'll done to my Blue Grass State? I demand a recount.


posted by morse code from Island in the Sky.

[Lamplighter]

I doubt the validity of the data in Classic's post above
about Minnesota, but even if true, how could be interpreted ?

From the same link posted above

The result is that 9.2 percent of the state’s 8.2 million voters
are suddenly at risk of losing their right to vote. Eighteen percent of the registered voters
in Philadelphia do not have government issued photographic identification.

Minnesota had a population about 5million / 12million of Pennsylvania in 2011.
So assuming the same ratios of eligible voters at risk (9.2%) and of registered voters with no ID (18%)...

... 5/12 X 8,200,000 X 0.092 X 0.18 = ~ 56,000

Thus the Republicans are asserting it is better for
56,600 eligible voters lose their right to vote than have
143 people cast fraudulent votes.

I seriously disagree.

[SamIam]

Were the 143 fradulent votes for Dems or Republicans?

If they are going to make getting a voter registration card akin to coming up with a driver's license, then I think they should make would be voters have to pass a written test just like people have to do for a driver's license.

Some suggested questions/qualifications:

1) Pick out the United States on a world map.

2) How much does it cost to buy your very own senator?

3) Pick out the state you live in on a US map

4) Write a brief essay on why no CEO should be left behind.

5) How many tea party members does it take to make a picture of sun tea?

6) Which is better - A or A? How about now?

7) Are you an illegal alien? If so, why are you courting deportation by attempting to register to vote?

8) Why another 2 years of a do nothing Congress might be a good idea.

9) If you are an old person what makes you think you have the right to vote on stuff that will effect future generations when you will probably die tomorrow?

10) Do you now have or will you in the future have a child attending the electorial college?

11) Why is it good for government to have the supreme court vote along blatently partisen lines?

12) Why apple pie?

etc.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by classicman

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

Did those people have photo IDs? That would be very telling.

[Lamplighter]

9) If you are an old person what makes you think you have the right to vote on stuff that will effect future generations when you will probably die tomorrow?

very good

There could even be multiple versions of this question to avoid cheating...

9-A) If you are a man what makes you think you have the right to vote on stuff that will effect women...
9-B) If you are a woman ... men...
9-C) If you are unemployed ... rich ...
etc.

[BigV]

also along the lines of classic's post,

We already have laws that make voting fraud illegal. Indeed, this is how these people were prosecuted and found guilty. How would voter id requirements have changed this behavior? We don't have any laws that *prohibit* crime. Deter criminals, sure, probably. I believe voter id laws will not *solve* the "problem" of voter fraud. I believe voter id laws like the one in PA will have a serious negative side effect of suppressing valid votes. That is NOT a good trade-off.

[classicman]

What about the valid vote negated by the invalid voter's vote?
Couldn't this be argued as just the opposite of voter suppression?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Is that negated vote worth disenfranchising thousands?

[ZenGum]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

I doubt the validity of the data in Classic's post above
about Minnesota, but even if true, how could be interpreted ?

From the same link posted above



Minnesota had a population about 5million / 12million of Pennsylvania in 2011.
So assuming the same ratios of eligible voters at risk (9.2%) and of registered voters with no ID (18%)...

... 5/12 X 8,200,000 X 0.092 X 0.18 = ~ 56,000

Thus the Republicans are asserting it is better for
56,600 eligible voters lose their right to vote than have
143 people cast fraudulent votes.

I seriously disagree.

Just checking your numbers.
Minnesota: 8,200,000 voters, 9.2 % at risk = 754,400
That should be added to the number for Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, etc.
I'm not sure which numbers to use for that, but 12,000,000 x 18% = 2,160,000

56,000 is wayyy low.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by classicman

What about the valid vote negated by the invalid voter's vote?
Couldn't this be argued as just the opposite of voter suppression?

Ok, I'll accept that. But my question is how would a voter id law have prevented this?? We don't even know what the mechanism of the fraud was. I am betting that these cases were ones where the voter/fraud previously had legitimate credentials to vote, voted, and later during some audit or something were cross checked with the "felons recently released from prison after serving their sentences but not yet reintegrated enough to vote" list or some such.

Stuffing a ballot box with a bunch of anonymous but just made up ballots is also voter fraud. Voter id will not prevent that. OOOPSIE I accidentally put this box of votes in the recycle bin and they got shredded is also voter fraud, not preventable by voter id. Voting in the wrong precinct is voter fraud, not preventable by voter id. Walking up, voting, going to another polling place, voting again in the same day is voter fraud. I don't see how voter id as described by the PA law would prevent this one either.

Until you can explain to me what the voter fraud was I can't see how the law will make things better by reducing voter fraud, the advertised reason people have been stampeded/bamboozled into thinking this law was created to prevent.

This law is supposed to prevent this scenario. I'm not eligible to vote. If I vote, it's a fraud. Now I need to get a ballot, and get someone's government issued photo id (who presumably looks like me) and go to their polling place where my face matches the face on the id and the name on the id matches the name on the list of registered voters at the polling place then vote. It's supposed to keep ME from doing this, and other stupid bad guys. It's kind of ridiculous. So ridiculous in fact that it's never been attempted, or at least detected and prosecuted, according to everybody in the lawsuit challenging the law.

who the fuck conducts voter fraud this way?

next question.

What in the world is wrong with the way people in PA vote now? I'm asking about the voting process, NOT the recent results nor the anticipated results of elections? Because I believe the law's intended to affect the anticipated results by modifying how people get to vote. NOT the advertised result of keeping people from impersonating voters in person at polling places.

[SamIam]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Is that negated vote worth disenfranchising thousands?

Yeah, are 143 cases of voter fraud such a huge big deal that no election results will be valid? I think not.

As an older person on a small fixed income, I know first hand how difficult it can be to get a picture ID - in the state of Colorado, anyhow. Being a complete space case, I seem to loose my purse with driver's license, debit card, etc on a fairly regular basis.

Colorado will only accept a notorized birth certificate or a copy of a divorce decree or a few other such documents to re-issue a picture ID or driver’s license. The birth certificate would seem the easiest route to go unless you happen to be born in the state of Kentucky. The fee is $10.00 – not vast, but a low income person like me still feels the pinch. But there’s another catch. The last time I filled out a request for a birth certificate from Kentucky, they wanted to know which hospital I was born in. Beats me, and I have no one left to ask, so I left that part blank on my application. Kentucky did not like this at all and refused to issue me my certificate (they did keep the 10 bucks though).

So next, I tried getting a copy of my divorce decree. In El Paso County (Colorado Springs) where I got my divorce if you require a copy of something specific from a file, certified copies are $20.00 for the certification and .75 cents per page for the copy. Plus there are additional fees if you need a copy of a record from prior to 1988. My divorce went through in ’87. Total cost $50.00. I didn’t have it.

I knew my ex would have a copy because he is one of the most anal-retentive persons on the face of the earth. I hadn’t been in touch with him for years, but I knew he had a PO box in Manitou Springs. I didn’t know the number though, so I mailed him a letter care of general delivery in Manitou, requesting him to send a copy of our divorce papers. About a month later, he begrudgingly sent me the copy along with the request that I refrain from such communications in the future. Poor man, I hadn’t spoken with him for 10 years, never mind send him a letter. However, I guess the volume of our correspondence overwhelmed him.

Whatever. But my troubles were far from over. I still needed a second document from the official identification list and a document showing proof of address. I managed to come up with those somehow or other.

Then the cost of replacement of a lost license is $14.00. Well, I had 14 bucks, anyhow. But if I hadn’t had such a helpful ex (yeah, right), my total cost to get my picture ID would have been the $10.00 that the state of Kentucky nabbed, plus $50.00 to El Paso County, plus $14.00 to the motor vehicle department for a grand total of $74.00. That’s a big chunk for a low income person, never mind all the time and paperwork involved. If I’d had to present a picture ID to vote, the election would have long been over by time I came up with the required ID.

And there are many, many people in the US in more or less the same situation as mine. Exercising my right to vote is important to me, but someone less dedicated could easily throw up their hands and forget about the whole thing. This is what the Republicans are hoping for.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by BigV

Voting in the wrong precinct is voter fraud, not preventable by voter id. Walking up, voting, going to another polling place, voting again in the same day is voter fraud. I don't see how voter id as described by the PA law would prevent this one either.

In PA you go to your designated poll, give them your address, they check their list, and if more than one person is listed for that address they ask which one you are, and have you sign. They already have the right to ask for your voter registration card if they think something's not right. I think you can still vote but they hold your ballot for further checking. That's what I've heard but have no experience with that.
So no, this bullshit won't do a thing except discourage people from voting, which is already a huge problem in this country. The vote fraud they aren't addressing is the electronic voting machines.

[Spexxvet]

Pennsylvania's repubican Christians attack Amish!

HARRISBURG, Pa. (RNS) Nothing is sacred about your religion when it comes to getting a state identification card without a photo.