Mike Kelly - Go, man, go!

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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!

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.