PA Rep. Michael Turzai admits voter registration is a scam.

[Neally]

Awesome. I'll be sure to keep this in mind then next time you try to pimp the NDI or European healthcare as prescriptions for US policy.

For some people, special pleading is just easier than actual rational debate.

 

[RandFan]

For some people, special pleading is just easier than actual rational debate.

And when were you interested in rational debate? You will now respond with silence or with some nonsensical quip, right?

 

[Brainster]

The point being that the rep believed that disenfranchising voters was necessary to ensure a Romney win. Never mind the lack of evidence that there was any evidence whatsoever that such legislation was necessary to "allow" a Romney win given voter fraud.

Can we be honest for a moment? The rep is either an ignorant fool or a cynical bastard. If I've excluded the middle then please, by all means, fill me in? As far as I can tell, there is NO evidence whatsoever that disenfranchising voters was necessary for Romney to secure the Pennsylvania vote in an honest fashion. But you be sure to let me in on any evidence to the contrary.

No, you are the cynic here. You believe that there is no possible reason for requiring voter ID other than to disenfranchise all those people who somehow don't have any identification. Look, when you go to the library to get a library card, do you have to provide ID? Sure. When you want to get a driver's license, do you have to provide ID? So why is it some sort of terrible imposition to provide the same ID in order to vote?

Let me flip it around on you. The reason Democrats oppose voter ID laws is because they like being able to stuff the ballot boxes. There's just as much evidence for that viewpoint as there is for the idea that voter ID laws are a scam.

 

[RandFan]

No, you are the cynic here. You believe that there is no possible reason for requiring voter ID other than to disenfranchise all those people who somehow don't have any identification. Look, when you go to the library to get a library card, do you have to provide ID?

Renting books isn't a right fundamental to democracy.

When you want to get a driver's license, do you have to provide ID?

Driving a car is a privelage, not a right fundamental to democracy.

So why is it some sort of terrible imposition to provide the same ID in order to vote?

Because it has been demonstrably shown to disenfranchise voters for no good reason.

The reason Democrats oppose voter ID laws is because they like being able to stuff the ballot boxes. There's just as much evidence for that viewpoint as there is for the idea that voter ID laws are a scam.

Since voting is fundamental to democracy then the onus is on you to demonstrate that there is a need for voter ID laws that would justify disenfranchising voters. I would ask you for that evidence but you and I both know that is a big fail, right?

 

[Brainster]

Because it has been demonstrably shown to disenfranchise voters for no good reason.

So it should be simple for you to demonstrate both of those points:

1. Disenfranchises voters.
2. No good reason.

 

[RandFan]

So it should be simple for you to demonstrate both of those points:

1. Disenfranchises voters.

I've already provide links but, let me google that for you.

2. No good reason.

So, let me see if I understand you correctly, you want me to prove a negative, right? Well, let me disabuse you of that. I've already conceded that I cannot do that (see previous posts in this thread). My claim is that there is no evidence that there is a good reason. But I await you proving me wrong. So looking forward to it. You will understand if I don't hold my breath though, right?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Funny how many other countries including our nearest neighbors of Canada and Mexico, have some sort of voter ID requirement, and somehow there isn't any problem of voter disenfranchisement and cries of discrimination?

So you are a socialist now? Their evil extends beyond socialized medicine.

 

[marplots]

Here's a thought. Let's start enfranchising people by giving them IDs.

Alternatively, I am willing to look at other systems that match up people with:

1) They have the right to vote (proof of citizenship and not disallowed through other means like a felony).

2) They are registered to vote (although this could be modified with an "insta-check" kind of system)

3) They aren't duplicate voting (as in absentee or going to multiple polling places)

4) They are eligible to vote at the place they are voting (for local stuff).

If Amazon can tell me, a year later, not only what my credit card number is and what I've purchased in the past, but also my shipping address and what other books I might like -- it seems like voter tracking should be doable.

How could you possibly know if voter fraud is a problem or not without checking this kind of stuff? And even if it isn't a problem, wouldn't you like to keep it that way instead of relying on the good nature of ineligible voters?

Would you buy into a hybrid system, allowing someone to vote on the flimsiest of standards (they are present and breathing) but then helping them get ID for next time?

When I vote, they ask me for ID and there is a statement I can sign if I don't have any. It puts my vote into a "look closer if the election is close" category. If my vote won't make a difference, I don't think they bother.

How many current voters don't show ID at the polling place? I'll wager that is a pretty small number overall.

 

[Neally]

So you are a socialist now? Their evil extends beyond socialized medicine.

Non sequitur.

 

[RandFan]

Here's a thought. Let's start enfranchising people by giving them IDs.

Alternatively, I am willing to look at other systems that match up people with:

1) They have the right to vote (proof of citizenship and not disallowed through other means like a felony).

2) They are registered to vote (although this could be modified with an "insta-check" kind of system)

3) They aren't duplicate voting (as in absentee or going to multiple polling places)

4) They are eligible to vote at the place they are voting (for local stuff).

If Amazon can tell me, a year later, not only what my credit card number is and what I've purchased in the past, but also my shipping address and what other books I might like -- it seems like voter tracking should be doable.

How could you possibly know if voter fraud is a problem or not without checking this kind of stuff? And even if it isn't a problem, wouldn't you like to keep it that way instead of relying on the good nature of ineligible voters?

Would you buy into a hybrid system, allowing someone to vote on the flimsiest of standards (they are present and breathing) but then helping them get ID for next time?

When I vote, they ask me for ID and there is a statement I can sign if I don't have any. It puts my vote into a "look closer if the election is close" category. If my vote won't make a difference, I don't think they bother.

How many current voters don't show ID at the polling place? I'll wager that is a pretty small number overall.

FWIW: I'm not per se opposed to voter ID laws. If such a law were phased in over two or 3 elections cycles and efforts were made to get everyone up to speed with ID by providing transportation and education. I like your idea of an exception for no ID so long as the election isn't close but to check on if it isn't.

As for how we know, well, there have been exhaustive studies and investigations. It's not as if it's impossible to check, as you yourself suggest, and people have done that in many states, counties, etc..

 

[Brainster]

I've already provide links but, let me google that for you.

From the #2 result, at the notoriously conservative New York Times:

It’s not possible to show, he says, that many people have actually been deterred from voting by these laws. In part, that’s because many of these laws are new, and in part it’s because many of the people who lack an ID card tend not to be interested in voting in the first place.

And in whole, because there is no evidence. Note as well that the focus is on whether people have been deterred, not prevented from voting. And the laws are not all new; Arizona's Prop 200 passed in 2004, and has been in place since the 2006 election.

So, let me see if I understand you correctly, you want me to prove a negative, right? Well, let me disabuse you of that. I've already conceded that I cannot do that (see previous posts in this thread). My claim is that there is no evidence that there is a good reason. But I await you proving me wrong. So looking forward to it. You will understand if I don't hold my breath though, right?

Here's a simple reason: Because it prevents somebody from voting in place of someone else.

 

[RandFan]

From the #2 result, at the notoriously conservative New York Times:

A.) I posted the same link yesterday. B.) It's actually been discussed in this thread. C.) You didn't bother to read the entire article, did you?

But even a few hundred votes can make a difference in a razor-thin election, Mr. Hasen notes – another reason why the laws are bad policy. And denying those few hundred voters their franchise even in a race that isn’t close deprives them of a basic American right.

(emphasis mine)

Here's a simple reason: Because it prevents somebody from voting in place of someone else.

Demonstrate that the risk of this happening outweighs the very likely disenfranchisement of voters (see Hasen)? At the end of the day the problem you bring up is not new. It's not as if we don't have the data like we do for voter ID laws (IBID). And I'm sorry but it is so rare that it cannot justify disenfranchising voters. Unless of course you've got the data to disprove Hasen.

 

[marplots]

FWIW: I'm not per se opposed to voter ID laws. If such a law were phased in over two or 3 elections cycles and efforts were made to get everyone up to speed with ID by providing transportation and education. I like your idea of an exception for no ID so long as the election isn't close but to check on if it isn't.

As for how we know, well, there have been exhaustive studies and investigations. It's not as if it's impossible to check, as you yourself suggest, and people have done that in many states, counties, etc..

That's entirely too reasonable to make decent forum fare.

What I would like to see money spent on is informing people about the issues and encouraging them to vote. I can't remember the last time I saw a PSA on voting. At least if we diminish voter apathy, we'll then have a reason to pay closer attention to voter fraud.

 

[Brainster]

A.) I posted the same link yesterday. B.) It's actually been discussed in this thread. C.) You didn't bother to read the entire article, did you?

And in a race where the vote is extremely tight, a few hundred fraudulent votes might make the difference as well.

 

[RandFan]

And in a race where the vote is extremely tight, a few hundred fraudulent votes might make the difference as well.

Yes, now please to show that it is likely to happen or even probable. I concede that it is possible. I've seen evidence that it is likely. It's possible for people to go around punching police officers in the face. That it's possible doesn't make it probable. On the other hand, disenfranchising a few hundred voters isn't simply a plausible proposition.

 

[marplots]

And in a race where the vote is extremely tight, a few hundred fraudulent votes might make the difference as well.

But aren't those just the situations where recounts happen and votes are examined to find fraud? That just seems efficient.

 

[mgidm86]

I think you guys are reading way too much into what this guy said (video in op). The way I hear it is "If there wasn't so much voter fraud, we would win for sure". I think it is very telling how some people here on this board are interpereting what he said as, "We can only win by making it more difficult for people to vote."

Demonstrate that the risk of this happening outweighs the very likely disenfranchisement of voters (see Hasen)?

I think the whole idea that voter ID etc will "disenfranchise" voters is bull. You must show proof of ID to buy alcohol. How often do you think this keeps Americans - rich or poor - from getting their booze?

50% of the people in this country don't vote as it is, so what's the excuse for that?

What is more alarming to me is that Obama can give amnesty to 800,000 "16 - 30 year old 'children' of illegal immigrants", several months before an election, and very few people here even make a fuss. Hmmmm, 800,000 illegals, and a push for no voter ID. Smells, dontcha think?

 

[Corsair 115]

Funny how many other countries including our nearest neighbors of Canada and Mexico, have some sort of voter ID requirement, and somehow there isn't any problem of voter disenfranchisement and cries of discrimination?

Here is Elections Canada's page on the ID requirements for voters in federal elections.

Basically, a driver's license that has your photo and current address is sufficient. Failing that, two pieces of ID, one of your identity and the other showing your name and address, e.g. a birth certificate and a telephone bill, are sufficient. Failing that, then you can swear an oath and be vouched for by a voter eligible to vote in that area who does have proper identification and is known personally to you.

In other words, the identification bar to pass is not particularly difficult. As a practical matter most folks have a driver's license, or if without that, have a birth certificate/health card/credit card/etc. plus utility bill/bank statement/etc.

 

[RandFan]

I think you guys are reading way too much into what this guy said (video in op). The way I hear it is "If there wasn't so much voter fraud, we would win for sure". I think it is very telling how some people here on this board are interpereting what he said as, "We can only win by making it more difficult for people to vote."

The point was made, discussed and conceded.

I think the whole idea that voter ID etc will "disenfranchise" voters is bull. You must show proof of ID to buy alcohol. How often do you think this keeps Americans - rich or poor - from getting their booze?

A.) Drinking alcohol is not a right. B.) I've no doubt that over the long haul voter ID laws would not disenfranchise voters. I support them to the extent they are not used for short term political gain.

50% of the people in this country don't vote as it is, so what's the excuse for that?

It's called a right. America was founded on the proposition that people should be able to choose their political leaders, that includes the freedom to opt out of the process. Liberty is a radical concept I concede but, in my estimation, worth it.

What is more alarming to me is that Obama can give amnesty to 800,000 "16 - 30 year old 'children' of illegal immigrants", several months before an election, and very few people here even make a fuss. Hmmmm, 800,000 illegals, and a push for no voter ID. Smells, dontcha think?

A.) Are you kidding? Since there is no clear and present reason for voter ID then it's the pushing of those laws that smells. Dontcha think?

 

[Neally]

Here is Elections Canada's page on the ID requirements for voters in federal elections.

Basically, a driver's license that has your photo and current address is sufficient. Failing that, two pieces of ID, one of your identity and the other showing your name and address, e.g. a birth certificate and a telephone bill, are sufficient. Failing that, then you can swear an oath and be vouched for by a voter eligible to vote in that area who does have proper identification and is known personally to you.

In other words, the identification bar to pass is not particularly difficult. As a practical matter most folks have a driver's license, or if without that, have a birth certificate/health card/credit card/etc. plus utility bill/bank statement/etc.

Yep. All reasonable security precautions that help insure honest elections. No one is disenfranchised, yet somehow here in the US this becomes an unreasonable hardship that gets the left in a rage.