Better question, I would think, would be how could anyone not think it is better for citizens to have to show proper ID to vote. This seems like it shouldn't be arguable.

 

I think an even better question is why hasn't an ID ALWAYS been required as well as why wait until now to change the law? It should go into effect January 1, 2013. Not immediately. The timing sticks to high heaven.

I'm sorry I didn't realize there were no illegal Mexican in PA. Do you know how they keep them out? If so let the rest of the country know.

 

Maybe I'm naive but any illegal alien that would risk showing up at a voter precinct to vote illegally has to be one of the dumber persons on the planet or one of the smartest persons on the planet to be able to pull it off. Any precinct allowing tons of illegals to vote in their precinct has worse issues going on than voting fraud that is obviously so deep and organized that it would have to be a conspiracy to allow something like that to take place. If a conspiracy that deep is going on then maybe George W. Bush did steal the 2000 election and I have a real hard time believing he did that.

I think an even better question is why hasn't an ID ALWAYS been required as well as why wait until now to change the law? It should go into effect January 1, 2013. Not immediately. The timing sticks to high heaven.

 

An ID was required. But much more limited and specific forms of ID have now been established. Just before election time.

There are 2 posters that continue to use number of voter fraud cases when rallying against stricter laws. I was hoping for a response from both but would be happy with a response from either one. Hell at this point I would take a response from anyone since I've asked the same question in several different threads.

 

Also I really expected a response from Clyde after his repeated posts to BF for not responsing to his question in the Blade Runner thread.

 

As one of the more erudite conservatives on here has pointed out, the timing of this leads to the inescapable conclusion that it was engineered for purely partisan political gain. It is the timing that smells; not just the change to a standardized form of identification.

 

As to the number of cases of confirmed at-the-polls voter fraud that would justify such a change at this (or any) time? I will do my best to answer.

 

Some number significantly more than zero; which is how many Pennsylvania has had.

 

Pennsylvania, like Indiana, stipulated at the beginning of the voter ID trial that “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.”

 

Partisan Pennsylvania Voter ID Law Wrongly Upheld by Court | The Nation#

 

 

Analysis of the resulting comprehensive News21 election fraud database turned up 10 cases of voter impersonation. With 146 million registered voters in the United States during that time, those 10 cases represent one out of about every 15 million prospective voters.

“Voter fraud at the polls is an insignificant aspect of American elections,” said elections expert David Schultz, professor of public policy at Hamline University School of Business in St. Paul, Minn.

“There is absolutely no evidence that (voter impersonation fraud) has affected the outcome of any election in the United States, at least any recent election in the United States,” Schultz said.

 

Who Can Vote? - A News21 2012 National Project

 

It is easy and very cheap.

 

In our situations, that may be true. Let's consider ourselves lucky.

^ Let's consider ourselves lucky that we don't have incorrect birth certificates. That we don't have to go to the Pennsylvania equivalent of the DMV to get things straightened out. That we have our marriage license at the ready. That we're not elderly shut-ins.

 

I daresay that many of us on this board are more fortunate.

In our situations, that may be true. Let's consider ourselves lucky.

 

Let's. For those of us fortunate enough to be an accountant or an attorney or a teacher or a (fill in the blank), that's probably the case. For those of us that are retired, spending half a day at the DMV or the DOT or whatever they call it in Pennsylvania, the cost is probably negligible.

 

But for thousands, the hard cost of the paperwork and/or the cost of taking off work could mean the difference between keeping the electricity on or not. Buying baby food and formula or not. Keeping enough gas in the tank to pick your child up from late practice or not.

 

Again, many of us are much more fortunate. "Very cheap" is a relative term.

Let's. For those of us fortunate enough to be an accountant or an attorney or a teacher or a (fill in the blank), that's probably the case. For those of us that are retired, spending half a day at the DMV or the DOT or whatever they call it in Pennsylvania, the cost is probably negligible.

 

But for thousands, the hard cost of the paperwork and/or the cost of taking off work could mean the difference between keeping the electricity on or not. Buying baby food and formula or not. Keeping enough gas in the tank to pick your child up from late practice or not.

 

Again, many of us are much more fortunate. "Very cheap" is a relative term.

 

:thumb: As a teacher, I see this far too often.

^ Let's consider ourselves lucky that we don't have incorrect birth certificates.

Like the President

Maybe I'm naive but any illegal alien that would risk showing up at a voter precinct to vote illegally has to be one of the dumber persons on the planet or one of the smartest persons on the planet to be able to pull it off. Any precinct allowing tons of illegals to vote in their precinct has worse issues going on than voting fraud that is obviously so deep and organized that it would have to be a conspiracy to allow something like that to take place. If a conspiracy that deep is going on then maybe George W. Bush did steal the 2000 election and I have a real hard time believing he did that.

 

Well being an illegal alien apparently is no longer illegal. Plus, if you don't have to show an ID how would anyone know that you are not a legal illegal alien.

As one of the more erudite conservatives on here has pointed out, the timing of this leads to the inescapable conclusion that it was engineered for purely partisan political gain. It is the timing that smells; not just the change to a standardized form of identification.

 

As to the number of cases of confirmed at-the-polls voter fraud that would justify such a change at this (or any) time? I will do my best to answer.

 

Some number significantly more than zero; which is how many Pennsylvania has had.

 

Pennsylvania, like Indiana, stipulated at the beginning of the voter ID trial that “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.”

 

Partisan Pennsylvania Voter ID Law Wrongly Upheld by Court | The Nation#

 

 

Analysis of the resulting comprehensive News21 election fraud database turned up 10 cases of voter impersonation. With 146 million registered voters in the United States during that time, those 10 cases represent one out of about every 15 million prospective voters.

“Voter fraud at the polls is an insignificant aspect of American elections,” said elections expert David Schultz, professor of public policy at Hamline University School of Business in St. Paul, Minn.

“There is absolutely no evidence that (voter impersonation fraud) has affected the outcome of any election in the United States, at least any recent election in the United States,” Schultz said.

 

Who Can Vote? - A News21 2012 National Project

 

So we do not address a possible crime until a significant amount of crime occurs? Or should we do our best at "preventative maintance" before there's a problem?

 

And I appreciate your response. I was starting to feel like no one but UKMF liked me.

How many are truly effected by this. The 700,000 numbers keeps getting thrown around but according to this article it is probably considerably less than that.

 

Judge keeps Pennsylvania voter ID law alive - CBS News

 

By the best prior estimate of Pennsylvania officials, several hundred thousand registered voters don't have an acceptable photo ID, such as a driver's license. The Pennsylvania Department of State announced last month that nearly 759,000 registered voters, or 9 percent, lacked a driver's license or state-issued ID. However, the state also said 22 percent of those voters, or 167,000, were considered inactive voters for not having voted in at least five years and were presumed to have left the state.

 

Department of State Spokesman Ron Ruman told CBS News that many of the 759,000 people were eligible to vote but their names were spelled differently in the voter registration and motor vehicle records - a discrepancy, he said, poll workers would be told to ignore. Many other registered voters could pass the state's photo ID requirement with IDs issued by a colleges, the military, government employers or even nursing homes, he said.

When you consider in 2008 PA had a 68% voter turn out that number gets smaller.

So we do not address a possible crime until a significant amount of crime occurs? Or should we do our best at "preventative maintance" before there's a problem?

 

And I appreciate your response. I was starting to feel like no one but UKMF liked me.

 

A. Happens all the time. Not saying it's right, but I often hear people rail against regulations and red tape that are in place to stop things from happening whose chances are slim to none.

2. I strongly believe in prevention. The timing doesn't pass the smell test, though.

D. No worries. I hadn't visited the thread in a little while.

 

My question - not just to you, but to anyone defending the implementation of these new requirements at this point in time.

 

Which is the more egregious "travesty of justice"? One person getting to vote when they shouldn't, or thousands being shut out? Which is more offensive in the eyes of the Voter Rights Act (that's "Rights", not "Privileges")?

How many are truly effected by this. The 700,000 numbers keeps getting thrown around but according to this article it is probably considerably less than that.

 

Judge keeps Pennsylvania voter ID law alive - CBS News

 

 

When you consider in 2008 PA had a 68% voter turn out that number gets smaller.

 

I love it. Because you haven't voted in five years, you're gone!

 

I'm not sure I believe the 759,000 figure either. But what number is acceptable? 300,000? 75,900? I don't know the answer to that one.

 

It just seems to me that this could have been done on Jaunary 1 - ANY January 1 - and this wouldn't smack of what it so obviously is.

A. Happens all the time. Not saying it's right, but I often hear people rail against regulations and red tape that are in place to stop things from happening whose chances are slim to none.

2. I strongly believe in prevention. The timing doesn't pass the smell test, though.

D. No worries. I hadn't visited the thread in a little while.

 

My question - not just to you, but to anyone defending the implementation of these new requirements at this point in time.

 

Which is the more egregious "travesty of justice"? One person getting to vote when they shouldn't, or thousands being shut out? Which is more offensive in the eyes of the Voter Rights Act (that's "Rights", not "Privileges")?

I would say shutting even 1 person. However I do not beleive this law, and as far as I know no law that is in place in any state, shuts out anyone who qualifies to vote.