My concern if you will about voting fraud is not based on wanting to make it harder for any eligible voter to vote; it stems from the fact I take my voting right and responsibility extremely seriously. I want it to matter.

 

[/indent]

 

 

As do I. We both agree on the need for safeguards. It's the timing and the history that raise a flag with me, not the motivation of most (like yourself) that would argue that this is that time. :thumb:

As do I. We both agree on the need for safeguards. It's the timing and the history that raise a flag with me, not the motivation of most (like yourself) that would argue that this is that time. :thumb:

As it should. But by acknowledging it is a problem and then saying it is not the right time to change things, an equal red flag has risen, imo.

As do I. We both agree on the need for safeguards. It's the timing and the history that raise a flag with me, not the motivation of most (like yourself) that would argue that this is that time. :thumb:

 

How far in advance of the upcoming Presidential election would have lowered your red flag? The PA legislature has been working on the legislation since June of last year (maybe earlier).

 

Unrelated to Hatz' comment, I did a little research on the "758,000 PAians that will supposedly be disenfranchised" claim. That number is greatly misleading as I understand it. It represents the number of PAians registered to vote that do not currently have a PA drivers license. However that number does not include those that have another form of identification that would be acceptable to vote. According to state officials, approx 99% of PAians registered to vote currently have some form of documentation that would permit them to vote. If those state officials are correct, have folks gotten lathered up about nothing? Heck, the election isn't for another 3.5 plus months. I'd think the number of people that couldn't get some form of acceptable identification in 3.5 plus months would be incredibly slim, wouldn't you?

 

Maybe there are some Rs that are pushing the law because they think it will help Romney; likewise maybe there are some Ds that are opposed to the law because they think not having the law in place would help President Obama.

 

You and I don't have either motivation. We just want the integrity of the vote maintained. Telling the alleged 1% of registered PAians currently without acceptable identification to get that identification in 3.5 plus months doesn't seem all that burdensome to me.

 

And since we are all smart enough to know that there are people out there that like to be loose and fast with facts to support their political ideologies: the source of the "only 13" fact is an associate professor of law at Loyola Law School in LA. He may be totally correct in his assessment, but just like I learned a long time ago not to blindly accept what Rush says, I'm not going to blindly accept what this guy says. From his bio:

 

"Levitt has served in various capacities for several presidential campaigns, including most recently as the National Voter Protection Counsel in 2008, helping to run an effort ensuring that tens of millions of citizens could vote and have those votes counted. Before joining the faculty of Loyola Law School, he was counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, for five years. He has also worked as in-house counsel to the country's largest independent voter registration and engagement operation, and at several nonprofit civil rights and civil liberties organizations. " Source: LLS | Faculty | Justin Levitt

 

Not saying he's wrong, but his background indicates to me that I'd want to thoroughly review his methodology and research before I'd accept his conclusions as gospel. You think he may have an ax to grind and may have let his desired results impact how he came to his conclusions? Possibly?

How far in advance of the upcoming Presidential election would have lowered your red flag? The PA legislature has been working on the legislation since June of last year (maybe earlier).

 

 

I like the way VA has handled the issue:

 

Virginia amended its existing voter ID in 2012, but the changes are subject to preclearance under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act and are therefore not currently in effect. The changes include the addition of several new forms of ID for voting purposes, and a "strict" requirement that any voter who fails to show ID at the polls must vote a provisional ballot that will be counted only if the voter submits acceptable ID within three days after the election. Pending preclearance, Virginia's older voter ID law remains in effect. See Table 2 below for details on both the old and the new voter ID laws.

 

Voter ID: State Requirements

I haven't had to produce ID for many years at the polls.

 

I guess it's that "or be known by a precinct officer prior to voting" and "by personal acquaintance."

I have never had to show an ID. For the past two elections, the worker was my next door neighbor, but prior to that I didn't personally know the workers.

I've had to show ID every time I've voted since I was 18. The last several times I have voted, my polling site is in the heart of probably THE most liberal location in the entire Commonwealth if Kentucky.

Edited July 14, 201214 yr by rockmom

...my polling site is in the heart of probably THE most liberal location in the entire Commonwealth if Kentucky.

 

Mcpapa's head? :lol:

I like the way VA has handled the issue:

 

Virginia amended its existing voter ID in 2012, but the changes are subject to preclearance under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act and are therefore not currently in effect. The changes include the addition of several new forms of ID for voting purposes, and a "strict" requirement that any voter who fails to show ID at the polls must vote a provisional ballot that will be counted only if the voter submits acceptable ID within three days after the election. Pending preclearance, Virginia's older voter ID law remains in effect. See Table 2 below for details on both the old and the new voter ID laws.

 

Voter ID: State Requirements

 

I like the provisional ballot/3 days to provide acceptable identification concept.

Has anyone been able to refute PP92's stat that there have been a grand total of 13 validated cases of voter fraud at-the-polls in the last decade out of over 600 million votes cast?

 

It's my belief, for what it's worth, that absentee balloting is where the real potential for fraud exists. Not at the polls.

Has anyone been able to refute PP92's stat that there have been a grand total of 13 validated cases of voter fraud at-the-polls in the last decade out of over 600 million votes cast?

 

It's my belief, for what it's worth, that absentee balloting is where the real potential for fraud exists. Not at the polls.

 

I agree with your last paragraph. It seems like what is being proposed is akin to putting a splint on your left arm because you have a headache.

New info on the voter ID situation in Pennsylvania. Apparently it's worse than expected. I'll also add that in this situation any old photo ID won't do. It has to be issued from the Department of Transportation in Pennsylvania. I'll also add that I am for voter ID at the booth. Just make that ID free of charge and readily available in this situation to allow people to exercise their right to vote since the rules are changing in July of the election year.

 

 

Voter Suppression: Up to 43% of Philly Voters May Not Have Newly-Required ID | AlterNet

I would say Virginia doesn't have everything right:

 

Romney camp asks Va. to probe voter forms | Richmond Times-Dispatch

One of the most interesting situations is where there are far more votes than registered voters. And it is not just 2008 and it is not just Pennsylvania. These are cases of clear cut fraud.

 

While vote buying and vote fraud has been around in every state at every level - our own state is an interesting case study of this - I just think that since the early 2000s vote fraud has been institutionalized, automated and spread out - especially to 'swing states'.

 

Wisconsin 2004:

 

Voter Fraud in Wisconsin: over 4,500 more votes than voters in 2004 « The right-wing liberal

 

Ohio 2006:

 

The BRAD BLOG : Revote in Ohio After More Votes Than Voters Recorded on Diebold Touch-Screen Voting Machines!

 

Nebraska 2004:

 

Countinghouse Blues

 

 

Nevada - 2012 Primary

 

Caucus chaos continues: Clark County GOP has more ballots than voters - www.ktnv.com

 

 

 

 

And then you have 'same day registration' - nothing dodgy could happen with that!

 

Daily Kos: BREAKING: Madison, Wisconsin Turnout Over 100%

 

 

Back to Philly:

 

Black Box Voting : (PA) 4/12 - Philadelphia: Impossible numbers, more votes than voters in many locations -

 

Five percent of Philadelphia's precincts reported more votes than voters, with "hundreds" of locations reporting unusually high voter numbers that did not quite tip over to exceed the number of votes.

 

Things that cause me concern include:

 

- Same day registration (ability to validate and verity that a person has not vote multiple times in the same day is hard)

- Long term 'early voting' (hate the idea of votes just sitting around)

- Paperless trail voting (anything without a non-digital paper trail is suspect)

- Internet voting (yeah right - the 'secure' internet)

 

People have been stuffing ballots since the days of Greek democracies but with the internet, its easier to share techniques and institutionalize vote fraud on a never before seen levels.

I'm 37 and I have never voted one time that I was asked to show my ID.

 

I'm 48 and I have NEVER NOT BEEN ASKED to show a photo, gov't issued ID. I mean, really.......who doesn't have a gov't issued ID?