BGC, do you believe that the SOLE reason these laws are now being proposed in various states is to protect the sanctity of the vote?

 

Come on - lets be adults. The SOLE reason? The world is not that pure.

 

Acorn and company had their fun in 2008 and earlier. The pendulum had swung way in their favor with loose voting laws. Now it swings the other way. It will likely overswing. So be it. Its the way the system works. At least the actions here are in the open and under review like them or not.

Come on - lets be adults. The SOLE reason? The world is not that pure.

 

Acorn and company had their fun in 2008 and earlier. The pendulum had swung way in their favor with loose voting laws. Now it swings the other way. It will likely overswing. So be it. Its the way the system works. At least the actions here are in the open and under review like them or not.

 

So basically we are back to 'the other side does it so now we'll do it and that makes it right' line of reasoning?

And so I am clear, none of the anti-Obama people have a problem with the innocent people in all of this who may not get to vote now?

 

All of the tried and true cases of voter fraud caused all of these innocent people to possibly not be able to vote and that's fine?

Come on - lets be adults. The SOLE reason? The world is not that pure.

 

Acorn and company had their fun in 2008 and earlier. The pendulum had swung way in their favor with loose voting laws. Now it swings the other way. It will likely overswing. So be it. Its the way the system works. At least the actions here are in the open and under review like them or not.

 

So we agree this is pure politics. That's my only point. People hiding behind "why can't they show an ID" are missing the true point.

So basically we are back to 'the other side does it so now we'll do it and that makes it right' line of reasoning?

 

The operative word being bolded.

So we agree this is pure politics. That's my only point. People hiding behind "why can't they show an ID" are missing the true point.

 

They're not missing it. They just choose not to admit it.

 

Some, however (e.g. the case of the PA House Majority Leader) are openly acknowledging it.

And so I am clear, none of the anti-Obama people have a problem with the innocent people in all of this who may not get to vote now?

 

All of the tried and true cases of voter fraud caused all of these innocent people to possibly not be able to vote and that's fine?

 

92, I'm sure it's no great shock to discover that the agenda is to have fewer and fewer people making the decisions that govern us all.

 

If I may be so bold, what we have here is poll tax just couched in different terms and extended to a somewhat different demographic.

And so I am clear, none of the anti-Obama people have a problem with the innocent people in all of this who may not get to vote now?

 

All of the tried and true cases of voter fraud caused all of these innocent people to possibly not be able to vote and that's fine?

 

This issue isn't a major concern to me, but I do believe requiring ID to vote is a good thing.

 

What I think is really bad about this situation is the timing of it, or the short time frame people have to comply.

And so I am clear, none of the anti-Obama people have a problem with the innocent people in all of this who may not get to vote now?

 

All of the tried and true cases of voter fraud caused all of these innocent people to possibly not be able to vote and that's fine?

 

How is this going to stop innocent people from voting? Pay the $5-$20 and get an ID if you want to vote. Not that hard of a concept to grasp.

So basically we are back to 'the other side does it so now we'll do it and that makes it right' line of reasoning?

 

I am not happy that any of this is requiring new laws. The nation was based on a foundation of honor and integrity. The balloting systems have usually reflected that.

 

I am sure some people will wake up on election day and say 'heck, lets vote today'. And they will not have an ID and they will be denied. And in this case - an 'innocent' is denied voting.

 

But with voting comes responsibility - both at an individual level and a group level. Individuals will have to take to some responsibility and get registered and get an ID. So now they will have to do that and just show up at a poll with nothng.

 

Groups need to improve their policing of the system and work with poll watchers and ferret out the bad elements.

 

 

The pendulum swung to 'easy voting'. So easy some it scares me not matter what - same day registration, internet voting, electronic voting with no paper trail, elongated periods for early voting where votes have to be stored for long periods. These things all make it easier for people to vote. But then certain groups have exploited some of these to where the fraud or possible fraud is evident.

 

Since 'easy voting' is being abused to a point that causes concern there has to be a reaction - if for no other reason than that to ensure confidence in the system.

 

So the pendulum is more 'easy and lax' voting vs. 'restrictive' voting. But it does carry political factors with it and it is of that that I meant 'so be it'. You can not leave the system open to fraud. And real or unreal there is plenty of evidence of fraud - rampant or no so rampant. But the weaknesses of the system are now known and are causing loss of confidence.

After looking at what this addresses (in person voting) and does not address (early voting, absentee voting, etc.) and the comments from the parties as it went through I will lean more towards acknowledging this is more political/election driven that principle driven.

Does one attempt at voter fraud justify the law?

I will ask again. How many cases of proven fraud do we need before it is justified?

And so I am clear, none of the anti-Obama people have a problem with the innocent people in all of this who may not get to vote now?

 

All of the tried and true cases of voter fraud caused all of these innocent people to possibly not be able to vote and that's fine?

This law is preventing no innocent person from voting. If they really want to vote they can and will.

I will ask again. How many cases of proven fraud do we need before it is justified?

 

I asked first.

The operative word being bolded.

So it was OK when it was the left doing it I suppose...