The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

The GOP War on Voting

In a campaign supported by the Koch brothers, Republicans are working to prevent millions of Democrats from voting next year

As the nation gears up for the 2012 presidential election, Republican officials have launched an unprecedented, centrally coordinated campaign to suppress the elements of the Democratic vote that elected Barack Obama in 2008. Just as Dixiecrats once used poll taxes and literacy tests to bar black Southerners from voting, a new crop of GOP governors and state legislators has passed a series of seemingly disconnected measures that could prevent millions of students, minorities, immigrants, ex-convicts and the elderly from casting ballots. "What has happened this year is the most significant setback to voting rights in this country in a century," says Judith Browne-Dianis, who monitors barriers to voting as co-director of the Advancement Project, a civil rights organization based in Washington, D.C.

Republicans have long tried to drive Democratic voters away from the polls. "I don't want everybody to vote," the influential conservative activist Paul Weyrich told a gathering of evangelical leaders in 1980. "As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down." But since the 2010 election, thanks to a conservative advocacy group founded by Weyrich, the GOP's effort to disrupt voting rights has been more widespread and effective than ever. In a systematic campaign orchestrated by the American Legislative Exchange Council – and funded in part by David and Charles Koch, the billionaire brothers who bankrolled the Tea Party – 38 states introduced legislation this year designed to impede voters at every step of the electoral process.

All told, a dozen states have approved new obstacles to voting. Kansas and Alabama now require would-be voters to provide proof of citizenship before registering. Florida and Texas made it harder for groups like the League of Women Voters to register new voters. Maine repealed Election Day voter registration, which had been on the books since 1973. Five states – Florida, Georgia, Ohio, Tennessee and West Virginia – cut short their early voting periods. Florida and Iowa barred all ex-felons from the polls, disenfranchising thousands of previously eligible voters. And six states controlled by Republican governors and legislatures – Alabama, Kansas, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Wisconsin – will require voters to produce a government-issued ID before casting ballots. More than 10 percent of U.S. citizens lack such identification, and the numbers are even higher among constituencies that traditionally lean Democratic – including 18 percent of young voters and 25 percent of African-Americans.

Taken together, such measures could significantly dampen the Democratic turnout next year – perhaps enough to shift the outcome in favor of the GOP. "One of the most pervasive political movements going on outside Washington today is the disciplined, passionate, determined effort of Republican governors and legislators to keep most of you from voting next time," Bill Clinton told a group of student activists in July. "Why is all of this going on? This is not rocket science. They are trying to make the 2012 electorate look more like the 2010 electorate than the 2008 electorate" – a reference to the dominance of the Tea Party last year, compared to the millions of students and minorities who turned out for Obama. "There has never been in my lifetime, since we got rid of the poll tax and all the Jim Crow burdens on voting, the determined effort to limit the franchise that we see today."

To hear Republicans tell it, they are waging a virtuous campaign to crack down on rampant voter fraud – a curious position for a party that managed to seize control of the White House in 2000 despite having lost the popular vote. After taking power, the Bush administration declared war on voter fraud, making it a "top priority" for federal prosecutors. In 2006, the Justice Department fired two U.S. attorneys who refused to pursue trumped-up cases of voter fraud in New Mexico and Washington, and Karl Rove called illegal voting "an enormous and growing problem." In parts of America, he told the Republican National Lawyers Association, "we are beginning to look like we have elections like those run in countries where the guys in charge are colonels in mirrored sunglasses." According to the GOP, community organizers like ACORN were actively recruiting armies of fake voters to misrepresent themselves at the polls and cast illegal ballots for the Democrats.

Even at the time, there was no evidence to back up such outlandish claims. A major probe by the Justice Department between 2002 and 2007 failed to prosecute a single person for going to the polls and impersonating an eligible voter, which the anti-fraud laws are supposedly designed to stop. Out of the 300 million votes cast in that period, federal prosecutors convicted only 86 people for voter fraud – and many of the cases involved immigrants and former felons who were simply unaware of their ineligibility. A much-hyped investigation in Wisconsin, meanwhile, led to the prosecution of only .0007 percent of the local electorate for alleged voter fraud. "Our democracy is under siege from an enemy so small it could be hiding anywhere," joked Stephen Colbert. A 2007 report by the Brennan Center for Justice, a leading advocate for voting rights at the New York University School of Law, quantified the problem in stark terms. "It is more likely that an individual will be struck by lightning," the report calculated, "than that he will impersonate another voter at the polls."

GOP outcries over the phantom menace of voter fraud escalated after 2008, when Obama's candidacy attracted historic numbers of first-time voters. In the 29 states that record party affiliation, roughly two-thirds of new voters registered as Democrats in 2007 and 2008 – and Obama won nearly 70 percent of their votes. In Florida alone, Democrats added more than 600,000 new voters in the run-up to the 2008 election, and those who went to the polls favored Obama over John McCain by 19 points. "This latest flood of attacks on voting rights is a direct shot at the communities that came out in historic numbers for the first time in 2008 and put Obama over the top," says Tova Wang, an elections-reform expert at Demos, a progressive think tank.

No one has done more to stir up fears about the manufactured threat of voter fraud than Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, a top adviser in the Bush Justice Department who has become a rising star in the GOP. "We need a Kris Kobach in every state," declared Michelle Malkin, the conservative pundit. This year, Kobach successfully fought for a law requiring every Kansan to show proof of citizenship in order to vote – even though the state prosecuted only one case of voter fraud in the past five years. The new restriction fused anti-immigrant hysteria with voter-fraud paranoia. "In Kansas, the illegal registration of alien voters has become pervasive," Kobach claimed, offering no substantiating evidence.

Kobach also asserted that dead people were casting ballots, singling out a deceased Kansan named Alfred K. Brewer as one such zombie voter. There was only one problem: Brewer was still very much alive. The Wichita Eagle found him working in his front yard. "I don't think this is heaven," Brewer told the paper. "Not when I'm raking leaves."

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-gop-war-on-voting-20110830#ixzz21jzKecSv

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/07/republican-virtue-and-the-fraud-of-voter-fraud/260306/

Republican Virtue and the Fraud of Voter FraudBy Ta-Nehisi Coates

Jul 25 2012,

Ezra Klein guest-hosted for Rachel Maddow last night and offered a beautiful primer on the mythical issue of our era:
 
It's worth watching twice. Ezra makes a great point about the "newness" of voter ID laws, and the incredible paucity of claims. Pennsylvania officials have the luxury of having confessed that there has no proof of voter fraud:

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."

... and having confessed to the laws true purpose:

Pennsylvania House Majority Leader Mike Turzai (R) said that the voter ID law passed by the legislature would help deliver the state for Mitt Romney in November. "Pro-Second Amendment? The Castle Doctrine, it's done. First pro-life legislation -- abortion facility regulations -- in 22 years, done. Voter ID, which is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done," Turzai said at this weekend's Republican State Committee meeting ....

One thing to understand is that while voter ID laws are new, attempting to restrict the vote isn't. One corollary to America's historically broad franchise is a deep-seated worry about the maintenance of republican virtue among franchise-holders. Unfortunately the same people who pioneered the notion of "republican virtue" tended to be racist and generally believed that "virtue" could be detected, and ensured, through the most superficial means. This is the context for understanding the vote being restricted to property-owning white men. Property represents a stake in society. Whiteness represents not having the instincts of a baboon. And maleness, of course, means the ability to resist fainting twice a day.

The notion that only certain people should be able to vote is still with us today. In many states, we strip felons of their voting rights because we believe they have shown themselves to not be worthy of the vote, to be lacking in "republican virtue." I'm actually sorry that liberals have mostly abandoned this tradition, and left it to demagogues and white populists. The founders were wrong about virtue being the strict province of white males, but they were deeply wise in their sense that democracies don't run on autopilot. If a law were passed today making literacy illegal, I suspect that the quality of our democracy would quickly decline.

Frankly, I think too little is said today about "republican virtue." I don't think liberals have yet gotten to the point where we can convincingly invoke patriotism, or even a broader nationalism. Passing off quackery as science, and passing off quackery as American history injures our children, thus injuring our citizens, thus injuring our democracy. I think about our need to be perpetually entertained and I worry. I think about our comfort with drones and I worry. A serious conversation about "republican virtue" involves, necessarily, some threat to individual rights. I don't know where that conversation goes. But I wish it were on the table.

ID laws are designed to protect the voting privilege, by restricting it only to people eligible to vote.  If there was another way, perhaps fingerprint scan, or other technology, than great, but for now the best way is through identification document, something that most people have or can easily acquire at no cost.

As for "Right" to vote.  I have yet to find that established in our constitution.  Voting is a privilege extended to those eligible and governed by the states.  Now the constitution and it's amendments does clearly state that you cannot deny people the "right" to vote based on numerous criteria (amendments 15,17,19,23,24,26), but it leaves the establishment of voting eligibility up to the individual states, and purposefully does not establish the tenants of an actual "Right to Vote."

I may be convinced that perhaps this should be changed and an amendment establishing the right to vote should be added to the constitution for the sole purpose of standardizing what has become an increasingly messy process that confuses people.  This certainly constitutes a role of government, and a role that should be managed on the federal level.  After all, the security of our election process is as important as national defense.

I was not aware of the "republican virtue" concept. Maybe by other words. But I am aware of the implications of the last paragraph. By keeping the populace fairly ignorant of the protections the founding fathers included in our system, including the ability to change who has the right to vote, the population is unable to defend against abuses of those protections. They don't even know that they are being abused. In that regard to promote the agenda, it is important to keep public education at a low performing level through general underfunding so that leaders may be culled from the more doctrinaire private schools to ensure the cycle continues.

The final result of this limitation of who has the correct credentials to be considered "voter worthy" is the populace feels exploited, hopeless, second class, and most importantly, lacking in representation. They then find justification for criminal behavior or release through drugs/alcohol and the predictable response from the suburban voting class is more repression, more prisons and less freedoms. As the British found out, this leads to revolution.

I strongly suggest that if you have never had to rely on a wage slave job as an adult that you take the time to meet and talk with those who have. Go hang out at a day labor camp and share with those poor souls who are treated like vermin. Go over to the Salvation Army downtown in the afternoon if your dare. Drop by the downtown library and note who the primary users are and what they are doing on their computer screens or reading in print. Go apply for one of the temporary trash pick up jobs and note your treatment. They won't even offer their hands to shake like any other businessman would because they consider these workers as diseased. Then read one of Gaspar's posts and see if they make sense. We are sowing the seeds of revolution and disguising them as protection from our basic fears.

Quote from: AquaMan on July 26, 2012, 10:36:00 AM

I strongly suggest that if you have never had to rely on a wage slave job as an adult that you take the time to meet and talk with those who have. Go hang out at a day labor camp and share with those poor souls who are treated like vermin. Go over to the Salvation Army downtown in the afternoon if your dare. Drop by the downtown library and note who the primary users are and what they are doing on their computer screens or reading in print. Go apply for one of the temporary trash pick up jobs and note your treatment. They won't even offer their hands to shake like any other businessman would because they consider these workers as diseased. Then read one of Gaspar's posts and see if they make sense. We are sowing the seeds of revolution and disguising them as protection from our basic fears.

WTH has that got to do with voter's rights?  To work day labor or a "slave job" one must have a photo ID.  To get government assistance of any sort requires- you guess it- identifying documents!

Quote from: Conan71 on July 26, 2012, 11:02:32 AM
WTH has that got to do with voter's rights?  To work day labor or a "slave job" one must have a photo ID.  To get government assistance of any sort requires- you guess it- identifying documents!

My remarks are in context with the first two posts. I even referenced the last paragraph of the second post.

And we have had exactly how many acts of voter fraud reported and prosecuted in Oklahoma in the last 20 years?

Quote from: Conan71 on July 26, 2012, 11:02:32 AM
WTH has that got to do with voter's rights?  To work day labor or a "slave job" one must have a photo ID.  To get government assistance of any sort requires- you guess it- identifying documents!

Shhh. He's on a role.

QuoteI strongly suggest that if you have never had to rely on a wage slave job as an adult that you take the time to meet and talk with those who have. Go hang out at a day labor camp and share with those poor souls who are treated like vermin. Go over to the Salvation Army downtown in the afternoon if your dare. Drop by the downtown library and note who the primary users are and what they are doing on their computer screens or reading in print. Go apply for one of the temporary trash pick up jobs and note your treatment. They won't even offer their hands to shake like any other businessman would because they consider these workers as diseased. Then read one of Gaspar's posts and see if they make sense. We are sowing the seeds of revolution and disguising them as protection from our basic fears.

First, I didn't realize we have labor camps?  :D

Second, when I was young, I did everything from trash pickup, to loading rail-road ties, to fueling airplanes.  My co-workers even taught me to speak Spanish.  Never felt mistreated, but it was exhausting, and rather unrewarding, so I moved on.   

When I worked pitching railroad ties, I was about crippled with fatigue at the end of the day.  I used to admire many of the homes where I delivered them, but it never occurred to me or my co-workers to start a revolution because we had to work so hard or get so dirty. When I fueled aircraft and saw the rich guys in their private planes, I admired their success.  They never treated me poorly even though I was filthy and smelt of Jet-A, they still shook my hand when I offered it.  It never occurred to me to revolt because I drove a 22 year old car and couldn't' afford my own helicopter.

I was taught that if I wanted something, it was my responsibility to plot the necessary course to achieve it.  The poverty Aqua speaks of is a symptom of the disease.  To treat it you must identify the root cause.  Attacking the symptom only prolongs the disease. 

If "the poor" were to rise up and demand free this and free that, and big houses, and fast cars, it would do little to actually remedy their situation.  "Poor" is, and should be a transient state of being, not a permanent class.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with being poor, as long as there is a plan to overcome it.  If there are social, educational, or cultural barriers to escaping poverty, those are what deserve attention.

I suppose we are just cut of different cloth. I wish Aqua good luck storming the castle.  Viva la revolution!

Back on subject. . .even when I was young and working menial jobs, I had to have an ID.  Most required a driver's license too.  All required a social security #.  Before I had a bank account I used to go to the Check Cashing place to cash my paycheck.  They too required a photo id.  If there are some people who are able to function in modern society without any form of ID, that's an excellent place for Aqua to start improving the condition of "the poor."  A program that provided transportation and funding so that poor people could get IDs would greatly increase their chances of obtaining employment and therefore escaping poverty.

Perhaps rather than revolution, solid steps could be made at attacking the root causes of that poverty instead decrying the symptom?

Your comprehension skills are diminishing. I said "as an adult". Your childhood and teenager jobs don't qualify.

I don't subscribe to revolution to change politics. That is your effort to marginalize my post. Paint me as some sort of revolutionary Socialist. Fail. I do however, recognize the root causes and behaviors that foment them. We are quickly checking off all the boxes. Read the post from Varada about how the smallest of demonstrations was handled by NYC. Very sobering. We quash dissent these days and covet conformity.

You keep ignoring the facts put in front of you. Its easier that way isn't it? There is no widespread, documented abuse of voting registration in America. We have voted without DL's and photo ID's for over a couple hundred years. Up to 3/4 of a million voters in Pennsylvania do not have drivers license ID's or photo ID's and won't seek them. They are not going to spend money, travel the distances necessary to get something they don't think they need. Yet they still work. They take cabs, they ride bikes, they walk and not all of them need to go get food stamps, welfare or other poor people stuff. Cause they aren't poor in the sense you conceive. They live in a cash society, are leery of government, are suspicious of banks, cops, and politics. I have a friend in that demo that received a huge settlement from a lawsuit. The only thing he uses a bank for is the safe deposit box to put the cash in. They trust their church. They network and they rely on family. When the result of this effort serves to eliminate 750,000 voters in one state alone and the state Republican majority leader brags that he has delivered his state to Romney by doing so, you would think its obvious whats happening. But like I said, you have to be able to see the facts.

Reading yours and Conan's post reminds me. The very people who most need to expose themselves to these groups is the least likely to do so. And no, just working around them in a white collar position doesn't qualify. They will respect you more than you do them.

Quote from: AquaMan on July 26, 2012, 01:38:43 PM
Your comprehension skills are diminishing. I said "as an adult". Your childhood and teenager jobs don't qualify.
Why?


I don't subscribe to revolution to change politics. That is your effort to marginalize my post. Paint me as some sort of revolutionary Socialist. Fail. I do however, recognize the root causes and behaviors that foment them. We are quickly checking off all the boxes. Read the post from Varada about how the smallest of demonstrations was handled by NYC. Very sobering. We quash dissent these days and covet conformity.

You keep ignoring the facts put in front of you. Its easier that way isn't it? There is no widespread, documented abuse of voting registration in America. We have voted without DL's and photo ID's for over a couple hundred years. Up to 3/4 of a million voters in Pennsylvania do not have drivers license ID's or photo ID's and won't seek them. They are not going to spend money, travel the distances necessary to get something they don't think they need. Yet they still work. They take cabs, they ride bikes, they walk and not all of them need to go get food stamps, welfare or other poor people stuff. Cause they aren't poor in the sense you conceive. They live in a cash society, are leery of government, are suspicious of banks, cops, and politics. I have a friend in that demo that received a huge settlement from a lawsuit. The only thing he uses a bank for is the safe deposit box to put the cash in.
How does he access his safe deposit box?  Banks require photo ID to grant access.

They trust their church. They network and they rely on family. When the result of this effort serves to eliminate 750,000 voters in one state alone and the state Republican majority leader brags that he has delivered his state to Romney by doing so, you would think its obvious whats happening. But like I said, you have to be able to see the facts.
The fact is that we do a very poor job of identifying, and prosecuting voter fraud nationwide. We have no mechanism to regulate elections, and we have grown to a point where we need to engage some system to insure vote integrity.  

Reading yours and Conan's post reminds me. The very people who most need to expose themselves to these groups is the least likely to do so. And no, just working around them in a white collar position doesn't qualify. They will respect you more than you do them.

Each election, without exception, results in questions related to vote integrity.  Each count and recount returns statistically insignificant but discrepant numbers that raise questions.  Each state poses it's own set of rules that affect citizens differently, providing advantages for some and disadvantages for others.  The system needs to be standardized, secured, and the results beyond reproach.  No one should feel they need to question election results in this country, that should be a point of pride for us.  If it is necessary for the federal government to issue voter credentials free of charge to every eligible voter, then that is what must be done.  Why is that so distasteful?

And why is it that liberals are so insulting toward minorities making it look like they are too stupid, lazy, and poor to obtain the necessary ID?

Texas AG weighs in on the issue and says in spite of claims to the contrary, minority voter participation has increased as a result of voter ID laws.  If community activist groups have no problem busing people to the polls while providing voter suggestion guides, I submit they could just as easily provide transportation to those people to get the proper identification to vote.

QuoteSome partisans use blustery rhetoric against Texas' voter ID law. But when viewed under a courtroom microscope — under oath — personal beliefs and opinions give way to the proven facts about voter ID: Voter fraud is real, voter ID doesn't suppress votes, and the U.S. Supreme Court has already approved voter ID as a legal, nondiscriminatory response to voter fraud.

As Texas' attorney general, I've prosecuted voter fraud across the state, including people who voted using dead people's names; a candidate who unlawfully registered ineligible foreign nationals to vote; a man who voted twice on Election Day; an election worker who attempted to vote for someone else with the same last name; and a person who used someone else's registration card to vote. In addition to the many cases my office has prosecuted, other county, state and federal authorities have handled countless voter fraud investigations.

The recent voter ID trial revealed even more disturbing voter fraud. Texas has more than 50,000 dead people registered to vote. Even worse, at least 239 dead people voted in the May election — 213 of them in person. State Sen. Tommy Williams testified that ballots have been cast for his long-deceased grandfather. A person even attempted to vote for an inmate.

State Reps. Jose Aliseda and Aaron Peña testified that South Texas is plagued with voter fraud. Rep. Aliseda also testified that non-citizens voted in Bee County elections. In the past year, hundreds of people who claimed they were non-citizens had to be removed from the voter rolls.

Voter ID critics turn a blind eye to illegal voting and instead rail against voter ID as discriminatory and disenfranchising. The facts prove otherwise. Opponents of voter ID were unable to produce a single Texan who would be unable to vote because of the voter ID law. States with voter ID laws have seen minority vote participation increase, not decrease. Texas makes it easy to comply with the law by providing a free photo ID to any eligible voter who doesn't have one. Also, voters who are disabled or older than 65 can vote by mail — so they can vote without a photo ID.

Even the star witness hired to testify against Texas' voter ID law agrees that photo ID laws prevent "almost no one" from voting and has stated that the voting rights concerns raised by partisans who oppose voter ID laws are "overblown." That star witness also agrees that comparing voter ID laws to Jim Crow and poll tax laws is unjustified.

Just four years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed that voter ID laws are nondiscriminatory and perfectly constitutional. The high court held that even in states unable to prove voter impersonation, voter ID laws are justified by the need to protect the integrity of the election process. The court emphasized that the inconvenience of gathering all the required documents, going to the department of motor vehicles, and posing for a photo is simply not an infringement on the right to vote.

Voter ID laws do not prevent legal votes. Instead, they ensure legal votes are not diluted by illegal ones. Fraudulent voting must be stopped, and voter ID laws will help us stop it.

Greg Abbott is attorney general of Texas.


Read more: http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/commentary/article/Voter-ID-does-not-suppress-votes-3735206.php#ixzz21l02RO3V

Quote from: Conan71 on July 26, 2012, 02:12:40 PM
And why is it that liberals are so insulting toward minorities making it look like they are too stupid, lazy, and poor to obtain the necessary ID?

Texas AG weighs in on the issue and says in spite of claims to the contrary, minority voter participation has increased as a result of voter ID laws.  If community activist groups have no problem busing people to the polls while providing voter suggestion guides, I submit they could just as easily provide transportation to those people to get the proper identification to vote.

Additionally that would probably help some of those same people struggling to find a job.  Two birds, one stone.  Helping people acquire the tools for success and participation in self government.  Excellent idea!

Quote from: Gaspar on July 26, 2012, 02:42:53 PM
Additionally that would probably help some of those same people struggling to find a job.  Two birds, one stone.  Helping people acquire the tools for success and participation in self government.  Excellent idea!

That's just crazy talk Gaspar!  You are hearing smile again!

Quote from: Gaspar on July 26, 2012, 02:03:37 PM
Each election, without exception, results in questions related to vote integrity.  Each count and recount returns statistically insignificant but discrepant numbers that raise questions.  Each state poses it's own set of rules that affect citizens differently, providing advantages for some and disadvantages for others.  The system needs to be standardized, secured, and the results beyond reproach.  No one should feel they need to question election results in this country, that should be a point of pride for us.  If it is necessary for the federal government to issue voter credentials free of charge to every eligible voter, then that is what must be done.  Why is that so distasteful?

I can't make this quote thing work so I'll just muddle through.

You aren't even asking the correct questions in your red highlighted answers. Of course in context of my post adult wage slaves are quite different from a teenager working for minimum wage. Not as much expected from a teenager, they don't take the job seriously because they either have a safety net (family) or are working temporarily till finishing high school or going to college. They live for the moment. Big difference from a guy who is responsible for himself, his family and whose job security is paramount. He is also treated by his employer in a different manner.

My friend with the safety deposit box does have a DL. He doesn't vote though and thinks the government has tried to decimate his race by introducing street drugs. Not an uncommon belief in his culture. The point was the description of his culture. Don't be so narrow in your reading.

The fact is that we do a very poor job of identifying, and prosecuting voter fraud nationwide. We have no mechanism to regulate elections, and we have grown to a point where we need to engage some system to insure vote integrity.   How do you know we do a poor job? Where are the specific indicators of this failure? If they are not being prosecuted...why? Where is the indication that vote integrity is missing? How in the world have we survived two centuries of these so called failures? In fact elections are regulated, just not to the satisfaction of a small subset of the process. If it were truly unregulated and suspect the entire Congress, all parties to the system and the law enforcement agencies would ALL sign off on this movement. You are in fact trying to justify something that seems logical and apparent to all. It is neither.

I have voted since I was 18 and until the last primary I have never been asked for a DL, a Photo ID or a SS card even though I dutifully bring them along with my registration card every single time. They asked my name. They asked my party affiliation. They asked my address. If I was able to successfully answer all three the odds are I was that guy. If I had wanted to deceive them no law could stop me. You simply have to have some faith.

Your last paragraph is perplexing having read your previous Libertarian, small government posts. Its not that i disagree with it. It would mean a large expenditure for a program that would be national and expensive, has no demonstrated need in fact, and that now belongs to each state to administer. A power grab by the Feds to solve a problem that doesn't exist and creates a new bureaucracy. So we can all have a good feeling about voting. Even in Florida. Just what DO you believe in?

Quote from: Conan71 on July 26, 2012, 11:02:32 AM
To work day labor or a "slave job" one must have a photo ID.  To get government assistance of any sort requires- you guess it- identifying documents!

You need a social security card or other proof of work eligibility, presuming your employer follows the law. You do not need a photo ID. And it's not because they're stupid or lazy, it's because there are a lot of hoops that must be jumped through to get a photo ID. It's not nearly as easy as you make it seem:

Quote
Let's say your're one of my homeless patients who's interested in voting. You don't have a photo ID, so I send you to one of the social workers on staff, and she refers you to a PennDOT location (Bus fare: $2). Well, don't spend those $2 just yet there, friend, because you need the following documentation to get your ID:

    To obtain a Pennsylvania Photo Identification card, an individual needs to visit a Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Driver License Center with a completed Application for an Initial Photo Identification Card; form DL-54A, and the following:



    Social Security Card

    AND

    One of the following:
    Certificate of U.S. Citizenship
    Certificate of Naturalization
    Valid U.S. Passport
    Birth Certificate with a raised seal


    PLUS


    Two proofs of *residency such as lease agreements, current utility bills, mortgage documents, W-2 form, tax records

Let's start with your social security card. Well, four months ago PennDOT broke up your homeless encampment. You were away so they took your tent, your blankets, all your clothing, and, most importantly, your papers. Now how are you going to prove who you are?

Let's start by getting you a new copy of your social security card. Replacements are free, but you need to prove your identity and your citizenship status to get one, which requires (at the very least) a certified copy of a medical record and a birth certificate. The medical record is easy enough-- you had an abscess drained at the ER just last week and can go get a free copy there (Bus fare: $2). The birth certificate is more tricky. Because you don't have a photo ID, you need to have a family member, social worker, or other " eligible requestor" vouch for you, and maybe also lend you the $10 processing fee. Of course, you'll also need two documents with your name and address on them. OOPS YOU'RE HOMELESS. SORRY.

But for the sake of completeness, let's continue with our thought experiment. Maybe the needle exchange allows you to use their mailing address and you, somehow, manage to generate two pieces of official mail with your name on them. You send that stuff in (Stamp: $0.44) and wait a couple weeks. The birth certificate arrives, so you take that, along with a couple pieces of junk mail to the social security office (Bus fare: $2), and they give you a new card. Now you're cooking with gas. It's pretty expensive gas, considering that you've already spent $14.44 to get to this point (damn Obama!). But here you are. You, with your birth certificate, your social security card, and a few pieces of what everyone else calls "junk mail" but is all of a sudden so precious that THREE government agencies need to see it. Time to go down to PennDOT and claim what's rightfully yours (Bus fare: $2).

You arrive at the office, too excited to contain yourself. It's time for you to exercise your franchise. You wait in line for an hour and eventually find yourself standing in front of a PennDOT representative. You try not to think of their colleagues tearing apart your campsite under the bridge as you smile and say, "I'm here to get my voter ID."

"That'll be $13.50," says the clerk. AH AH AH YOU DIDN'T SAY THE MAGIC WORD yt ! See, you were supposed to say the word "free" in order to have your fee waived. Saying anything other than "I need a free ID so that I can vote" could be interpreted as "please charge me $13.50 for something that should have been free." Well, you didn't need that $13.50 anyway, just like you didn't need the $10 for your replacement birth certificate or the $6 you spent on bus fare. You're an unemployed homeless person, so it was totally reasonable for you to pay $29.50 and spend several days to get your free voter ID.

Congratulations. You've made it. Now go exercise your franchise. Or maybe you didn't have $13.50 and didn't make it. Well, here's hoping that there are folks out there who will exercise their franchises with your interests in mind. Without wanting to come off as harsh, your prospects do not look so good.

And once again, I'm looking for the evidence of widespread fraud by voters. If you want to secure the voting system, how about making the bucking electronic machines print out the damn ballot so it can be verified by the voter and usefully recounted later? Making it simple and easy to change tens of thousands or even millions of votes in one whack is a much bigger threat to our system of government than ineligible individuals attempting to vote.

It's a little bit funny how everything comes down to "I'm responsible but those people are not, so they should be punished" lately.

Quote from: AquaMan on July 26, 2012, 03:19:29 PM


Your last paragraph is perplexing having read your previous Libertarian, small government posts. Its not that i disagree with it. It would mean a large expenditure for a program that would be national and expensive, has no demonstrated need in fact, and that now belongs to each state to administer. A power grab by the Feds to solve a problem that doesn't exist and creates a new bureaucracy. So we can all have a good feeling about voting. Even in Florida. Just what DO you believe in?

The primary purpose of government is security.  Securing us against international threats, and securing our rights against infringement by others.  The constitution makes this very clear.  Our representative republic is based on the concept of democratic election.  Therefore to secure the integrity of the republic, it is necessary to secure the integrity of the voting process.  That cannot be done in a loose system where individual states have the power to establish voting eligibility.  

As a Libertarian there are several places where I believe that the government has no right to go, but when it comes to the defense of our country and our system of government, that is exactly where government needs to be.  If Nate, above, believes that acquiring an ID is just too hard for these poor poor people, then the process needs to be changed so that everyone has the ability to properly identify themselves at the polling place.  This helps the country, it does not hurt anyone.

Quote from: Gaspar on July 26, 2012, 05:01:18 PM
The primary purpose of government is security.  Securing us against international threats, and securing our rights against infringement by others.  The constitution makes this very clear.  Our representative republic is based on the concept of democratic election.  Therefore to secure the integrity of the republic, it is necessary to secure the integrity of the voting process.  That cannot be done in a loose system where individual states have the power to establish voting eligibility.  

As a Libertarian there are several places where I believe that the government has no right to go, but when it comes to the defense of our country and our system of government, that is exactly where government needs to be.  If Nate, above, believes that acquiring an ID is just too hard for these poor poor people, then the process needs to be changed so that everyone has the ability to properly identify themselves at the polling place.  This helps the country, it does not hurt anyone.

National defense as an excuse for costly government expansion into states rights without reasonable suspicion of dereliction by the state?

I'm sorry. I just can't see if your eyes are darting left to right as you say such things. Or hear your voice move up as your sphincter tightens. I suspect you're sweating as well.

You haven't asked but I'll offer my solution to your voting qualms. I like your nationalization concept. I like the Scandinavian model where everyone is legally required to vote. They have 100% compliance. Just like having to register for Selective Service, file taxes or obtain licenses, you will be required to vote in national elections. Everyone should receive their ballots either by certified mail, in their e-mail, over their cell or available free at central locations (bus stations, dept. of human services, police stations, cell phone stores or movie theaters in the suburbs. Every ballot has an identifying control number. It is related directly to only those who have responded to the last census. Those who turn 18 within the 10 years after the census must request a form at any of the free sites. They may elect to receive the ballot on removeable memory sticks or dvd's if they wish. And its all free. Just be over 18 and a citizen. We don't even care if you're drunk or high.

We keep track of tax returns, we keep track of the population personally with census reports and we keep track of the mail. And its all free. This should be "simplement".

What? You think this is ripe for manipulation, fraud, counterfeit ballots, ballots for sale, etc.? You think lots of people are at risk for not being counted by the census? That its expensive and time consuming? You're right. Just like the current and proposed systems. You either have faith in your government and its people or you spend inordinate amounts of time and money proving that they are not worthy of your faith. Choose.

Quote from: Gaspar on July 26, 2012, 05:01:18 PM
The primary purpose of government is security.  Securing us against international threats, and securing our rights against infringement by others.  The constitution makes this very clear.  Our representative republic is based on the concept of democratic election.  Therefore to secure the integrity of the republic, it is necessary to secure the integrity of the voting process.  That cannot be done in a loose system where individual states have the power to establish voting eligibility.  

Really? It seems to have worked reasonably well for over 200 years. Funny how states rights are everything, except when they're not. Seems like you haven't fully bought into the Libertarian ideal. As a former little-l libertarian, I find the expectation that everyone have and carry their papers with them more than a little disturbing.

Quote
If [...] acquiring an ID is just too hard for these poor poor people, then the process needs to be changed so that everyone has the ability to properly identify themselves at the polling place.

Ok, how about we change the process for getting ID before disenfranchising a million people or more? Over 10% of registered Pennsylvania voters do not have photo ID. Yes, these are people who have already registered and voted in at least one previous election and have no photo ID.

Of course, any time you read a post of mine on the subject of voting, you have to remember that I'm the crazy guy who thinks that felons presently in prison should be allowed to vote. I take voting so seriously that I think that any citizen should be able to vote, period. I want more voting, not less. It seems that some folks believe less voting is the goal.

Quote from: nathanm on July 26, 2012, 06:27:08 PM
I take voting so seriously that I think that any citizen should be able to vote, period.

I take voting seriously too,  so seriously that I believe that someone who has such little respect for our society by breaking serious laws and is convicted for the same, deserves a break from voting while paying their dues to society.  Once they have served their punishment for violating the rights of other citizens, then they could be reinstated as voters.

Quote from: nathanm on July 26, 2012, 06:27:08 PM
Ok, how about we change the process for getting ID before disenfranchising a million people or more?

OK, change the process first.  Do you really think that people without ID now will get one until they are forced to get ID to be able to vote?  I don't. There will always be someone with an excuse for not having an ID.

Just as there will always be people to blame them for their circumstances.

Quote from: nathanm on July 26, 2012, 06:27:08 PM
Really? It seems to have worked reasonably well for over 200 years. Funny how states rights are everything, except when they're not. Seems like you haven't fully bought into the Libertarian ideal. As a former little-l libertarian, I find the expectation that everyone have and carry their papers with them more than a little disturbing.

Ok, how about we change the process for getting ID before disenfranchising a million people or more? Over 10% of registered Pennsylvania voters do not have photo ID. Yes, these are people who have already registered and voted in at least one previous election and have no photo ID.

Of course, any time you read a post of mine on the subject of voting, you have to remember that I'm the crazy guy who thinks that felons presently in prison should be allowed to vote. I take voting so seriously that I think that any citizen should be able to vote, period. I want more voting, not less. It seems that some folks believe less voting is the goal.

Did you bother to read the article from the Texas AG?  They are finding that Voter ID is actually increasing minority participation in the voting process, not disenfranchising them.

Secondly, how easy is it for you to fly without identifying documents?  I'm very Libertarian, yet I appreciate that the DMV, my bank, the grocer, etc. are willing to make sure I'm the one actually executing financial instruments (i.e. checks, cash back on deposits, using a credit or debit card- though I will admit I rarely get asked for my DL with a credit card purchase, other than when they flip the card over and see that I've inscribed "check ID" on the signature section).  I'm also cool with a cop asking for my DL if I get pulled over.

I really don't get the paranoia over carrying identifying documents when there's so much ID fraud these days.

Quote from: nathanm on July 26, 2012, 09:33:11 PM
Just as there will always be people to blame them for their circumstances.

And people to blame "the system" for pretty much everything.

Quote from: Conan71 on July 26, 2012, 10:32:29 PM
I really don't get the paranoia over carrying identifying documents when there's so much ID fraud these days.

I don't get why what you happen to think is the best way for you to live your life means that everyone else has to give up that same freedom you choose to discard. Not that that is even the point. The point is that whether it's a good idea or not, whether it causes them other trouble or not, many people, including registered voters, lack the ID necessary to vote in some states.

Without a damn good reason, like some wave of voting fraud, I don't think it's a great idea to make it harder to exercise one of our most fundamental freedoms. By essentially eliminating their right to vote you're saying that people who can't or won't get photo ID don't deserve a say in any part of government, including whether or not they have the right to vote without some kind of extra hoop jumping. That's scary. Less racist than the original poll taxes and literacy tests, but no less pernicious.

We already have terribly low registration rates and terribly low turnout rates among those who are registered. Do we really want to reduce participation even further?

Quote from: Conan71 on July 26, 2012, 10:32:29 PM


I really don't get the paranoia over carrying identifying documents when there's so much ID fraud these days.

Crockoshit. Listen Conan, the lack of integrity and the lies need to stop. PROVE there's voter ID fraud of any significance. Prove what determines an ID is valid or invalid.

Do you cheat?

Reducing the electorate through this process is cheating. Are you a cheater?

Tom Corbett doesn't even know what his law says. He can't even say what's considered valid and he signed the requirement into law.



INCREASE THE VOTER POOL IN AMERICA...it's our tradition and it's patriotic. Are you a patriot? Voter suppression laws are designed to screw Obama out of hundreds of thousands of voters. Great for the cheaters and radicals... The horror.

Quote from: nathanm on July 27, 2012, 12:04:51 AM
you're saying that people who can't or won't get photo ID don't deserve a say in any part of government,

So you are saying there is no personal responsibility that should be required to vote?

Seems easy enough to me.    The majority enacted a law requiring Photo ID to vote.   

As much as I hate to say it, the democratic process won out.

Quote from: TeeDub on July 27, 2012, 08:52:17 AM
Seems easy enough to me.    The majority enacted a law requiring Photo ID to vote.   

As much as I hate to say it, the democratic process won out.

I don't remember voting on it or any of my representatives asking my opinion. Some court rulings have gone against the voting laws. That is democracy as well, yet, the majority party continues to appeal. When a new majority arrives will you all be happy when they repeal these laws? Its politics, not good legislation.

Even though there is little or no evidence of voter fraud nationwide I would believe that there is some fraud occurring in places like Florida, Texas and Illinois. LBJ, Kennedy, Nixon, Bush 2 all played fast and loose. But, I am reminded of what a banker once told me as a young man when I questioned one of their practices as being subject to loss. "Son, we spill more money than that just taking it to the vault."

My point is that if you think these laws are designed to clean up the process or would be effective at that goal you are mistaken. Every large scale operation has some spillage. Romney noted that at the London Olympics yesterday. As long as it is recognized and minimized you're fine.

This has a different goal and players at the state level are pretty blunt about it. That's why it isn't a national initiative. It would never pass muster. Its targeting strong Democratic areas in critical states.

Quote from: AquaMan on July 27, 2012, 09:16:32 AM


This has a different goal and players at the state level are pretty blunt about it. That's why it isn't a national initiative. It would never pass muster. Its targeting strong Democratic areas in critical states.

Only 19 of the 50 (or 57) states allow you to vote without some form of ID.  Many are battleground states, and many are "fly-over" country for Democrats.  It's only natural that the push would be more prevalent in states that have more impact on the election, however, as stated above, all states should be held to the same standard.

This is nothing more than a Republican attack on miorities, the poor and the elderly which normally vote Democratic. There is nothing more or less sinister than that going on here.
If the government wants to require photo IDs before a citizen can vote then the government needs to deliver those IDs to the citizens. 

Quote from: Teatownclown on July 27, 2012, 12:40:09 AM
Crockoshit. Listen Conan, the lack of integrity and the lies need to stop. PROVE there's voter ID fraud of any significance. Prove what determines an ID is valid or invalid.

Do you cheat?

Reducing the electorate through this process is cheating. Are you a cheater?

Tom Corbett doesn't even know what his law says. He can't even say what's considered valid and he signed the requirement into law.

INCREASE THE VOTER POOL IN AMERICA...it's our tradition and it's patriotic. Are you a patriot? Voter suppression laws are designed to screw Obama out of hundreds of thousands of voters. Great for the cheaters and radicals... The horror.

'Scuze me...the quote you snatched from my post is about the necessity for photo ID these days as IDENTITY FRAUD is a very real problem.

Not sure what your screed about cheating is all about.  PWI last night?

CONANSBURRIED!

see, even a comic strip can out smarts Conan.

(http://assets.amuniversal.com/c542c340b350012f8015001dd8b71c47)

Here's an interesting examination, speaking statistically on how the voter ID laws could affect voter turn-out.  According to the author the Pennsylvania law's effects are grossly over-stated:

QuoteWith that said, there is also not necessarily a reason to think that the laws would reduce turnout by more than a couple of percentage points. It's important to keep the following in mind:

The vast majority of adults do have some sort of identification.
Many people who do not have identification are not registered to vote — or if they are registered, they are unlikely to turn out.
The laws may be inconsistently enforced by thousands and thousands of poll workers at the precinct level.
In many cases, voters without proper identification can cast a provisional ballot, which could eventually be counted in the event of a vote-counting dispute.
The campaigns have an opportunity to educate their voters about ID requirements as part of their turnout operations.
News media accounts, like some of those about the new voter ID laws in Pennsylvania, sometimes seize on the most dramatic estimates of the effects of these laws — rather than the most accurate ones.

It has been reported, for instance, that about 750,000 Pennsylvanians, or about 9 percent of the state's registered voter pool, do not have a ID issued by the state's Department of Transportation. The 750,000-voter figure, however, includes some cases where there are database-matching problems: for instance, a woman is listed by her married surname in one database and her maiden surname in another may be included on that list, even though she should have few problems voting. It includes some cases of voters whose registrations are inactive. And it includes voters who will have some valid form of ID other than that issued by the Department of Transportation, like a passport, which would still make them eligible to vote. Based on the experiences of other states, it is more likely that these laws will prevent something like 2 or 3 percent of registered voters from actually casting a ballot, rather than 9 percent.

Still, that could be meaningful depending on which candidate these voters would have chosen. None of the studies I mentioned have sought to measure how a decline in turnout could effect the Democratic and Republican candidates in particular, rather than the overall figure.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/15/measuring-the-effects-of-voter-identification-laws/

Keep in mind, these are estimates, but the effects are grossly over-stated.

(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/07/15/us/politics/15fivethirtyeight-id-law-table/15fivethirtyeight-id-law-table-custom1.png)

Quote from: carltonplace on July 27, 2012, 09:41:29 AM
This is nothing more than a Republican attack on miorities, the poor and the elderly which normally vote Democratic. There is nothing more or less sinister than that going on here.
If the government wants to require photo IDs before a citizen can vote then the government needs to deliver those IDs to the citizens. 

Tattoos are the answer. Surely we could tattoo a number for voting purposes only. Maybe digitize it. Embed a gps locator. That sort of thing. Can't be too much effort to protect the integrity, the safety and the national defense of the country. ;)

Conan, er CROWnan, where are the swing states?

Quote from: AquaMan on July 27, 2012, 09:47:32 AM
Tattoos are the answer. Surely we could tattoo a number for voting purposes only. Maybe digitize it. Embed a gps locator. That sort of thing. Can't be too much effort to protect the integrity, the safety and the national defense of the country. ;)

Only tatoo those filthy lefty hippie communist democrats. Republicans are wealthy and urbane enough to afford photo IDs and assault rifles.

More proof that facts are like kryptonite to liberals:

QuoteBy HANS VON SPAKOVSKY

Remember the storm that arose on the political left after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Indiana's voter ID law last April? According to the left, voter ID was a dastardly Republican plot to prevent Democrats from winning elections by suppressing the votes of minorities, particularly African-Americans.

Since the election of Barack Obama, we haven't heard a word about such claims. On Jan. 14, the federal appeals court in Atlanta upheld Georgia's voter ID law.

The reasons for the silence about alleged voter suppression is plain. In the first place, numerous academic studies show that voter ID had no effect on the turnout of voters in prior elections. The plaintiffs in every unsuccessful lawsuit filed against such state requirements could not produce a single individual who didn't either already have an ID or couldn't easily get one.

Second are the figures emerging from the November election. If what liberals claimed was true, Democratic voters in states with strict photo ID requirements would presumably have had a much more difficult time voting, and their turnout dampened in comparison to other states. Well, that myth can finally be laid to rest.

The two states with the strictest voter ID requirements are Indiana and Georgia. Both require a government-issued photo ID. According to figures released by Prof. Michael McDonald of George Mason University, the overall national turnout of eligible voters was 61.6%, the highest turnout since the 1964 election.

The Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies (JCPES) found that black turnout in the 2008 election was at a historic high, having increased substantially from 2004. The total share of black voters in the national vote increased from 11% to 13% according to exit polls, with 95% of blacks voting for Mr. Obama.

So what happened in Georgia where the ACLU, the NAACP and other such groups claimed the state's photo ID law was intended to depress black turnout? According to figures released by Curtis Gans at American University, Georgia had the largest turnout in its history, with nearly four million voters. The Republican turnout was up only 0.22 percentage points; the Democratic turnout was up an astonishing 6.1 percentage points, rising from 22.66% of the eligible voting population to 28.74% of the eligible population.

The overall turnout in Georgia increased 6.7 percentage points from the 2004 election -- the second highest increase in turnout of any state in the country. According to the JCPES, the black share of the statewide vote increased in Georgia from 25% in the 2004 election, when the photo ID law was not in effect, to 30% in the 2008 election, when the photo ID law was in effect.

By contrast, the Democratic turnout in the neighboring state of Mississippi -- which has no voter ID requirement but also has a large black population similar to Georgia's -- increased by only 2.35 percentage points.

In Indiana, which the Supreme Court said had the strictest voter ID law in the country, the turnout of Democratic voters in the November election increased by 8.32 percentage points. That was the largest increase in Democratic turnout of any state in the country. The increase in overall turnout in Indiana was the fifth highest in the country, but only because the turnout of Republican voters actually went down 3.57 percentage points. The nearby state of Illinois (no photo ID requirement) had an increase in Democratic turnout of only 4.4 percentage points -- nearly half Indiana's increase.

QuoteThe Supreme Court answered this question in 2008 when it upheld Indiana's voter ID law. "Flagrant examples of such fraud ... have been documented throughout this Nation's history by respected historians and journalists," the court said, "[and] not only is the risk of voter fraud real but that it could affect the outcome of a close election." But ask voters in Troy, N.Y., Lincoln County, W.Va., and Florida whether voter fraud is a real problem.

Four local officials and party activists were convicted in 2011 of voter fraud in Troy for forging enough absentee ballots to "likely have tipped the city council and county elections" in 2009. Two veteran Democratic political operatives said voter fraud is an accepted way of winning elections. One of them who pled guilty, Anthony DeFiglio, told police that such fraud was a "normal political tactic."

[See a collection of political cartoons on the Republican Party.]

And it is the most vulnerable who are far too often the victims of vote thieves. DeFiglio admitted that the "people who are targeted live in low-income housing ... [T]here is a sense that they are a lot less likely to ask any questions."

In March 2012, the county sheriff and clerk in Lincoln County, W.Va., pled guilty to voter fraud. They stuffed enough bogus absentee ballots into ballot boxes to change the outcome of a 2010 Democratic primary election. Was this a one-time incident? Probably not, since the Lincoln County auditor was also found guilty of voter fraud in 2005.

http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/is-voter-fraud-a-real-problem/voter-fraud-is-a-proven-election-manipulation-tactic

Quote"The electoral system cannot inspire public confidence if no safeguards exist to deter or detect fraud or to confirm the identity of voters." That was the conclusion of the bipartisan Commission on Federal Election Reform, headed by former president Jimmy Carter and former secretary of State James Baker. The commission recommended stronger photo-identification requirements at the polls. Its logic was straightforward and convincing: Americans must show photo identification for all kinds of day-to-day activities, such as cashing checks or entering government buildings. The many photo ID requirements we encounter in our daily lives are legitimate, effective security measures. Securing the ballot box is just as important.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/story/2012-03-19/voter-ID-Texas-fraud/53658158/1

Quote from: AquaMan on July 27, 2012, 09:47:32 AM
Tattoos are the answer. Surely we could tattoo a number for voting purposes only. Maybe digitize it. Embed a gps locator. That sort of thing. Can't be too much effort to protect the integrity, the safety and the national defense of the country. ;)

I think on the forehead perhaps. . .

Why not just use a simple fingerprint recognition?
(http://www.timeclocksoft.com/fingerprintreader2.jpg)

Other countries use fingerprints to vote, why don't we? 

Crownan, that article is off logic....apples compared to oranges. No need to re-jigger our voting rights act. It's worked well since the 60's.

Why do you highlight Carter in red when it's LBJ you should be targeting.

I don't think Spazzoffski understands the difference between a private company insuring against losses and what makes for a free society.

Quote from: Gaspar on July 27, 2012, 10:04:05 AM
I think on the forehead perhaps. . .

Why not just use a simple fingerprint recognition?
(http://www.timeclocksoft.com/fingerprintreader2.jpg)

Other countries use fingerprints to vote, why don't we?  

You know the democrats would still cheat by bringing other people's fingers to the polling place.

Quote from: carltonplace on July 27, 2012, 03:37:48 PM
You know the democrats would still cheat by bringing other people's fingers to the polling place.

I hear that happens all the time in the Phillipines.

Quote from: Conan71 on July 27, 2012, 09:46:00 AM
Here's an interesting examination, speaking statistically on how the voter ID laws could affect voter turn-out.  According to the author the Pennsylvania law's effects are grossly over-stated:

Keep in mind, these are estimates, but the effects are grossly over-stated.

(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/07/15/us/politics/15fivethirtyeight-id-law-table/15fivethirtyeight-id-law-table-custom1.png)

Wow, I would be pissed if I were part of that 1% you think doesn't deserve to get to vote because of some wild hair up your donkey. That's just asinine. You still haven't given any indication of how or why this is actually necessary. Note that this does nothing to change how absentee ballots work, so talking about fraud in absentee ballots is completely irrelevant. Also, my mother would tut-tut at you for trying to take away her right to vote, were she still alive.

As far as turnout increases, if you don't control for increased population size and shifts in demographics, your numbers are worthless. Georgia is one of the states which is growing by leaps and bounds.

Lastly, I'll leave you with this gem:



I guess we shouldn't listen to the architects of this particular scam when deciding whether or not their motivations are suspect... (fast forward to 13 seconds if you like)

Edited to add: For my part, I figure any law that doesn't include the voter registration card or student IDs as acceptable ID for voting is actually intended to reduce turnout. If the goal was actually to reduce fraud, those forms of ID would be just as good as any other.

Quote from: nathanm on July 27, 2012, 05:17:04 PM
Wow, I would be pissed if I were part of that 1% you think doesn't deserve to get to vote because of some wild hair up your donkey. That's just asinine. You still haven't given any indication of how or why this is actually necessary. Note that this does nothing to change how absentee ballots work, so talking about fraud in absentee ballots is completely irrelevant. Also, my mother would tut-tut at you for trying to take away her right to vote, were she still alive.

As far as turnout increases, if you don't control for increased population size and shifts in demographics, your numbers are worthless. Georgia is one of the states which is growing by leaps and bounds.

Lastly, I'll leave you with this gem:

I guess we shouldn't listen to the architects of this particular scam when deciding whether or not their motivations are suspect... (fast forward to 13 seconds if you like)

Edited to add: For my part, I figure any law that doesn't include the voter registration card or student IDs as acceptable ID for voting is actually intended to reduce turnout. If the goal was actually to reduce fraud, those forms of ID would be just as good as any other.

(http://b.vimeocdn.com/ps/763/763256_300.jpg)

Quote from: Conan71 on July 27, 2012, 06:57:43 PM
(http://b.vimeocdn.com/ps/763/763256_300.jpg)

Gotta admit though.  Turzai put foot squarely in mouth there.

Republican leaders, including governors, are on record as saying that the point of voter id and other laws is to excluded e people who are likely to vote democrat.  Voter fraud is a myth.  The issues that are challenged are not fixed by these laws ajd by signing the register there is already a base line control (ever gone to sign and had a fraudster sign your name?).

Ive challenged election results in court and know the system.

To try to win elections by excluding voters is very disappointing.

What's more, voting IS a right the state must have q compelling interest to deny.

Quote from: Conan71 on July 27, 2012, 06:57:43 PM
(http://b.vimeocdn.com/ps/763/763256_300.jpg)

Funny how it's spin when a Republican lets slip his intentions and makes no attempt to clarify his remarks, yet it's fair game to take Obama's words out of context to try to portray him as a Kenyan muslim socialist. ("But..But..," he stammered, "Obama actually is a Kenyan muslim socialist, so it's OK!")

How's that new independent thing working out for you?

How can you prove or disprove voter fraud when no ID is required?  I have always wondered why NO ID was required.  My parents worked the polls for many years.  They obviously knew me when I came to vote.  What about a new person to the precinct that nobody knows?  I think they should be required to present some kind of ID.  It is discrimination to require some and not all to present proof of identity.  I will agree that for voting that ID should be without cost to the voter.

I'm going to have to ask if "you guys" against voter ID believe there should be ANY requirements to vote in the USA.  Nathan has said he believes convicted felons serving their sentence should be allowed to vote. How about undocumented aliens (not the space type)?  How about tourists?  Should someone who nominally lives in Kansas be allowed to vote in a local Oklahoma election?  These are (to me) obvious exaggerations but I am beginning to believe some of you really don't care who votes.

Quote from: nathanm on July 27, 2012, 09:28:36 PM
Funny how it's spin when a Republican lets slip his intentions and makes no attempt to clarify his remarks, yet it's fair game to take Obama's words out of context to try to portray him as a Kenyan muslim socialist. ("But..But..," he stammered, "Obama actually is a Kenyan muslim socialist, so it's OK!")

How's that new independent thing working out for you?

And finally the ad hominem.  That's rare for you.

Sorry if my viewpoint offends some people, but I was brought up by very patriotic parents who taught me that voting is a very sacred privilege we enjoy as Americans and it's a serious responsibility.  Voter fraud is very much well-documented throughout the history of this country.  Claiming it's minor because it's not always caught and prosecuted is like pretending the cost of shoplifting isn't included in the price of the items you buy at the store.  

And yes, my father was a Democrat as well as a district court judge, whom I believe would have agreed the sanctity of voting is secured by only properly-qualified voters (as defined by state law) being allowed to vote.  

Facts are facts, two of the states which enacted what are considered the most restrictive voting laws experienced increased minority participation at the polls in the 2008 election.  You can try to assign an increase in population to the phenomena, yet Indiana was one of the states losing jobs at a rapid pace in 2008.  I seriously doubt that was a state people were flocking to unless they were anxious to get on the unemployment rolls.  But, if you wish to work such an angle, how many people make it one of their first priorities to register to vote when they relocate to a new state or even to a new voting precinct.

Speaking of which, you do realize that continuing to vote in your old district after you've moved to a new district is voter fraud, right?  Votes for Tulsa City Council have been thrown out before for multiple people voting in a district they no longer live in.  Being registered to vote in more than one municipality or state is also an example of voter fraud.

As well, the 795,000 "disenfranchised voters" in Pennsylvania is proven to be an over-blown statistic.  I think it's really disgusting the media goes for the most inflammatory estimates to create controversy and increase readership, listenership, or viewership rather than simply digging a little deeper and reporting the real facts.

If Republican governors really believe such laws help secure republican victories, they would do well to read the stats and realize potential voter loss is equal on both sides with voter ID laws.

It's truly sad that the Democrat party has you convinced they can't win elections easily without people who can't "prove" they have the right to vote.  They can mobilize the same machine they use to get people to the polls to get them IDs if that's what's required.  Quit making something as simple as getting a photo ID sound like such an onerous task, it's a truly condescending attitude toward minorities, the elderly, and the poor.

Quote from: Conan71 on July 27, 2012, 10:48:01 PM
And finally the ad hominem.  That's rare for you.

It was a serious question. I'm asking you why you're carrying water for the Republicans on this issue. Why is it so gosh darn important right now when it hasn't been for the last 40 years? Or even the last 20 years? Where were you guys when many states purchased electronic voting machines that have no paper trail whatsoever and have little to no security?

Quote
Sorry if my viewpoint offends some people, but I was brought up by very patriotic parents who taught me that voting is a very sacred privilege we enjoy as Americans and it's a serious responsibility.  Voter fraud is very much well-documented throughout the history of this country.  Claiming it's minor because it's not always caught and prosecuted is like pretending the cost of shoplifting isn't included in the price of the items you buy at the store.  

If you can't point to a specific instance, you're just operating on conjecture.

Quote
And yes, my father was a Democrat as well as a district court judge, whom I believe would have agreed the sanctity of voting is secured by only properly-qualified voters (as defined by state law) being allowed to vote.  

Nice argument from authority. ;)

I also agree that only qualified voters should vote. I disagree that photo ID is necessary as a means to that end. I would be less cynical about the project if common forms of non-government issued ID and/or non-photo ID were being allowed by most of the states that have passed voter ID laws. That in and of itself makes it clear to me what the actual motivation of these laws is, regardless of the high-minded rhetoric that may be used in their defense.

Quote
Facts are facts, two of the states which enacted what are considered the most restrictive voting laws experienced increased minority participation at the polls in the 2008 election.  You can try to assign an increase in population to the phenomena, yet Indiana was one of the states losing jobs at a rapid pace in 2008.

You may want to consider the historical circumstances surrounding the 2008 election. People were unusually motivated. I don't like making policy based on exceptional circumstances.

Quote
Speaking of which, you do realize that continuing to vote in your old district after you've moved to a new district is voter fraud, right?  

Yes, I understand that. This is a problem that could be easily mitigated using modern technology. Having people vote only in their home precinct is completely ridiculous and further suppresses turnout. There are these wonderful things called computers. We should use them more, given a voter verified paper ballot coming out of them. It would be trivial to allow instant reregistration for people who moved and to allow them to vote at any precinct in the county (or state, if we got really big ideas in our head).

Quote
Being registered to vote in more than one municipality or state is also an example of voter fraud.

Not AFAIK. Voting in more than one municipality or state is an example of voter fraud. I don't really care if people are registered in 5,000 places because they move a lot. I care that they vote only once for the elections in which they are eligible voters.

Quote
As well, the 795,000 "disenfranchised voters" in Pennsylvania is proven to be an over-blown statistic.  I think it's really disgusting the media goes for the most inflammatory estimates to create controversy and increase readership, listenership, or viewership rather than simply digging a little deeper and reporting the real facts.

Didn't that number come from PennDOT (or whoever issues photo IDs there?).

Quote
It's truly sad that the Democrat party has you convinced they can't win elections easily without people who can't "prove" they have the right to vote.  They can mobilize the same machine they use to get people to the polls to get them IDs if that's what's required.  Quit making something as simple as getting a photo ID sound like such an onerous task, it's a truly condescending attitude toward minorities, the elderly, and the poor.

If you think that I care about the right to vote because the Democrats happen to be talking about it, you have severely misunderestimated me. ;)

Edited to add: Also, what of the sad sack that loses his photo ID on the way to the polling station? love 'em? I really don't like my right to vote being subject to providing a certain object blessed by authority. It sorta negates the whole 'right' thing and turns it into a privilege. Much like air travel these days. I'm not too keen on airport security, as you might imagine.

Crownan, I am getting an insight now into your personality and have come to the conclusion your rightieness stems from rejection of your father's political stances.

Saturdaze comix:

(http://assets.amuniversal.com/cc51fc60b350012f8015001dd8b71c47)

Quote from: AquaMan on July 27, 2012, 09:16:32 AM
I don't remember voting on it or any of my representatives asking my opinion.

If you didn't vote on it it was your own fault..  It was a state ballot question.
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Oklahoma_Voter_Identification_Measure,_State_Question_746_%282010%29

Quote from: nathanm on July 28, 2012, 12:17:54 AM
If you can't point to a specific instance, you're just operating on conjecture.

If you don't get a ticket for not fully stopping at a stop sign, does that mean you actually came to a full stop?  Of course it is difficult to prove voter fraud when there is no requirement to prove who you are when voting.  You too are operating on conjecture regarding the extent of voter fraud.  To deny voter fraud exists is irresponsible.  Whether or not it is significant is the question.

Quote
That in and of itself makes it clear to me what the actual motivation of these laws is, regardless of the high-minded rhetoric that may be used in their defense.

I consider the fight against voter ID to be mostly high-minded rhetoric.  There are a few glitches that need to be worked out for a very small portion of the populace.

Quote
Having people vote only in their home precinct is completely ridiculous and further suppresses turnout.

You may wish to rethink or reword that regarding local elections.  I am not certain that your qualifiers guarantee that voting in a different precinct would get you the ballot from your precinct.  Instant reregistration could open a can of worms.  Say I didn't like something the City of Tulsa was going to do.  Could I rent an apartment or even a motel room for a short term, reregister as a COT resident, vote, and then return to suburbia?  With what you propose, it wouldn't be that difficult.  Could I go to California, vote out of my home precinct and help get rid of Nancy Pelosi?

Quote
Edited to add: Also, what of the sad sack that loses his photo ID on the way to the polling station? love 'em? I really don't like my right to vote being subject to providing a certain object blessed by authority. It sorta negates the whole 'right' thing and turns it into a privilege. Much like air travel these days. I'm not too keen on airport security, as you might imagine.

If you want to do the hyperbole thing, how about the guy who plans to get to the poll about 1/2 hour before closing but gets stuck in traffic, has a flat tire, the bus he is riding on is late or has mechanical problems, gets mugged and tied to a tree,  gets in a car accident and gets rushed to the hospital and so on.

Airport security has taken ALL the fun out of going somewhere by airline.  Except for the blowing up airliners and hijacking thing, the only reason to have your name on a ticket is to notify your next of kin after an accident and keeping you and your luggage together.  Pretty soon, you will need a photo ID to ride on Tulsa Transit.  Actually you do need a MTTA ID to qualify for certain discounts, or was that SEPTA from Philadelphia.  I occasionally look on the SEPTA web site to see how the trolleys are doing.  Maybe a MTTA photo ID would qualify as a government issued ID for voting.

Quote from: TeeDub on July 28, 2012, 10:05:58 AM
If you didn't vote on it it was your own fault..  It was a state ballot question.
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Oklahoma_Voter_Identification_Measure,_State_Question_746_%282010%29

Must be that oldtimers thing.   :D

Quote from: Teatownclown on July 27, 2012, 09:44:56 AM
CONANSBURRIED!

see, even a comic strip can out smarts Conan.

(http://assets.amuniversal.com/c542c340b350012f8015001dd8b71c47)

Of course we all know that Gary Trudeau is a well known conservative who champions all the Tea Party causes.  Well, maybe not.

Quote from: Red Arrow on July 28, 2012, 11:05:29 AM
Must be that oldtimers thing.   :D

Honestly, don't remember it. I'll have to ask the wife (aqua'sbrain).

I'm sure I was astounded by the results.

I can't say for other states but it appears that you don't really need to have any ID to vote in OK.

The form does not appear to require any independent verification of your identity. You only have to sign and mail it in.  You will get a free voter ID card which will be permitted as ID at the poll.  Pretty easy really.
http://www.ok.gov/elections/documents/vrform.pdf

Quote from: Red Arrow on July 28, 2012, 10:55:18 AM
If you don't get a ticket for not fully stopping at a stop sign, does that mean you actually came to a full stop?  Of course it is difficult to prove voter fraud when there is no requirement to prove who you are when voting.  You too are operating on conjecture regarding the extent of voter fraud.  To deny voter fraud exists is irresponsible.  Whether or not it is significant is the question.

I didn't deny it exists, that would be stupid. However, it mostly doesn't include things that voter ID supposedly fixes. If you look at what the AGs of the several states are saying, absentee ballots are a bigger problem. (not a very big one, mind you, but still where much of the fraud comes from) I still don't support getting rid of them.

Quote
I consider the fight against voter ID to be mostly high-minded rhetoric.  There are a few glitches that need to be worked out for a very small portion of the populace.

Small proportion, perhaps, not a small portion. It's millions of people who are affected by this smile.

Quote
You may wish to rethink or reword that regarding local elections.  I am not certain that your qualifiers guarantee that voting in a different precinct would get you the ballot from your precinct.  Instant reregistration could open a can of worms.  Say I didn't like something the City of Tulsa was going to do.  Could I rent an apartment or even a motel room for a short term, reregister as a COT resident, vote, and then return to suburbia?  With what you propose, it wouldn't be that difficult.  Could I go to California, vote out of my home precinct and help get rid of Nancy Pelosi?

If you stay long enough to be a resident, sure, you should be able to vote. In general, that's a multi-prong test that's far too complicated to get into here. The point was that there's no reason why somebody who works Tulsa and lives in Broken Arrow should have to schlep themselves back to BA to vote. If you happened to be a bus rider, you'd be completely out of luck. (unless the schedule has changed since last I looked)

Quote
If you want to do the hyperbole thing, how about the guy who plans to get to the poll about 1/2 hour before closing but gets stuck in traffic, has a flat tire, the bus he is riding on is late or has mechanical problems, gets mugged and tied to a tree,  gets in a car accident and gets rushed to the hospital and so on.

The reason I picked that one is that I had a friend manage to lose her passport somewhere between Tulsa and Dublin a couple of months ago. (they still let her in) It happens. This is one of the reasons I'm a strong supporter of early voting, which is another thing certain states have decided to reduce or eliminate. If you go to vote a week early and find that you're missing whatever papers, you at least still have a chance of getting it sorted out before you lose out on the chance to vote.

Quote
Airport security has taken ALL the fun out of going somewhere by airline.  Except for the blowing up airliners and hijacking thing, the only reason to have your name on a ticket is to notify your next of kin after an accident and keeping you and your luggage together.  Pretty soon, you will need a photo ID to ride on Tulsa Transit.  Actually you do need a MTTA ID to qualify for certain discounts, or was that SEPTA from Philadelphia.  I occasionally look on the SEPTA web site to see how the trolleys are doing.  Maybe a MTTA photo ID would qualify as a government issued ID for voting.

You don't have to tell me. It's beyond ridiculous at this point. They're focused on movie plots and not real threats, unfortunately. As far as an MTTA ID counting, in most states that have passed voter ID laws it wouldn't. As I mentioned before, the restriction to certain blessed forms of photo ID is one of the big reasons I find it hard to not be completely cynical about this. Here in Oklahoma, the ridiculous part is that an expired ID isn't acceptable. What difference does it make what the date printed on its face is? It makes no difference, it's just another bucking hoop that the dim bulbs in our legislature think we should have to jump through to exercise our right to vote.

Here's the other thing about the ballot measure here in Oklahoma. It would be completely illegitimate in a sane society. People's right to vote should not be up for a vote any more than the rights of minorities should be up for a vote.

Quote from: nathanm on July 28, 2012, 08:31:09 PM
Small proportion, perhaps, not a small portion. It's millions of people who are affected by this smile.

You have some data?  Millions out of 300 million.  That's a small percentage.  They need to be accommodated but it's still a small percentage.

Quote
If you stay long enough to be a resident, sure, you should be able to vote. In general, that's a multi-prong test that's far too complicated to get into here. The point was that there's no reason why somebody who works Tulsa and lives in Broken Arrow should have to schlep themselves back to BA to vote. If you happened to be a bus rider, you'd be completely out of luck. (unless the schedule has changed since last I looked)

Oklahoma has a law that requires your employer to allow you time to vote.  Details may be too complicated to get into here.

QuoteThe reason I picked that one is that I had a friend manage to lose her passport somewhere between Tulsa and Dublin a couple of months ago. (they still let her in) It happens. This is one of the reasons I'm a strong supporter of early voting, which is another thing certain states have decided to reduce or eliminate. If you go to vote a week early and find that you're missing whatever papers, you at least still have a chance of getting it sorted out before you lose out on the chance to vote.

Again we get back to whether or not the voter bears any responsibility to exercise the right to vote.  I say they do.  You evidently believe otherwise.  I believe in early and absentee voting since schedules can change.  How early do you think people should be able to vote?  A month?  Two or three months?  How about now for the presidential election.  Oops, we don't have official candidates until the conventions.

QuoteAs far as an MTTA ID counting, in most states that have passed voter ID laws it wouldn't. As I mentioned before, the restriction to certain blessed forms of photo ID is one of the big reasons I find it hard to not be completely cynical about this. Here in Oklahoma, the ridiculous part is that an expired ID isn't acceptable. What difference does it make what the date printed on its face is? It makes no difference, it's just another bucking hoop that the dim bulbs in our legislature think we should have to jump through to exercise our right to vote.

Your voter registration ID doesn't have an expiration date. Other states may have some legitimate problems but as far as Oklahoma is concerned, you are barking up the wrong tree.

QuoteHere's the other thing about the ballot measure here in Oklahoma. It would be completely illegitimate in a sane society.

What is there about sending in a registration by mail with no other ID that gets you a voter ID card that is acceptable in lieu of a photo ID that you find illegitimate?  The first class mail stamp?  It would cost you more to go to register in person.   The only conclusion I can come to from your posts is that no registration should be required.  Should anyone should be able to vote whether they are a citizen or not?

QuotePeople's right to vote should not be up for a vote any more than the rights of minorities should be up for a vote.

Read the ballot, the people's right to vote is not affected by the Oklahoma law.

Quote
Oklahoma has a law that requires your employer to allow you time to vote.  Details may be too complicated to get into here.

You try getting to Broken Arrow and back on a bus in two hours. Besides, having a law is no good if it's routinely ignored. Arkansas requires the same thing, but people who work by the hour often believe they will be retaliated against, on the rare occasion they even know they have that right. (I've had these conversations with people before)

Regardless, what purpose does the restriction serve? There isn't one. Since it makes it less convenient to vote and doesn't serve any real purpose, I don't really grasp the problem with allowing people to vote in any precinct (with their home precinct's ballot, of course!). Of all the things we spend money on as a people, elections are probably one of the things with the most intrinsic value, so I don't mind if it costs a bit more. It wouldn't actually cost more, of course. There are already many voting sites around here that have more than one precinct. It's terribly annoying to see one room empty, with the poll workers all sitting around chatting while the other has a 20 minute queue. It's completely unnecessary.

Quote
Again we get back to whether or not the voter bears any responsibility to exercise the right to vote.  I say they do.  You evidently believe otherwise.

I'm not sure how you get that. Obviously I believe they bear the responsibility of casting their ballot if they would like to have their vote counted. I think it should be made easier to do so and not harder. We already have one of the lowest participation rates in the developed world.

Also, I'm not sure what responsibility has to do with anything. I take it you've never misplaced your keys? (or been mugged) Or are you some irresponsible fool who doesn't deserve the franchise? What's next, we have to give ourselves forty lashes to show our commitment to the enterprise before we're allowed into the precinct?

Quote
Your voter registration ID doesn't have an expiration date. Other states may have some legitimate problems but as far as Oklahoma is concerned, you are barking up the wrong tree.

Odd that you'd think I'm limiting my comments to Oklahoma's specific implementation of the law given how I've repeatedly mentioned other states.

Quote
What is there about sending in a registration by mail with no other ID that gets you a voter ID card that is acceptable in lieu of a photo ID that you find illegitimate?  The first class mail stamp?  It would cost you more to go to register in person.   The only conclusion I can come to from your posts is that no registration should be required.  Should anyone should be able to vote whether they are a citizen or not?

For one, if you register by mail, photo ID is required the first time you vote. You can thank the 2002 federal Congress for that. As far as eligibility is concerned, that's up to the individual states. If Florida wants to allow Cubans to vote in their elections, they are perfectly free to do so. If Oklahoma wants to let any member of an Oklahoma tribe vote no matter where they live, that would also be legal. I don't have a problem with the franchise being restricted to citizens. Nor would I have a problem with it being extended to any legal resident that has reached the age of majority. I'm not really into the idea of opening it up to literally everyone on the planet who wants to have a say but doesn't even live here.

You're right on one count, though. I don't think advance registration is necessary. Plenty of states have same day registration and seem to get along fine.

Quote
Read the ballot, the people's right to vote is not affected by the Oklahoma law.

The gun lobby would likely reject your narrow view of what constitutes having your right affected. But again, I wasn't restricting my comments solely to Oklahoma.

I just love the democratic process.   We vote on a law (which passes - regardless of how you or I voted) requiring ID to vote.

Said law goes into effect and people grumble about it.

How about trying to repeal the law?   Or at least find me some instances in Oklahoma where it has disenfranchised or turned away people who wanted to vote.

Quote from: TeeDub on July 29, 2012, 09:34:57 AM


How about trying to repeal the law?   Or at least find me some instances in Oklahoma where it has disenfranchised or turned away people who wanted to vote.

http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=19265.msg245337#msg245337 (http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=19265.msg245337#msg245337)

"The last time I voted, an elderly couple were ahead of me in line.  The husband had his driver's license, but the wife did not.  She was not permitted to cast a ballot, not even a provisional ballot, despite the fact that she was personally known by one of the poll workers who could vouch for her identity.  This law is truly asinine."

Quote from: Ed W on July 29, 2012, 10:15:18 AM

http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=19265.msg245337#msg245337 (http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=19265.msg245337#msg245337)

"The last time I voted, an elderly couple were ahead of me in line.  The husband had his driver's license, but the wife did not.  She was not permitted to cast a ballot, not even a provisional ballot, despite the fact that she was personally known by one of the poll workers who could vouch for her identity.  This law is truly asinine."

This law is not a big secret.  Not being able to comply is truly asinine.  We were all advised well ahead of the primary election that ID would be required.  What were the details of the woman not being able to cast a provisional ballot?   

Quote from: nathanm on July 29, 2012, 02:44:31 AM
You try getting to Broken Arrow and back on a bus in two hours.

I always vote before going to work or make sure I get off early enough to make it to the poll before it closes at 7 PM.  Doing that avoids the necessity of making a round trip during working hours.

QuoteI don't really grasp the problem with allowing people to vote in any precinct (with their home precinct's ballot, of course!).

As a concept, OK.  Oklahoma voting machines still have a paper trail.  In the event of a recount, how would all the paper ballots be found.  Would this compromise the secret ballot if you were the only one to vote at a particular precinct?  You appear not to care about any ID so I guess you should be able to go anywhere (restrict to state, county, city?) ask for a ballot from your home precinct and get the right one with no questions asked probably from poll workers who don't know you.  I think there would be several details to work out.

QuoteI'm not sure how you get that.

You probably don't get that because you seem to believe the only responsibility is to somehow get a ballot into the system.  I believe that registering to vote, being prepared to identify yourself as qualified to vote and to vote at particular precinct, getting to the poll or arranging for an absentee ballot,  getting to the early voting place if voting early in person are all reasonable responsibilities to exercise your right to vote.

QuoteObviously I believe they bear the responsibility of casting their ballot if they would like to have their vote counted. I think it should be made easier to do so and not harder. We already have one of the lowest participation rates in the developed world.

I believe that low turnout is mostly due to apathy, but  I'm sure you can find some chart to show that 3 people out of all the registered voters in the USA didn't get to vote because they lost their ID card on the way to the polls.

QuoteAlso, I'm not sure what responsibility has to do with anything. I take it you've never misplaced your keys? (or been mugged)

I don't get your objection.  If you misplace your keys, should the poll bring a ballot to you? (I am not talking about incapacitated voters who know ahead they cannot get to the poll Hoss.)  If you get to the poll late, should they reopen it for you?  How late?  If you go to the wrong precinct near closing time, should your correct precinct "hold the plane" for you?

QuoteOr are you some irresponsible fool who doesn't deserve the franchise?

For someone so adamant about voters rights, why are you trying to take away someone's franchise just for being an irresponsible fool? 

QuoteOdd that you'd think I'm limiting my comments to Oklahoma's specific implementation of the law given how I've repeatedly mentioned other states.

I think the emphasis should be on Oklahoma since we live here. 

QuoteAs far as eligibility is concerned, that's up to the individual states. If Florida wants to allow Cubans to vote in their elections, they are perfectly free to do so. If Oklahoma wants to let any member of an Oklahoma tribe vote no matter where they live, that would also be legal. I don't have a problem with the franchise being restricted to citizens. Nor would I have a problem with it being extended to any legal resident that has reached the age of majority. I'm not really into the idea of opening it up to literally everyone on the planet who wants to have a say but doesn't even live here.

If voter eligibility is up to the individual states, so should voter identification at the polls be up to the states.  I do have a problem with non-citizens, even resident aliens, voting.  If you want to vote, become a US citizen for national election.  Be a citizen of the locality you want to vote in for local elections.

QuoteYou're right on one count, though. I don't think advance registration is necessary. Plenty of states have same day registration and seem to get along fine.

Advance registration allows the election board to verify your qualifications if they want.  I think a week would be an adequate time with modern communications.  Same day registration is probably not adequate.  With the exception of some school bond elections and other minor local elections, the date of voting day is well publicized.  I consider registering ahead of time to be one of the responsibilities of the voter.  Just because same day registration can be done doesn't mean it should be done.  We will obviously disagree on this. 

QuoteThe gun lobby would likely reject your narrow view of what constitutes having your right affected. But again, I wasn't restricting my comments solely to Oklahoma.

QuoteAs far as eligibility is concerned, that's up to the individual states.

Quotehttp://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Oklahoma_Voter_Identification_Measure,_State_Question_746_(2010)

This measure amends statues relating to voting requirements. It requires that each person appearing to vote present a document proving their identity. The document must meet the following requirements. It must have the name and photograph of the voter. It must have been issued by the federal, state or tribal government. It must have an expiration date that is after the date of the election. No expiration date would be required on certain identity cards issued to person 65 years of age or older.
In lieu of such a document, voters could present voter identification cards issued by the County Election Board.
A person who cannot or does not present the required identification may sign a sworn statement and cast a provisional ballot. Swearing to a false statement would be a felony.
These proof of identity requirements also apply to in-person absentee voting. If adopted by the people, the measure would become effective July 1, 2011.
Shall the proposal be approved?
For the proposal
Yes: __________
Against the proposal
No: __________

 Wow The GOP is desperate. Ever since they saw all those folks desend on Washington on Inauguration Day, they've been trying to put us back in our place. Plotting the demise of this president and theyby the demise of this country. We just did not believe how EVIL they were. We trusted that our Democratic process would work, they done EVERYTHING except start a Civil War, I expect that will be next.



Democratic strategist Donna Brazile responded with, "I'm glad that we still have early voting, George, because that means there won't be a lot of congestion on Election Day. We should have more accessibility." Righties look at free elections the same way they do free markets. To them "free" only means having the freedom to rig the game in their favor.

A comment like this from over the hillster Will is deplorable. The more we can do to increase turnout and thus our democratic process is very important. Many voters send their ballots in. Yes, the GOP war on voting is an attempt to once again cheat and steal an election.

Quote from: Red Arrow on July 29, 2012, 10:22:47 AM
What were the details of the woman not being able to cast a provisional ballot?  

Red, I can't speak to the precise details because this happened last year. The elderly couple were in front of me, and he had his driver's license while she did not.  Despite being personally known to one of the poll workers, she was not permitted to vote, nor was she offered a provisional ballot.

I think she should have been able to cast a provisional ballot at the very least, but I do not know what the law says about it.

In Ben Franklin's day, suffrage was limited to property owners, leading Franklin to ask whether the right to vote existed in the man or his mule.  We can ask whether that right exists in the citizen or his driver's license.

Quote from: Ed W on July 29, 2012, 04:01:24 PM
Red, I can't speak to the precise details because this happened last year. The elderly couple were in front of me, and he had his driver's license while she did not.  Despite being personally known to one of the poll workers, she was not permitted to vote, nor was she offered a provisional ballot.  I think she should have been able to cast a provisional ballot at the very least, but I do not know what the law says about it.

On the surface, I would agree that she should have been given a provisional ballot.  That is why I asked if you had any details.

QuoteIn Ben Franklin's day, suffrage was limited to property owners, leading Franklin to ask whether the right to vote existed in the man or his mule.  We can ask whether that right exists in the citizen or his driver's license.

We can go round and round on this.  We can both quote famous people.  In the long run you do not believe the voter needs to have a positive ID, I do.  I mentioned earlier that I have pretty much always wondered why I didn't need some identification for something as important as voting.

Quote from: Teatownclown on July 29, 2012, 03:48:59 PM
Plotting the demise of this president and theyby the demise of this country.

Actually we are more clever than you think. We put up Romney as a sacrificial lamb to allow Obama to destroy the country.  It will be some tough medicine but it's what we need.

Is that the spin you are looking for?  Enjoy.

(I don't really believe Romney is an intentional sacrificial lamb but I do believe that Obama will destroy the country given the chance.)

Quote from: Red Arrow on July 29, 2012, 05:59:20 PM
On the surface, I would agree that she should have been given a provisional ballot.  That is why I asked if you had any details.

We can go round and round on this.  We can both quote famous people.  In the long run you do not believe the voter needs to have a positive ID, I do.  I mentioned earlier that I have pretty much always wondered why I didn't need some identification for something as important as voting.

Heaven forbid he might quote a founding father. Suffice it to say that the right obviously resides within the ID for those on the right.

In my gut I believe it will result in a negative response from voters. Turnnouts will decline for a couple of elections and then rebound when free IDs are provided.

Quote from: AquaMan on July 29, 2012, 06:07:39 PM
Heaven forbid he might quote a founding father.

I have no problem with him quoting a founding father.  They were a pretty diverse group.  Edit: (Politically diverse)

QuoteIn my gut I believe it will result in a negative response from voters. Turnnouts will decline for a couple of elections and then rebound when free IDs are provided.

In Oklahoma, a free method is available.  Those states that do not provide a free ID need to do it.  I never said the ID should not be free.  If you want to go to the extreme of having the state pay someone to come to your house to wake you up in time to get your free ID, I would probably say that comes under the category of voter personal responsibility.

Quote from: Red Arrow on July 29, 2012, 11:42:13 AM
I always vote before going to work or make sure I get off early enough to make it to the poll before it closes at 7 PM.  Doing that avoids the necessity of making a round trip during working hours.

The bus leaves Broken Arrow before the polls open. The bus gets back to BA around 6 if you leave work at 5. It would be very easy to miss the chance to vote.

Quote
As a concept, OK.  Oklahoma voting machines still have a paper trail.  In the event of a recount, how would all the paper ballots be found.  Would this compromise the secret ballot if you were the only one to vote at a particular precinct?  You appear not to care about any ID so I guess you should be able to go anywhere (restrict to state, county, city?) ask for a ballot from your home precinct and get the right one with no questions asked probably from poll workers who don't know you.  I think there would be several details to work out.

Do the touchscreen machines required by the feds have a voter verified paper ballot? I thought at best they had an internal ticket printer. Regardless, plenty of companies find themselves capable of verifying my identity without a photo ID. For example, UPS asked me some questions about where I'd previously lived. (gotta love the databases) I'm not quite sure why government has a greater need for a magic talisman to prove I am who I say I am.

Quote
You probably don't get that because you seem to believe the only responsibility is to somehow get a ballot into the system.  I believe that registering to vote, being prepared to identify yourself as qualified to vote and to vote at particular precinct, getting to the poll or arranging for an absentee ballot,  getting to the early voting place if voting early in person are all reasonable responsibilities to exercise your right to vote.

I'm not sure why it is you think that "responsibility" dictates that we make it harder than absolutely necessary to vote. Do you think the franchise should only extend to those you think are "responsible?"

Quote
I don't get your objection.  If you misplace your keys, should the poll bring a ballot to you? (I am not talking about incapacitated voters who know ahead they cannot get to the poll Hoss.)  If you get to the poll late, should they reopen it for you?  How late?  If you go to the wrong precinct near closing time, should your correct precinct "hold the plane" for you?

If I lose my keys, I can walk, take the bus, call a friend, or even call one of the parties and probably get a ride to the polls. If I lose my ID, I'm screwed. I (apparently) can't even vote a provisional ballot and prove my ID later at the election board.

Quote
For someone so adamant about voters rights, why are you trying to take away someone's franchise just for being an irresponsible fool? 

I'm not, you're the one who seems to be hung up on everyone proving their responsibility by jumping through some hoops before being allowed to vote.

Quote
I think the emphasis should be on Oklahoma since we live here. 

I disagree. The rules that other states choose to use affect the results of the national elections we all participate in.

Quote
If voter eligibility is up to the individual states, so should voter identification at the polls be up to the states.  I do have a problem with non-citizens, even resident aliens, voting.  If you want to vote, become a US citizen for national election.  Be a citizen of the locality you want to vote in for local elections.

I don't actually care much about this, so long as all citizens are allowed to vote. My personal opinion is that legal residents have enough of a stake in the goings-on that they should have a say in the goings-on, but I don't expect that to be universal or nearly so. I could see an exception for H1-B and similar visa holders that don't allow a path to citizenship, but it would be easier on the election boards if it were based solely on residence.

Quote
Advance registration allows the election board to verify your qualifications if they want.  I think a week would be an adequate time with modern communications.  Same day registration is probably not adequate.  With the exception of some school bond elections and other minor local elections, the date of voting day is well publicized.  I consider registering ahead of time to be one of the responsibilities of the voter.  Just because same day registration can be done doesn't mean it should be done.  We will obviously disagree on this. 

Same day should be fine. They just look you up in a database anyway. It's not as if they're hitting the streets interviewing your neighbors to make sure you actually live where you claim and are a citizen. I would not mind same-day registrants having to vote provisional ballots that will then be counted or not depending on the results of the election board's usual registration process.

All your talk about responsibility has me pretty much convinced that you think that voting is something that a voter should have to prove their dedication before being allowed to do. I disagree with that notion. I think voting, along with other rights, are inherent to the person and do not depend on my perception of their fitness to exercise them. (or some bureaucrat's perception of their fitness) Admittedly there are exceptions. I don't think people who are having active hallucinations should be allowed to possess firearms (at that time, anyway), for example.

Quote from: Red Arrow on July 29, 2012, 06:05:39 PM
Actually we are more clever than you think. We put up Romney as a sacrificial lamb to allow Obama to destroy the country.  It will be some tough medicine but it's what we need.

Is that the spin you are looking for?  Enjoy.

There's another quote whose author I can't remember, so I'll paraphrase.  He said that success brings with it the seeds of eventual failure.  I take that to mean that in politics, voters will eventually tire of the excesses of any party that remains in power for too long.  Didn't Tip O'Neil lead a Democratic majority in the House for nearly twenty years before being ousted by the Republican 'Contract with America'?  And didn't those same Republicans find themselves out on their ears a decade later?

The pendulum swings both ways.

Quote from: nathanm on July 29, 2012, 07:34:39 PM
The bus leaves Broken Arrow before the polls open. The bus gets back to BA around 6 if you leave work at 5. It would be very easy to miss the chance to vote.

Especially if you stop by the pub for a beer before trying to vote.

QuoteDo the touchscreen machines required by the feds have a voter verified paper ballot? I thought at best they had an internal ticket printer. Regardless, plenty of companies find themselves capable of verifying my identity without a photo ID. For example, UPS asked me some questions about where I'd previously lived. (gotta love the databases) I'm not quite sure why government has a greater need for a magic talisman to prove I am who I say I am.

Most of the places I go have required a photo ID and more. I'll agree that I don't expect to have to show a photo ID at McDonalds.
We are never going to agree on even the principle of this so we might as well just agree to disagree on this issue.

QuoteI'm not sure why it is you think that "responsibility" dictates that we make it harder than absolutely necessary to vote. Do you think the franchise should only extend to those you think are "responsible?"

I don't understand why you think a little personal responsibility is such a hinderance to voting.

QuoteIf I lose my keys, I can walk, take the bus, call a friend, or even call one of the parties and probably get a ride to the polls. If I lose my ID, I'm screwed. I (apparently) can't even vote a provisional ballot and prove my ID later at the election board.

If you lose your keys too close to closing time, your friends will not be able to get you there in time.  In the one instance noted by Ed W, I'll agree that the provisional ballot appeared to be a problem.  How do you feel about the person who just plain shows up late?

QuoteI'm not, you're the one who seems to be hung up on everyone proving their responsibility by jumping through some hoops before being allowed to vote.

QuoteOr are you some irresponsible fool who doesn't deserve the franchise?

It sure sounds like you are ready to take away someone's rights just for being an irresponsible fool.  Shame on you.
You see hoops.  I don't.

QuoteI disagree. The rules that other states choose to use affect the results of the national elections we all participate in.

Then how do you justify:

QuoteAs far as eligibility is concerned, that's up to the individual states.

QuoteI don't actually care much about this, so long as all citizens are allowed to vote.

Agreed on being allowed to vote.   I don't see providing ID as a hinderance to voting.

QuoteMy personal opinion is that legal residents have enough of a stake in the goings-on that they should have a say in the goings-on,

Disagree

QuoteSame day should be fine.

People should care enough about voting to register before election day.  What you want reminds me of why liquor stores must be closed on election day.

QuoteAll your talk about responsibility has me pretty much convinced that you think that voting is something that a voter should have to prove their dedication before being allowed to do. I disagree with that notion. I think voting, along with other rights, are inherent to the person and do not depend on my perception of their fitness to exercise them.

I am not asking for a level of education, IQ, property ownership, race, creed, or whatever other diversion you can think of.  I truly don't understand your aversion to showing that you meet the qualifications for voting as determined by the state (of the USA, not psychological) that you live in as long as it is free.

Quote from: Ed W on July 29, 2012, 08:58:22 PM
The pendulum swings both ways.

Yep, and I'm trying to swing it away from the left but believe it or not, not to the extreme right.  Just more right than the present administration and Senate.  I'll even agree that some of the US House is a bit kooky but given a choice, I'll still lean right rather than left.  It's called damage control.

Your results may vary.

Quote from: Red Arrow on July 29, 2012, 09:00:33 PM
Then how do you justify:

That's in the Constitution, bucko. It's not up to me, it's up to the several states to make their own decisions, so long as those decisions don't violate anyone's Constitutional rights. It doesn't mean I can or can't disagree with making possession of a photo ID a requirement to vote, but it does mean I don't get a say, beyond whatever meager persuasive powers I may have, absent moving there.

Quote
Agreed on being allowed to vote.   I don't see providing ID as a hinderance to voting.

OK. I do. I believe voting should have as few prerequisites as is compatible with the avoidance of election fraud. If there were some evidence of election fraud on a scale significant enough to tip the results of elections and that is combated by an ID requirement, and several states have had ID requirements for multiple election cycles now so there should be some evidence, you could convince me otherwise. As it stands, most of the fraud is either related to absentee ballots or Secretaries of State illegitimately purging voters and failing to notify them of that. (see Florida in 2000 or Ohio in 2004, I'm sure there have been others that don't come to mind at the moment)

Quote
People should care enough about voting to register before election day.  What you want reminds me of why liquor stores must be closed on election day.

People should do a lot of things. People should have an education, but they get the right to free speech regardless of how educated or uneducated they are. People should obey the law, but they still get their Constitutionally-protected rights even when they don't.

I'm not sure what liquor stores have to do with it. Oklahoma's asinine liquor controls seem irrelevant.

Quote
I am not asking for a level of education, IQ, property ownership, race, creed, or whatever other diversion you can think of.  I truly don't understand your aversion to showing that you meet the qualifications for voting as determined by the state (of the USA, not psychological) that you live in as long as it is free.

My aversion is that it is an unnecessary abridgement of one of the most fundamental rights we have in our system of government.

Quote from: Red Arrow on July 29, 2012, 09:04:01 PM
Yep, and I'm trying to swing it away from the left but believe it or not, not to the extreme right.  Just more right than the present administration and Senate.  I'll even agree that some of the US House is a bit kooky but given a choice, I'll still lean right rather than left.  It's called damage control.

And this is why we'll never agree on much. Obama is only left in the sense that most of the right has gone crazy off the deep end. Obama's policies have been well to the right of Clinton's and postwar norms, except as regards to policies taken in direct response to the financial crisis which was largely caused by Clinton going too far with the deregulation. I guess you thought Nixon was a pinko commie?

I guess what flabbergasts me is that you seem to think the right has the answers when it was they who put us in the toilet in the first place. Everyone was in agreement on that in 2008, but collective amnesia seems to have set in.

Quote from: nathanm on July 30, 2012, 01:22:04 AM
I guess you thought Nixon was a pinko commie?

Not compared to the Democratic party opposition.

QuoteI guess what flabbergasts me is that you seem to think the right has the answers when it was they who put us in the toilet in the first place. Everyone was The majority of voters participating in the election were in agreement on that in 2008, but collective amnesia seems to have set in.

Well flabbergast away.  If you think that the left had nothing to do with our situation, you need to look again.

Edit: forgot a "were"

Quote from: nathanm on July 30, 2012, 01:05:01 AM
It doesn't mean I can or can't disagree with making possession of a photo ID a requirement to vote, but it does mean I don't get a say, beyond whatever meager persuasive powers I may have, absent moving there.

OK

QuoteOK. I do.

Let's leave it at that.

QuoteI'm not sure what liquor stores have to do with it. Oklahoma's asinine liquor controls seem irrelevant.

As I remember from high school history, people were encouraged to vote, with a particular candidate in mind, by being offered free alcoholic beverages.  I believe it was before Oklahoma was even a state.

QuoteMy aversion is that it is an unnecessary abridgement of one of the most fundamental rights we have in our system of government.

We will forever disagree on that.

Quote from: Red Arrow on July 30, 2012, 07:55:34 AM
Well flabbergast away.  If you think that the left had nothing to do with our situation, you need to look again.

No, pretty much everyone, including McCain repudiated most Bush-era policies. I'm not sure how the left put us where we are, other than Clinton's deregulatory streak, which isn't even a leftist policy. Unless you want to argue that laws passed by Congress between 2007 and 2008 and not vetoed by Bush are what caused the crisis. That would be a pretty silly argument since things began to fall apart in 2007, before any new laws would have had time to have any real effect, but you're more than welcome to try to convince me otherwise.

Regarding voter ID, do you disagree that it's an abridgement at all, or just disagree about the necessity? Or are you saying that you don't think it's one of the most fundamental rights we have?

Quote from: Ed W on July 29, 2012, 10:15:18 AM

http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=19265.msg245337#msg245337 (http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=19265.msg245337#msg245337)

"The last time I voted, an elderly couple were ahead of me in line.  The husband had his driver's license, but the wife did not.  She was not permitted to cast a ballot, not even a provisional ballot, despite the fact that she was personally known by one of the poll workers who could vouch for her identity.  This law is truly asinine."

Actually Ed, I thought prior to SQ 746 you were supposed to show your voter ID card when you went to the polls but it was seldom enforced by poll workers.  I've carried a current one in my wallet ever since I was 18 and was asked for it sporadically.

Quote from: Conan71 on July 30, 2012, 10:57:06 AM
Actually Ed, I thought prior to SQ 746 you were supposed to show your voter ID card when you went to the polls but it was seldom enforced by poll workers.  I've carried a current one in my wallet ever since I was 18 and was asked for it sporadically.

Wish they'd make them a little smaller however; mine gets all crumpled up from riding around in it since the size is not quite right to fit in my wallet.

Quote from: Hoss on July 30, 2012, 11:08:12 AM
Wish they'd make them a little smaller however; mine gets all crumpled up from riding around in it since the size is not quite right to fit in my wallet.

I just looked- same size as a credit card, only doesn't have rounded corners.

Quote from: Conan71 on July 30, 2012, 11:09:13 AM
I just looked- same size as a credit card, only doesn't have rounded corners.

Mine's actually a little taller..interesting, I just got a new one recently.  Maybe I can trim it down.  I'd laminate it but most officials frown on that (should have heard the crap I got for laminating my SS card back after I graduated high school).

Quote from: nathanm on July 30, 2012, 08:48:47 AM
Regarding voter ID, do you disagree that it's an abridgement at all, or just disagree about the necessity?

yES

Quote from: Red Arrow on July 30, 2012, 12:23:40 PM
yES

You don't think that having one's rights subject to the possession of a particular piece of paper or whatever in any way abridges those rights so encumbered and think that the ID requirement is necessary, for whatever definition of necessary you use. Ok. Good to know. In my view necessity is irrelevant if you really believe the first.

Quote from: nathanm on July 30, 2012, 12:35:39 PM
You don't think that having one's rights subject to the possession of a particular piece of paper or whatever in any way abridges those rights so encumbered and think that the ID requirement is necessary, for whatever definition of necessary you use. Ok. Good to know. In my view necessity is irrelevant if you really believe the first.

You are a programmer.  You know the difference between "and" and "or".

Quote from: Red Arrow on July 30, 2012, 12:46:45 PM
You are a programmer.  You know the difference between "and" and "or".

When you answered "yes," you indicated that both conditions were true and that the or was therefore mistaken. At least by my reading. Last I checked, you weren't a computer, so I shouldn't need to interrogate you further to determine which statement was true or if both were true.

In case no one has said it yet, Nathan and RA, ......"You guys are ridiculous!". And I mean that in the most respectful way.

Why isn't someone needing a car or needing to pay to take public transit to the polls considered a poll tax?  Won't that be the next argument in allowing anyone to simply vote from home?  Whoops, wait, then you would probably need to go to the expense of owning a computer or phone with a data plan or have to be inconvenienced with buying postage to do it by mail.

Crownan, who cares the method. Why do you hate giving everyone their constitutional right to vote?

I have asked you time and again to provide the details of voter fraud you seem to be hell bent on stopping.

You can't....so, play fair.

Quote from: Teatownclown on July 30, 2012, 03:22:30 PM
Crowman, who cares the method. Why do you hate giving everyone their constitutional right to vote?

I have asked you time and again to provide the details of voter fraud you seem to be hell bent on stopping.

You can't....so, play fair.

Show me where in the constitution the right to vote is granted.

Hint: Don't show me where infringement is banned, just where the right is granted.  ;)

I think it should be a constitutional right, but it is not.

Quote from: Teatownclown on July 30, 2012, 03:22:30 PM
Crowman, who cares the method. Why do you hate giving everyone their constitutional right to vote?

I have asked you time and again to provide the details of voter fraud you seem to be hell bent on stopping.

You can't....so, play fair.

Protecting the sanctity of voting is not excluding anyone from exercising the privelege to vote unless they choose to make it so.

I've listed the types of voter fraud, via my posts and quotes from the likes of the Texas AG, and SCOTUS.  You don't appear to listen.

Quote from: nathanm on July 30, 2012, 01:10:42 PM
When you answered "yes," you indicated that both conditions were true and that the or was therefore mistaken. At least by my reading. Last I checked, you weren't a computer, so I shouldn't need to interrogate you further to determine which statement was true or if both were true.

You are incorrect computer breath.  Yes indicates that either one or the other condition is correct, even in just plain English.  The condition of both being correct is, I believe relegated to computers.  So yes, you do need to interrogate further to ascertain the limits of my answer.

Quote from: AquaMan on July 30, 2012, 02:50:48 PM
In case no one has said it yet, Nathan and RA, ......"You guys are ridiculous!". And I mean that in the most respectful way.

You are no fun at all.   :D

Quote from: Red Arrow on July 30, 2012, 06:53:57 PM
You are incorrect computer breath.  Yes indicates that either one or the other condition is correct, even in just plain English.  The condition of both being correct is, I believe relegated to computers.  So yes, you do need to interrogate further to ascertain the limits of my answer.

No, "this or that" evaluates true in the situation that either or both are true in the computer world. "this and that" is only true if both are true. "this nor that" is true only if both are false (aka, "not (this or that)" in most languages, which will compile with a nor or a negated or depending on what sort of CPU you're compiling for).

Quote from: nathanm on July 30, 2012, 07:57:40 PM
No, "this or that" evaluates true in the situation that either or both are true in the computer world. "this and that" is only true if both are true. "this nor that" is true only if both are false (aka, "not (this or that)" in most languages, which will compile with a nor or a negated or depending on what sort of CPU you're compiling for).

*DERP*   ;)

Quote from: nathanm on July 30, 2012, 07:57:40 PM
No, "this or that" evaluates true in the situation that either or both are true in the computer world. "this and that" is only true if both are true.

I did not say that the condition of one or the other but not both being true did not give a true in the computer world.  

One can be true without the other being true.  Both can be true  You said it yourself.  Determining which of three possibilities (with two inputs) is the one that triggers the result of true takes further investigation.  

Quote from: Conan71 on July 30, 2012, 03:50:17 PM
Protecting the sanctity of voting is not excluding anyone from exercising the privelege to vote unless they choose to make it so.

And literacy tests are just protecting the sanctity of voting. Literacy tests don't exclude anyone from exercising the privilege unless they choose to be illiterate. Disability doesn't prevent anyone making it to the polls or force them to require an absentee ballot (which is the most likely avenue of fraud) unless they choose not to get a wheelchair. (a really smart one, for those quadriplegics out there)

Quote from: Conan71 on July 30, 2012, 03:50:17 PM
Protecting the sanctity of voting is not excluding anyone from exercising the privelege to vote unless they choose to make it so.

I've listed the types of voter fraud, via my posts and quotes from the likes of the Texas AG, and SCOTUS.  You don't appear to listen.

"Types of voter fraud" is a technique term designed to twist the fact that this is probably .0001% of total votes.
No. I read your posts but I also realize there are no numbers to justify this indirect attempt at what's basically 'changing the rules of the game.' I believe the VRA was enacted without anticipating these new techniques explicitly intended to prevent people from having an impact on political outcomes.

Quote from: Teatownclown on July 30, 2012, 08:23:47 PM
twist the fact that this is probably .0001% of total votes.

So you don't have a number either.

Quote from: Red Arrow on July 30, 2012, 08:47:18 PM
So you don't have a number either.

Sh!T I was WRONG!... it's .0003% ( three times what I thought ). http://www.truthaboutfraud.org/case_studies_by_state/

"None of these problems could have been resolved by requiring photo ID at the polls."

It's so obvious what's going on here. America's bigots want to win this election so bad, they're willing to change the rules we've been playing under  for the sole purpose of riggin' the election.

The cover story of Business Week this week is on King Karl and his billion dollar reach to get total control of our government by the (new) Republicans. Think about that. Crownan, is that why you left the party?

Quote from: Teatownclown on July 30, 2012, 09:00:34 PM

It's so obvious what's going on here. America's bigots liberals want to win this election so bad, they're willing to change the rules we've been playing under get anyone with a pulse, regardless of citizenship, to the polls for the sole purpose of riggin' the election.

Evidence would be nice, RA.

Quote from: nathanm on July 30, 2012, 09:26:22 PM
Evidence would be nice, RA.

You're kidding, right?  Don't you know that lib'ruls are the DEBBIL?!

  RED ARROW: " they're willing to change the rules we've been playing under get anyone with a pulse, regardless of citizenship, to the polls for the sole purpose of riggin' the election. "

Listen. That is not happening! NO PROOF. IT'S A LIE.

Don't be part of the liars club, Arrow.

Quote from: nathanm on July 30, 2012, 09:26:22 PM
Evidence would be nice, RA.

When you only investigate the ones who get caught, of course the numbers will be small.

Quote from: Teatownclown on July 30, 2012, 09:35:18 PM
  RED ARROW: " they're willing to change the rules we've been playing under get anyone with a pulse, regardless of citizenship, to the polls for the sole purpose of riggin' the election. "

Listen. That is not happening! NO PROOF. IT'S A LIE.

Don't be part of the liars club, Arrow.

You're right, I forgot the dead people and pets.

Quote from: Hoss on July 30, 2012, 09:33:23 PM
You're kidding, right?  Don't you know that lib'ruls are the DEBBIL?!

And they can't spell either.  (Unless you are claiming to be something else.)

Quote from: nathanm on July 30, 2012, 07:57:40 PM
No, "this or that" evaluates true in the situation that either or both are true in the computer world. "this and that" is only true if both are true. "this nor that" is true only if both are false (aka, "not (this or that)" in most languages, which will compile with a nor or a negated or depending on what sort of CPU you're compiling for).

JFC! You went high geek on that one!

Quote from: Teatownclown on July 30, 2012, 09:00:34 PM
Sh!T I was WRONG!... it's .0003% ( three times what I thought ). http://www.truthaboutfraud.org/case_studies_by_state/

"None of these problems could have been resolved by requiring photo ID at the polls."

It's so obvious what's going on here. America's bigots want to win this election so bad, they're willing to change the rules we've been playing under  for the sole purpose of riggin' the election.

The cover story of Business Week this week is on King Karl and his billion dollar reach to get total control of our government by the (new) Republicans. Think about that. Crownan, is that why you left the party?

That's some real scholarly, non-partisan stuff you got there.  Did Soros fund that one too?

Oh Hell, Brennan!  That's definitely non-partisan sort of like the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Why are you so afraid of people having to prove their eligibility to vote?

Quote from: Conan71 on July 30, 2012, 09:59:58 PM
Why are you so afraid of people having to prove their eligibility to vote?

Why do you think the right to vote hinges on your possession of a piece of paper? Next, will we need to have ID to exercise the right to free speech?

Quote from: nathanm on July 30, 2012, 10:30:08 PM
Why do you think the right to vote hinges on your possession of a piece of paper? Next, will we need to have ID to exercise the right to free speech?

It should hinge on your possession of a voter registration card.  It should be consistent across the country.  It should, most of all be free.

You shouldn't have to show a photo ID that you pay for in order to assert that the voter ID card you have is actually you.  If that's the case, then make ALL voter ID cards with photos and make them free of charge.  Problem solved.

Quote from: Conan71 on July 30, 2012, 09:59:05 PM
JFC! You went high geek on that one!

Consider it a free learning experience presented by Nathan or me.

Quote from: Hoss on July 30, 2012, 10:33:25 PM
It should hinge on your possession of a voter registration card.  It should be consistent across the country.  It should, most of all be free.
You shouldn't have to show a photo ID that you pay for in order to assert that the voter ID card you have is actually you.  If that's the case, then make ALL voter ID cards with photos and make them free of charge.  Problem solved.

Are you sure you haven't been watching FOX News?  This post is actually reasonable.

Quote from: Red Arrow on July 30, 2012, 10:38:17 PM
Are you sure you haven't been watching FOX News?  This post is actually reasonable.

No.  I think most people's claim and concern (as is mine) is that some states are making a requirement to use a paid-for photo id to assert that you are the person on the registration card is asinine.  That essentially equates to 'pay to vote', because you're using an instrument that you had to pay for (whether it's a state issued DL or ID) to prove that you are the person on the voter registration card.  That's ALWAYS been my take.  I don't mind passing my voter reg card; I've had to do it before the law was even enacted.  States forcing you to pony up ID that you spend money on, however, shouldn't happen.  Make the states issue photo IDs as voter registrations for no charge, and you've solved the problem.

Quote from: Hoss on July 30, 2012, 10:42:59 PM
No.  I think most people's claim and concern (as is mine) is ...

I have agreed that any required ID to vote needs to be free.

At least one poster here thinks that the requirement of any ID is an infringement on a voter's rights.

Quote from: Hoss on July 30, 2012, 10:33:25 PM
It should hinge on your possession of a voter registration card.

Possession as in having been properly registered, or as in having it on your person and producing it upon request?

Quote
You shouldn't have to show a photo ID that you pay for in order to assert that the voter ID card you have is actually you.  If that's the case, then make ALL voter ID cards with photos and make them free of charge.  Problem solved.

This would at least not be blatantly discriminatory, although it is still mildly offensive to the concept of freedom and self determination.

Quote from: nathanm on July 30, 2012, 11:25:30 PM
although it is still mildly offensive to the concept of freedom and self determination.

We all know by now that it is to you.  Some of us obviously disagree.

Quote from: Conan71 on July 30, 2012, 09:59:58 PM
That's some real scholarly, non-partisan stuff you got there.  Did Soros fund that one too?

Oh Hell, Brennan!  That's definitely non-partisan sort of like the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Why are you so afraid of people having to prove their eligibility to vote?

I'm not afraid. Article 2 of the VRA prohibits this from happening. If it does, another election could be determined by SCOTUS!
You want to be shamed on again?

Why the slam on the SPLC? And do you think SOROS is worse that KOCHS?

Quote from: Hoss on July 30, 2012, 10:42:59 PM
No.  I think most people's claim and concern (as is mine) is that some states are making a requirement to use a paid-for photo id to assert that you are the person on the registration card is asinine.  That essentially equates to 'pay to vote', because you're using an instrument that you had to pay for (whether it's a state issued DL or ID) to prove that you are the person on the voter registration card.  That's ALWAYS been my take.  I don't mind passing my voter reg card; I've had to do it before the law was even enacted.  States forcing you to pony up ID that you spend money on, however, shouldn't happen.  Make the states issue photo IDs as voter registrations for no charge, and you've solved the problem.

Except you need a photo ID for many other reasons, voting being a small portion of it:

Flying, bank transactions, using a credit or debit card (that's pretty inconsistent), cashing a personal or third party check, opening a bank account, getting government assistance, and many other things I'm not even considering.

And, I agree, make the ID's free if you are going to require them for ANY government-related function

Quote from: Conan71 on July 31, 2012, 09:04:17 AM
Except you need a photo ID for many other reasons, voting being a small portion of it:

Flying, bank transactions, using a credit or debit card (that's pretty inconsistent), cashing a personal or third party check, opening a bank account, getting government assistance, and many other things I'm not even considering.

And, I agree, make the ID's free if you are going to require them for ANY government-related function

By law, the government can not require you to purchase something, and or penalize you for not doing so.  So if an ID is required to vote, it must be provided free of cost.

The liberal argument is that the energy or effort necessary to obtain a photo ID is to great and constitutes a burden or poll tax.  This is a silly argument because the act of transporting yourself to the polling place, acquiring an absentee ballot, reporting for jury duty (also requires an ID) or any other function of participation in self governance, takes no lesser amount of effort, and in most cases degree of documentation.

When you argue this point liberals come back with the "well, some people don't want identification, or don't trust the government, and they shouldn't be forced to."  Unfortunately there is a tiny price to pay to live in a free society.  As a Libertarian, I am of the opinion that you mitigate infringement on individual liberty as much as possible, so I can identify with this concern; However, from a Liberal, it is ingenuous, because liberals believe in acts of resource redistribution "for the greater good."  So, to argue that it would be fair for the government to require labor or resources from an individual to promote the greater good in one area, but it would not be fair to require a far smaller degree of labor or resources to promote the greater good in another is a logical conundrum.

Quote from: Gaspar on July 31, 2012, 09:34:01 AM
By law, the government can not require you to purchase something, and or penalize you for not doing so.  

No, but apparently they can impose a tax on you if you don't purchase a certain something.

Quote from: Conan71 on July 31, 2012, 09:04:17 AM
Except you need a photo ID for many other reasons, voting being a small portion of it:

Flying, bank transactions, using a credit or debit card (that's pretty inconsistent), cashing a personal or third party check, opening a bank account, getting government assistance, and many other things I'm not even considering.

And, I agree, make the ID's free if you are going to require them for ANY government-related function

And just to clarify...I don't mind paying for a DL or ID issued by the state.  I understand it's a revenue generator and the larger cost of the DL is for the privilege of driving.

However, if you are going to start legislating that you need a photo ID to vote, then issue a photo ID voter registration card.  Wouldn't that be a better solution?  I'm sure it would be more costly in the long run, but sometimes you have to compromise to make most happy.  I see this as that compromise.

Quote from: Hoss on July 31, 2012, 10:28:45 AM

However, if you are going to start legislating that you need a photo ID to vote, then issue a photo ID voter registration card.  Wouldn't that be a better solution?  I'm sure it would be more costly in the long run, but sometimes you have to compromise to make most happy.  I see this as that compromise.

That's when the massive liberal fake voter photo ID business would blow the hell up.  You realize this don't you man?  For God's sake, we've got to protect the wealthy and all that stuff there...

Quote from: Townsend on July 31, 2012, 10:31:50 AM
That's when the massive liberal fake voter photo ID business would blow the hell up.  You realize this don't you man?  For God's sake, we've got to protect the wealthy and all that stuff there...

Maybe we should just start tattooing barcodes on our forearms?

Or on the back of the neck?

Quote from: Hoss on July 31, 2012, 10:34:11 AM
Maybe we should just start tattooing barcodes on our forearms?

Or on the back of the neck?

Then the whole anti-Christ thing pops up and suddenly we've got Pat Robertson running for president again.

Quote from: Townsend on July 31, 2012, 10:37:38 AM
Then the whole anti-Christ thing pops up and suddenly we've got Pat Robertson running for president again.

I'm betting they'd have to install a wider-than-normal bathroom stall in the West Wing then...

Quote from: Hoss on July 31, 2012, 10:40:32 AM
I'm betting they'd have to install a wider-than-normal bathroom stall in the West Wing then...

Not an issue:

(http://www.dvorak.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2006/05/patr.jpg)

QuoteDid you know that Pat Robertson, through rigorous training, leg-pressed 2,000 pounds!

http://www.cbn.com/communitypublic/shake.aspx (http://www.cbn.com/communitypublic/shake.aspx)

He poops bigger'an you.

Quote from: Hoss on July 31, 2012, 10:28:45 AM
And just to clarify...I don't mind paying for a DL or ID issued by the state.  I understand it's a revenue generator and the larger cost of the DL is for the privilege of driving.

However, if you are going to start legislating that you need a photo ID to vote, then issue a photo ID voter registration card.  Wouldn't that be a better solution?  I'm sure it would be more costly in the long run, but sometimes you have to compromise to make most happy.  I see this as that compromise.

100% agreement.

Quote from: Hoss on July 31, 2012, 10:28:45 AM
And just to clarify...I don't mind paying for a DL or ID issued by the state.  I understand it's a revenue generator and the larger cost of the DL is for the privilege of driving.

However, if you are going to start legislating that you need a photo ID to vote, then issue a photo ID voter registration card.  Wouldn't that be a better solution?  I'm sure it would be more costly in the long run, but sometimes you have to compromise to make most happy.  I see this as that compromise.

Good!  A solution we all agree on.  Excellent compromise.

Quote from: Gaspar on July 31, 2012, 09:34:01 AM
As a Libertarian, I am of the opinion that you mitigate infringement on individual liberty as much as possible, so I can identify with this concern; However, from a Liberal, it is ingenuous, because liberals believe in acts of resource redistribution "for the greater good."  So, to argue that it would be fair for the government to require labor or resources from an individual to promote the greater good in one area, but it would not be fair to require a far smaller degree of labor or resources to promote the greater good in another is a logical conundrum.

You know what's awesome? When you talk about "liberals" and what they're like when it's clear you don't know a damn thing about anything but the caricatures you read about.

Quote from: nathanm on July 31, 2012, 01:19:49 PM
You know what's awesome? When you talk about "liberals" and what they're like when it's clear you don't know a damn thing about anything but the caricatures you read about.

Do you believe in resource redistribution?

Quote from: Gaspar on July 31, 2012, 01:26:15 PM
Do you believe in resource redistribution?

Do you believe that someone's right to vote depends on their possession of a certain piece of paper rather than their merely being an eligible voter?

Quote from: nathanm on July 31, 2012, 01:34:47 PM
Do you believe that someone's right to vote depends on their possession of a certain piece of paper rather than their merely being an eligible voter?

Excellent mis-direction.  Define "éligible voter."

Quote from: Gaspar on July 31, 2012, 01:36:43 PM
Define "éeligible voter."

Someone who meets the requirements set out in state law to be legally registered to vote. If you actually believed what you say about libertarianism, you wouldn't fall in line with the Republicans every time they try to restrict the people's rights. Libertarianism and modern Republican policy are not compatible, unless your conception of libertarianism is solely driven by taxes.

Quote from: nathanm on July 31, 2012, 01:43:11 PM
Someone who meets the requirements set out in state law to be legally registered to vote.

You said "Someone who meets" instead of "Anyone who meets."  So we are talking about an individual who meets the state's requirements to vote.

Lets just look at Oklahoma:

Be at least 18 years old.
Be an Oklahoma resident.
Be a U.S. citizen.
Not be a convicted felony within the time period equal to the original judgment and sentence, even if you are no longer incarcerated.
Have not been legally determined to be incapacitated.
Have not been legally determined to be partially incapacitated with a prohibition on voting

At the polls, by what measure does a polling official determine any and each of these requirements?

Quote from: Gaspar on July 31, 2012, 02:02:11 PM
At the polls, by what measure does a polling official determine any and each of these requirements?

At the polls, it's very simple: Is their name in the book? Does the address they supply match the address associated with the name? Does the signature match the exemplar? It's not up to the poll worker to decide who is or is not eligible. It is up to them to figure out if the prospective voter is in the big book. If there is a question regarding eligibility, you give them a provisional ballot and have the election board figure it out later.

Quote from: nathanm on July 31, 2012, 02:17:42 PM
At the polls, it's very simple: Is their name in the book? Does the address they supply match the address associated with the name? Does the signature match the exemplar? It's not up to the poll worker to decide who is or is not eligible. It is up to them to figure out if they're in the big book. If there is a question regarding eligibility, you give them a provisional ballot and have the election board figure it out later.

Nothing you have mentioned identifies the "individual" as a registered voter.  In fact, in a big city all you need to do is write down a few hundred names on the buzz boxes as you walk apartment buildings and you are ready to hit the polling places.  Typically you would have about a 50% chance of voting for someone who simply does not participate in elections, probably more like an 70% chance in dense urban areas where voter participation is lower.  You also have almost NO chance of being discovered, unless you hit the same polling place twice.  Mobilize a small army of these serial voters and you can sway an election.  From the little acorn a mighty oak grows.

In many states we currently have NO voter security.  In the states that have instituted voter ID laws we haven't encountered any of the backlash that the liberals said we would.  In fact, in most cases voter participation increased because registration was more automated.

You are free to challenge my Libertarian principals, and there are probably many Libertarians that indeed would have issue with voter id laws, but logically it must be a function of national security. The sanctity of the election process is every bit as important as the security of the nation.  Government only has two primary responsibilities.  One is to protect the republic for threats foreign and domestic, and the other is to protect the individual from being harmed (having his rights infringed upon) by other individuals.  This issue actually consumes some aspects of both of these primary responsibilities.

Strange how frightened some seem of rampant voter fraud.

Are the churches bussing their folks to multiple locations to vote more than once?

I'd be much more concerned of the fraud after the votes have been cast..."Hey, where'd those ballots go?"  (Hours later)  "Oh, there they are."

Gassy, if it's so easy, it should be easy to collect evidence of this actually happening on more than a sporadic basis. Yet there isn't any.

Also, I'm not sure what the connection between voter ID and automation of registration is. One does not require the other.

Quote from: Townsend on July 31, 2012, 02:46:57 PM


Are the churches bussing their folks to multiple locations to vote more than once?

I'd be much more concerned of the fraud after the votes have been cast..."Hey, where'd those ballots go?"  (Hours later)  "Oh, there they are."

Actually, quite valid concerns.  I find it infuriating that we can lose and discover ballots so conveniently.

Quote from: Gaspar on July 31, 2012, 02:59:05 PM
Actually, quite valid concerns.  I find it infuriating that we can lose and discover ballots so conveniently.

Just happened here, in Tulsa, very recently.

The lost ballots.  Not the churches attempting massive voter fraud...that I know of.

Quote from: nathanm on July 31, 2012, 02:52:18 PM
Gassy, if it's so easy, it should be easy to collect evidence of this actually happening on more than a sporadic basis. Yet there isn't any.

Also, I'm not sure what the connection between voter ID and automation of registration is. One does not require the other.

In most voter ID states your registration is updated with your DL or when you update the address on your ID.  The secondary process of registering to vote is eliminated.

Quote from: Gaspar on July 31, 2012, 03:00:39 PM
In most voter ID states your registration is updated with your DL or when you update the address on your ID.  The secondary process of registering to vote is eliminated.

That's got nothing to do with requiring ID to vote. This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Voter_Registration_Act_of_1993) is what you're looking for.

http://www.ok.gov/elections/Candidates_&_Elections/Facts_about_Proof_of_Identity_for_Voting_in_Oklahoma/

Yes, what a complete hardship.  If you register to vote in Oklahoma, they provide you with a free ID.  I guess Nate must vote on a provisional ballot since he's got an OCD issue about carrying an ID.

QuoteIn addition, voters may use the voter identification card they received by mail from the County Election Board when they registered to vote.  The law allows use of the voter identification card even though it does not include a photograph or an expiration date.

If you do not have or if you refuse to show proof of identity, you may only vote by provisional ballot.

Voters who cast provisional ballots are required to fill out and sign an affidavit that explains why their provisional ballot should be counted.  Provisional ballots are sealed inside special envelopes and are not put through the voting device.  After election day, County Election Board officials will investigate the information provided by the voter on the affidavit and either will approve the provisional ballot for counting or will reject it based on the outcome of that investigation.

Quote from: Conan71 on August 01, 2012, 09:08:13 AM
Yes, what a complete hardship.  If you register to vote in Oklahoma, they provide you with a free ID.  I guess Nate must vote on a provisional ballot since he's got an OCD issue about carrying an ID.

Oklahoma is not most states that have passed a voter ID law. Most of them don't allow the registration card to be used as ID because they absolutely require a state issued photo ID. In Texas you can use a CCW permit. Not a student ID or employee ID or voter registration card, but a CCW permit is OK.

Now the Republicans are fighting each other in Kansas.

Kansas conservative Republicans are winning over other GOP candidates by calling them "Democrats" and accusing them of working together with Democrats.

Looks like Oklahoma values are oozing North.

Conservatives Win In Kansas GOP Senate Primary

QuoteIn Kansas, there's been a battle between moderate and conservative Republicans over control of the state Senate. The state has moved in an increasingly conservative direction over the past two decades.

http://kwgs.com/post/conservatives-win-kansas-gop-senate-primary (http://kwgs.com/post/conservatives-win-kansas-gop-senate-primary)

The middle is not a safe place for a Republican (whatever that means) these days. Collaboration, Compromise, Cooperation are curse words to the T-Party.

Quote from: carltonplace on August 08, 2012, 10:31:46 AM
The middle is not a safe place for a Republican (whatever that means) these days. Collaboration, Compromise, Cooperation are curse words to the T-Party.

Big ol' group of Corky's.

Still more evidence!
Ohio Limits Early Voting Hours In Democratic Counties, Expands In Republican Counties
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/08/10/670441/ohio-limits-early-voting-hours-in-democratic-counties-expands-in-republican-counties/

And even more evidence of a twisted concept of compromise. Dems bent over backwards to help GOP districts but when it came to supporting heavily populated minority districts there was the usual obstinate display of unfair. Guido, tell us about character.

(http://assets.amuniversal.com/edd87b10b7bf012fd880001dd8b71c47)

QuoteOhio GOP Election Board Member: Our Voting Process Shouldn't Accommodate Black Voters
By Aviva Shen on Aug 19, 2012 at 11:29 am
http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/08/19/711551/gop-election-board-member-admits-he-canceled-weekend-voting-in-ohio-to-suppress-the-black-vote/

Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted's recent decision to prohibit early voting on nights and weekends in all districts has many concerned about the effect on voter turnout in the state, particularly among low-income and minority communities. But one Republican Party chairman is content to suppress votes among this vulnerable demographic. Doug Preisse, chairman of the Republican Party in Franklin County, which contains the city of Columbus, admitted in an email to the Columbus Dispatch that black voters would now have a more difficult time voting:
I guess I really actually feel we shouldn't contort the voting process to accommodate the urban — read African-American — voter-turnout machine. Let's be fair and reasonable.
Preisse was one of the board of elections members who blocked Democratic efforts in Franklin County to expand voting hours to evenings and weekends. According to the Dispatch, he called claims of unfairness "bullshit. Quote me!"
Preisse also served on Newt Gingrich's leadership team in Ohio during the primary and is a top political consultant to Ohio governor John Kasich (R).
In 2008, 82 percent of early voters in Franklin County voted on nights or weekends. The Secretary of State has defended the move to cut hours across the state by pointing to his initiative sending absentee ballots to every registered voter. But according to a study by Northeast Ohio Voter Advocates, black voters and Democrats prefer to cast their ballots in person, with 13.3 percent of black Ohioans casting early ballots in 2008 compared to just 8 percent of white voters.
Secretary of State Husted most recently suspended two Democratic members of the Montgomery County Election Board for voting to allow weekend voting in spite of the directive to restrict hours.

(https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/582595_470893652928954_565762684_n.jpg)

Would one of you righteous party members explain to me why having a National Election Day is so bad?

Didn't know where exactly to put this, but it seems in line with the race card playing in regards to the voter id stuff.



Does anyone stop to think why it would be racist to have work requirements for welfare? Let's just assume that we are discussing able bodied people, why is it racist to instate work requirements?

Quote from: erfalf on August 27, 2012, 02:57:55 PM
Didn't know where exactly to put this, but it seems in line with the race card playing in regards to the voter id stuff.

Does anyone stop to think why it would be racist to have work requirements for welfare? Let's just assume that we are discussing able bodied people, why is it racist to instate work requirements?

Take it to another thread. Search under "birthers"...don't be so lazy. I'm no big fan of CM, but to bring this back up Willard is playing the race card in an indirect manner. Remember, RMoney has %0 of the black vote. Why bring it up?

Quote from: Teatownclown on August 27, 2012, 03:10:54 PM
RMoney has %0 of the black vote. Why bring it up?

That's a lie!

Herman Cain will vote for him, so it's not 0%

Quote from: Conan71 on August 27, 2012, 03:35:47 PM
That's a lie!

Herman Cain will vote for him, so it's not 0%

Unless he's off visiting somewhere in Uzbekibekibekistan...

;D

Quote from: Conan71 on August 27, 2012, 03:35:47 PM
That's a lie!

Herman Cain will vote for him, so it's not 0%

Hopefully he can pull Michael Steele's vote as well, although he has been roaming the halls of MSNBC quit a bit lately, so it's probably a toss up.

UH OH! BREAKING NEWS.....
http://www.kswo.com/story/19398766/federal-court-discrimination-in-texas-voting-maps

http://txredistricting.org/

QuoteFederal Court Rules Texas GOP Redistricting Plans DISCRIMINATORY. "The three-judge panel unanimously found INTENTIONAL DISCRIMINATION across the state. There's no ifs, ands, or buts about it," Luis Vera, an attorney

REPUBLICAN LEADERS VIOLATED U.S. VOTING RIGHTS ACT

Statement of the Lone Star Project and Matt Angle on today's redistricting opinion:
The Court's decision is a major victory for Texas minority voters, intervenor groups and for important advocacy groups like the national NAACP and national LULAC. The Court's decision is a damning indictment of Rick Perry and other Texas Republican leaders who, in a cynical attempt to hold on to power, engaged in intentional discrimination against Texas Latino and African American voters. Every fair-minded Texan familiar with the details of redistricting knew Republican leaders were violating the law.

After months of deliberation, a three-judge Federal District Court panel in Washington, DC has ruled that the redistricting maps adopted by the Texas Legislature last year violate the US Voting Rights Act. The Court determined that Texas Republican leaders enacted maps that reduced the opportunity for minority voters in Texas to elect their candidates of choice AND the Court ruled that the Legislature used a process that was intentionally discriminatory in adopting the Congressional and State Senate maps.

Greg Abbott and Texas REPUBLICAN WILL STOP AT NOTHING TO HOLD POWER – EVEN IF IT MEANS SPENDING MILLIONS IN TEXANS HARD-EARNED TAX DOLLARS TO DEFEND ILLEGAL DISCRIMINATORY REDISTRICTING PLANS. [/size][/size][/size]

BREAKING: Texas voter ID law struck down

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/30/breaking-texas-voter-id-law-struck-down/ (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/30/breaking-texas-voter-id-law-struck-down/)

Quote(CNN) - A federal appeals court in Washington has struck down the Texas voter ID law which required photos for voters at the polls, saying the law amounts to racial discrimination.

The decision is considered a major victory for the Obama administration and its Democratic allies who had challenged the law.

Quote from: Townsend on August 30, 2012, 11:26:40 AM
BREAKING: Texas voter ID law struck down

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/30/breaking-texas-voter-id-law-struck-down/ (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/30/breaking-texas-voter-id-law-struck-down/)

All I'm saying is if they invoke the Voter Rights Act of 1965 to call this a device to restrict voting of the disenfranchised, what would you call voter registration?

Would Voter ID laws be legal if ID's were free and available at the same locations as voter registrations are?

Quote from: erfalf on August 30, 2012, 11:49:51 AM

Would Voter ID laws be legal if ID's were free and available at the same locations as voter registrations are?

I registered by mail.

Charge them a small fee on the water bills like EMSA. Make note on the bill that the photo ID's are free and available at area grocery stores. The grocery stores get great advertising and can use the opportunity to sell them pop or beer.

Those who don't have utility bills can get them with their free cell phones at the booths set up on every street corner in disadvantaged neighborhoods.

Lots of creative ways to get people photo id's if your real intent is to encourage voting.

Quote from: AquaMan on August 30, 2012, 12:04:56 PM
Lots of creative ways to get people photo id's if your real intent is to encourage voting.

If the real intent was to encourage voting, we wouldn't see early voting hours being restricted in Florida, Ohio, and elsewhere.

Quote from: AquaMan on August 30, 2012, 12:04:56 PM
Charge them a small fee on the water bills like EMSA. Make note on the bill that the photo ID's are free and available at area grocery stores. The grocery stores get great advertising and can use the opportunity to sell them pop or beer.

Those who don't have utility bills can get them with their free cell phones at the booths set up on every street corner in disadvantaged neighborhoods.

Lots of creative ways to get people photo id's if your real intent is to encourage voting.

There are plenty of ways. And this is just one thing that has shown how blind hatred for the opposition has made people unable to focus on real solutions.

I truly don't want to stop legitimate citizens of this country from voting. Who would, really? Well I take that back. There are probably plenty of politicians that would go witht that if it meant getting elected. But seriously, there is something that could be done.

Quote from: erfalf on August 31, 2012, 08:52:34 AM
There are plenty of ways. And this is just one thing that has shown how blind hatred for the opposition has made people unable to focus on real solutions.

I truly don't want to stop legitimate citizens of this country from voting. Who would, really? Well I take that back. There are probably plenty of politicians that would go witht that if it meant getting elected. But seriously, there is something that could be done.

Who would? Its not Democrats that are forcing these voting hindrances. If there is blind hatred its not coming from any efforts to restrict voting on the Democratic side. Any of the ideas I offered, and plenty more, have been simply ignored. This is a solution looking for a problem.

More good news!

QuoteBREAKING: Federal Court Strikes Down Ohio Law Restricting Early Voting
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/08/31/784981/breaking-federal-court-strikes-down-ohio-law-restricting-early-voting/

Amusingly, the court's opinion relies on the Supreme Court's infamous decision in Bush v. Gore to reach this holding, citing Bush's statement that "[h]aving once granted the right to vote on equal terms, the State may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person's vote over that of another." Judge Economus' decision will be appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, a Republican-leaning court with a history of legally-challenged partisan decisions benefiting the Republican Party. So it remains to be seen whether Economus' decision will have staying power.

Ironically....NOT amusingly....

QuoteGreg Palast on How the GOP Is Planning to Steal the 2012 Election
Wednesday, 12 September 2012 14:32
By Mark Karlin, Truthout | Interview
http://truth-out.org/news/item/11500-greg-palast-on-how-the-gop-is-planning-to-steal-the-2012-election
Greg Palast is back with a timely new book, "Billionaires & Ballot Bandits: How to Steal an Election in 9 Easy Steps." In the book, which is illustrated by Ted Rall and with an introduction by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Palast warns of more than a decade of Republican elections theft - and explains how they do it. Make a minimum donation to support Truthout and receive a copy of the book - and you'll also get Palast's "Why We Occupy" DVD free, which includes a Palast talk, a rant by Lee Camp, and a variety of other video segments.
Mark Karlin: The Republicans don't just aim to steal elections in one way. They have a variety of methods to mug democracy. Can you explain a few of them?
Greg Palast: Karl Rove - "Turdblossom" as Bush called him - has a computer-data-mining system called DataTrust, which he's joining up with a data-mining computer system set up the Koch brothers called Themis. These are voter-eating machines, designed to juice the attack on voter rolls by GOP secretaries of state. Ready for this? Over 22 million names were purged from voter rolls in the last two years. Those figures are from the US Election Assistance Commission - hidden in plain sight. And who gets purged?
Black voters, Latinos, Native Americans. In Colorado, the Republican secretary of state purged 19.4 percent of voters - that's one in five! In the book, she's the Purge'n General. Obama took Colorado in '08. He can kiss it goodbye.
My co-investigator and I, Bobby Kennedy, called the secretary of state of California, a Dem, who told us her GOP predecessor blocked 42 percent of new voter registrations because they had "suspicious" names - like Mohammed. For this reason, despite massive voter drives and the increase in Latino citizenship, Hispanic registration has dropped by 1 million since 2008. Caramba!
In all, 5,901,814 legitimate votes and voters were tossed out of the count in 2008. In '12 it will be worse. Way worse.
Mark Karlin: Why do you think there isn't more public outrage about the GOP attempting to crush democracy?
Greg Palast: Because Democrats are in on it, too, and that's the sick, sad truth. In New Mexico, a solid Democratic state where Latinos are half the citizenry, Bush carried the state and the GOP has the governor's mansion. Why?
Because the Hispanic Democratic elite of that state don't want no poor folk voting - or jackasses like Bill Richardson would never win a primary. When I called the secretary of state, Becky Vigil-Giron, to ask why, in one poor Hispanic precinct, there was not a single vote for president recorded, she told me that, "Those people can't make up their minds."
"Those people." I'm glad to say she's on her way to prison. But she's a Democrat.
So, Republicans and Democrats steal votes from the same people: the poor and voters of color.
But on a strict numerical scale, 90 percent of the victims are Democrats, though they are victimized by both parties.
Get "Billionaires & Ballot Bandits" and the Greg Palast DVD with a minimum contribution to Truthout. 
Mark Karlin: I've known you since you single-handedly exposed the caging strategy of Jeb Bush, Katherine Harris and a company then called ChoicePoint. Without that voter suppression in 2000, Gore would have won the popular vote in Florida as he did nationally. Yet, the mass media ignored your findings of a stolen election. Has anything changed? The mass corporate media still seems uninterested, or clueless - or both - when it comes to ratcheting down voting rights.
Greg Palast: Yeah, it's changed. For the worse.
In the book, I've got a chapter, "De-Pressed," on how the US mainstream media simply refuses to cover the story or does so in a dumbass "he-said/she-said" way.
Example: NPR, what I call National Petroleum Radio, said of the Florida purge of over a quarter million citizens from voter rolls: "State elections officials began an investigation that appears to give that argument some credence." So NPR has concluded there's "credence" in the purge. That would mean that NPR found some illegal voters. After all, there's a list of a quarter million. They didn't find any - but they effectively endorse the idea because the Republicans said so. That's not reporting; that's repeating.
My team actually went through the lists. We found, for example, that a "Bobbi Moore" (black female) was removed as a felon because of a conviction of a "Robert Moore" (white male). It wasn't a random mistake - every name was a phony.
And NPR is the best in America. At least they put the story on air - even if they didn't get one fact right.
I report these stories on the top of the nightly news on BBC TV, so it goes out worldwide - except in the USA. Here I report on Truthout (bless you), which has the no-poop facts.
There's also this: No one inside the Great American Circus Tent likes to believe they're being fooled. America likes to think of itself as a democracy. No one really wants to know their ballot has gotten hijacked, boosted, deep-sixed, caged, purged, stuck inside a robot's pocket, fiddled, filched, flimmed or flammed.
Mark Karlin: Of course, this is the first presidential election since the infamous Citizens United decision. That's like a fat cat license to buy the election, isn't it? They won't need to steal the vote if they can create an alternative reality with all that money going toward ads and other propaganda. They can just brainwash the vote.
Greg Palast: Yes, they're buying your brain, not just your ballot. But who are these guys, and why do they need a president? The point of the book is to tell you about the billion-dollar donor babies: Ice Man Simmons, Singer the Vulture, Snake Paulson - I didn't give them these nicknames, their bankers did. You should know what they have in mind for you. And I've got stuff on the Kochs you've never heard - from my files from years back when, alongside the FBI, I was investigating "Target 67C" - Charles Koch, for felony theft. No kidding. The indictment's in the book - and why Koch was never cuffed and jailed.
Mark Karlin: Isn't it amazing that since 2000, Karl Rove has played a key role in GOP election theft strategies - and is still going strong in 2012?
Greg Palast: Turdblossom has over a quarter billion dollars in his "social service charity," Crossroads. Over $20 million from Ice Man. Unlike McCain, who wouldn't touch Rove because of Turdblossom's racist operations, the Republican National Committee has actually contracted with Rove to use his Jim Crow machine, DataTrust. Rove is straight-up, at least: I quote his line that the GOP can win swing states like North Carolina by "reducing black turnout by one-quarter of one." He knows how to do it: he invented voter caging. RFK says for that, he "should be in jail." But Bobby gets all upset about people committing felony violations of the Voting Rights Act. Runs in his family.
Mark Karlin: You state that in the 2008 presidential election, 2,706,275 votes were cast and never counted. How did that happen?
Greg Palast: Here's the facts, my friend, calculated from the raw data of the US Election Assistance Commission:
No less than
767,023 provisional ballots were cast and not counted;
1,451,116 ballots were "spoiled," not counted;
488,136 absentee ballots were mailed in, but not counted.
How? Well, I could write a book. And I did: "Billionaires & Ballot Bandits."
Mark Karlin: In the chapter "The Hysteria Factor," you quote the former chairperson of the US Commission on Civil Rights, Mary Frances Berry, as telling you: "Elections aren't stolen in the vote count - they're stolen in the no count." Isn't that the essence of what the Republican Party is trying to do?
Greg Palast: Yep, that's the Rove-arian cancer on our body politic. There are no swing voters left. If you can't tell the difference between the candidates, you probably can't work a doorknob to get out to vote anyway.
The trick is this: Take 1.45 million ballots "spoiled" (cast and not counted for technical reasons, mostly errors in machine readers). The chance your vote will spoil if you're black is seven times the likelihood your ballot will be ruined by a machine if you're white. Whose vote is that? Who gave black people the crap voting machines? The same ones that gave them the crap schools. And Rove knows how to keep it that way.
Mark Karlin: Yet, watchdogs such as Mark Crispin Miller, Brad Friedman and many others do contend that the electronic voting machines do allow for the theft of elections through electronic manipulation of election outcomes.
Greg Palast: That's why I'm including Friedman's analysis on my associated web site, BallotBandits.org. I, though, don't want folks to forget the easiest way to steal votes by computer: unplug the computer. That's right. One of the key ways black votes are gone is the miraculous way that computers have glitches in Hispanic precincts, which suffer a loss of votes five times the loss in white precincts. So the votes aren't changed, they simply disappear. Oops! A "glitch" - no nasty software tricks to explain. Details? You'll have to read the book.
Mark Karlin: You point out that Bill Clinton was beholden to big money, as is Barack Obama. Yet, the efforts at voter suppression tend to be almost all Republican - and as your book points out, they are pretty unrelenting. Why does big money play a role in both parties, but restricting voting rights tends to be confined to just one of them?
Greg Palast: Democrats used to be the vote suppression champs: Jim Crow laws were written by Democrats. Democrats wore white sheets; Republicans use spreadsheets. I was in Chicago when Boss Daley would fire city workers who didn't pull the A Lever (you could vote party line with a single pull).
Vote theft has always targeted the poor and minorities. Today, that benefits (mostly) the GOP, so they've got the incentive to bleach the voter rolls white.
Mark Karlin: I've asked you this before, but let me take your temperature on this again. In the United States, you continue to be shunned by the mainstream corporate media, which means the audience for your intrepid investigations is limited. Does this discourage you? Does the fact that election theft appears to be getting more brazen instead of more transparent cause you to be cynical?
Greg Palast: Yes, it does. I have a Pulitzer Prize in Despair. But with the love of a wonderful woman, my children and Felipe II in liter size, I can make it. And as long as I have Truthout, I know I can lob my investigations for the Guardian and BBC over the electronic Berlin Wall to be read in my home country.
Get "Billionaires & Ballot Bandits" and the Greg Palast DVD with a minimum contribution to Truthout.
Copyright, Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.

THE GOP IS NOW THE PARTY OF LIARS, CHEATERS, AND THEIVES! Is it no wonder they are running a hedge fund guy for President?

No matter how bad the repubs are in this country, at the end of the day, the left has this ^^^^^^ turd floating in its bowl.

CBS news tweet:  Pennsylvania state supreme court vacates voter photo ID case. Sends it back to lower court for review

Quote from: Townsend on September 18, 2012, 12:50:03 PM
CBS news tweet:  Pennsylvania state supreme court vacates voter photo ID case. Sends it back to lower court for review

Here's some more detail...

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/breaking/20120918_Pa_Supreme_Court_orders_more_hearings_on_Voter_ID_law.html

The PA court essentially has said to send it back to the lower courts.  To determine whether or not it's feasible to issue State IDs to those who currently don't have them in time for the November election.  If it is deemed that PennDOT can't do this (estimates are wide, from 100,000 to 1.6 million who could be disenfranchised), then the law will be blocked.

If the indication from PennDOT is the same as when I had to deal with them in my previous job....the law will be blocked.

Ok, while I think there are some reasonable things that can be done in regards to voter ID. Let's just put that to the side for a moment. I just listened to an interview with John Fund (former WSJ, now with American Spectator) who wrote a book called stealing elections. He was just discussing what the real threats to our votiong system were and how just the slightest cases of fraud could have huge impacts on our political system. In particular, the example he used was the most recent Minnesota Senate race where Frankin was finally seated just in time to vote for the Affordable Care Act. And how there were many "irregularities" found that literally could have changed the face of the health care reform discussion in Washington.

I also recall nathan (I think) saying things about how ID wasn't the problem, it was the counting of the votes and such that was a bigger problem. Fund would agree with you. So here is my "common sense" (to me) solution. Please correct me if any of my assumptions are wrong.

Currently the actual vote counting and polling stations are operated by the county. I think the stations are manned with volunteers as well. It is supposed to be non-partisan or whatever. Well, I say let's make it partisan. Instead of volunteers from the county, let's have volunteers selected by each political party. So it would be more like keeping score in golf. You keep your score and the score of your opponent and then when it's all said and done, you attest for each other's scores.

Is this a good start, or complete rubbish?

Quote from: erfalf on September 22, 2012, 06:57:16 PM
Currently the actual vote counting and polling stations are operated by the county. I think the stations are manned with volunteers as well. It is supposed to be non-partisan or whatever.

My parents used to work at the elections.  There was a requirement that at least one of the three workers was of the opposite party of the other two.

Quote from: erfalf on September 22, 2012, 06:57:16 PM
Currently the actual vote counting and polling stations are operated by the county. I think the stations are manned with volunteers as well. It is supposed to be non-partisan or whatever. Well, I say let's make it partisan. Instead of volunteers from the county, let's have volunteers selected by each political party. So it would be more like keeping score in golf. You keep your score and the score of your opponent and then when it's all said and done, you attest for each other's scores.

a) We already have that. Almost every state allows each political party (or candidate in the case of non-party-affiliated candidates) to post at least one observer in each precinct.
b) That further entrenches the two party system, which is a bigger problem, IMO.

On voter ID, I find it just as problematic when eligible voters are not allowed to vote as when ineligible people vote illegally.

Quote from: nathanm on September 23, 2012, 12:23:17 PM
On voter ID, I find it just as problematic when eligible voters are not allowed to vote as when ineligible people vote illegally.

I find the Oklahoma voter ID acceptable and that it does not stop or even inhibit eligible voters from voting.  I can see that PA, for example, needs some better options.

Republicans look for voter fraud, find little

http://news.yahoo.com/republicans-look-voter-fraud-little-172327169--election.html (http://news.yahoo.com/republicans-look-voter-fraud-little-172327169--election.html)

QuoteDENVER (AP) — Republican election officials who promised to root out voter fraud so far are finding little evidence of a widespread problem.

State officials in key presidential battleground states have found only a tiny fraction of the illegal voters they initially suspected existed. Searches in Colorado and Florida have yielded numbers that amount to less than one-tenth of 1 percent of all registered voters in either state.

Democrats say the searches waste time and, worse, could disenfranchise eligible voters who are swept up in the checks.

"I find it offensive that I'm being required to do more than any other citizen to prove that I can vote," said Samantha Meiring, 37, a Colorado voter and South African immigrant who became a U.S. citizen in 2010. Meiring was among 3,903 registered voters who received letters last month from the Colorado Secretary of State's office questioning their right to vote.

Especially telling, critics of the searches say, is that the efforts are focused on crucial swing states from Colorado to Florida, where both political parties and the presidential campaigns are watching every vote. And in Colorado, most of those who received letters are either Democrats or unaffiliated with a party. It's a similar story in Florida, too.

Republicans argue that voting fraud is no small affair, even if the cases are few, when some elections are decided by hundreds of votes.

"We have real vulnerabilities in the system," said Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler, a Republican elected in 2010 who is making a name for himself at home by pursuing the issue. "I don't think one should be saying the sky is falling, but at the same time, we have to recognize we have a serious vulnerability."

The different viewpoints underscore a divide between the parties: Are the small numbers of voting fraud evidence that a problem exists? Or do they show that the voter registration system works?

COLORADO

Last year, Gessler estimated that 11,805 noncitizens were on the rolls.

But the number kept getting smaller.

After his office sent letters to 3,903 registered voters questioning their status, the number of noncitizens now stands at 141, based on checks using a federal immigration database. Of those 141, Gessler said 35 have voted in the past. The 141 are .004 percent of the state's nearly 3.5 million voters.

Even those numbers could be fewer.

The Denver clerk and recorder's office, which had records on eight of the 35 voters who cast ballots in the past, did its own verification and found that those eight people appear to be citizens.

Kevin Biln, an Adams County resident on the list, said he didn't know he was registered and maintains that he's never voted. Another voter on the list, Erica Zelfand, a Canadian immigrant, said she's a U.S. citizen no longer living in Colorado. Robert Giron said he was furious that the 20-year-old daughter he adopted from Mexico was listed as having illegally voted. He said she went to the Denver clerk's office with her U.S. passport and other documents to prove her eligibility to vote.

To Pam Anderson, the clerk and recorder in Jefferson County in suburban Denver, the investigation proves what's already been her experience: Cases of noncitizens on the rolls are extremely rare.

Anderson said the fighting between the political parties over the perception of voter fraud also has less tangible consequences.

"It impacts people's confidence in elections, which is extraordinarily important," she said.

FLORIDA

Florida's search began after the state's Division of Elections said that as many as 180,000 registered voters weren't citizens. Like Colorado and other states, Florida relied on driver's license data showing that people on the rolls at one point showed proof of non-citizenship, such as a green card.

Florida eventually narrowed its list of suspected noncitizens to 2,600 and found that 207 of them weren't citizens, based on its use of the federal database called SAVE, or the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements. The system tracks who is a legal resident eligible to receive government benefits.

Of the 2,600 initially marked as possible noncitizens, about 38 percent were unaffiliated voters and 40 percent were Democrats, according to an analysis by The Miami Herald.

The state has more than 11.4 million registered voters, so the 207 amounts to .001 percent of the voter roll.

Florida Secretary of State Ken Detzner, a Republican, said in a statement that the initiative "is already proving to be a successful process to identify illegally registered voters," which he noted is crucial in a state where the 2000 presidential election was decided by 537 votes.

NORTH CAROLINA

In North Carolina, the nonpartisan state elections board last year sent letters to 637 suspected noncitizens after checking driver's license data. Of those, 223 responded showing proof they were citizens, and 79 acknowledged they weren't citizens and were removed from the rolls along with another 331 who didn't respond to repeated letters, said Veronica Degraffenreid, an elections liaison for the board.

She said the board did not find evidence of widespread fraud, noting there were only 12 instances in which a noncitizen had voted. North Carolina has 6.4 million voters.

"What we're finding is there is strong indication that the voter rolls in North Carolina are sound," Degraffenreid said.

MICHIGAN

Michigan Secretary of State Ruth Johnson, a Republican, last week estimated that as many as 4,000 noncitizens are on the state's voter roll.

The department said it verified 1,000 registered voters who are noncitizens, based on an analysis of about 20 percent of complete citizenship data. She extrapolated the 4,000 number from the most recent U.S. Census' five-year American Community Survey, which showed Michigan has a noncitizen population of about 304,000.

That's as far as the investigation has gone. The figures have not been verified.

OTHER STATES

Ohio and Iowa, both with recently elected Republican secretaries of state, also are negotiating with the federal government to also use the SAVE database to verify citizenship, although it's unlikely they'll have enough time to do anything before the Nov. 6 election. While Ohio doesn't have a list of names it wants to check, Iowa is looking at verifying the status of 3,500 registered voters.

Last week, Iowa's Division of Criminal Investigation filed election misconduct charges against three noncitizens who voted in gubernatorial and city elections in 2010 and 2011. Among the three are Canadians who told investigators they thought they were only barred from voting in presidential elections.

The three were on a list of about 1,000 names of potential noncitizens who had voted since 2010, which Iowa Secretary of State Matt Schultz forwarded to the Division of Criminal Investigation.

Early voting in Iowa begins Thursday and Schultz recently told legislators that his office wants to use the information from the federal database "in a responsible manner."

"When somebody casts a ballot you can't un-ring that bell," he said. "If somebody is ineligible to vote and they cast a ballot that's been counted we can't take that back. This is an important election coming up."

From what I've read, the false positive rate is so ridiculously high because the databases don't get updated when an immigrant applies for and receives citizenship. I guess that's why there are more false positives than there are instances of illegally registered voters, much less illegally registered voters who have actually voted.

What really makes me mad is that rather than doing this earlier in the year or even last year, they're rushing to get it done right before the election, leaving people little time to correct any errors.

Quote from: nathanm on September 25, 2012, 11:34:26 AM

What really makes me mad is that rather than doing this earlier in the year or even last year, they're rushing to get it done right before the election, leaving people little time to correct any errors.

Seems to be the plan.

New booths to streamline the process.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/florida-to-experiment-with-new-600lever-voting-mac,29699/

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/sep/26/nation/la-na-ohio-voting-fight-20120927

The GOPee cheaters at it again. Lying, cheating,stealing basterds.
If you are a member then you are guilty by association!
http://m.yahoo.com/w/legobpengine/news/voter-registration-problems-widening-florida-154156242--election.html?orig_host_hdr=news.yahoo.com&.intl=US&.lang=en-US

(https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/s480x480/539360_357939337622987_64952864_n.jpg)

Judge Puts Pennsylvania Voter ID Law On Hold Through Election

http://kwgs.com/post/judget-puts-pennsylvania-voter-id-law-hold-through-election (http://kwgs.com/post/judget-puts-pennsylvania-voter-id-law-hold-through-election)

QuoteA judge is basically "postponing Pennsylvania's tough new voter identification requirement, ordering that it not be enforced in the presidential election," The Associated Press writes.

But in a ruling that's rather difficult to follow if you're not very familiar with the case, Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson also says he "will not restrain election officials from asking for photo ID at the polls; rather, I will enjoin enforcement of those parts of Act 18 which directly result in disenfranchisement."

Simpson ruled that a voter's "provisional ballot" cannot be declared invalid because of the lack of an ID and that the state's transitional effort to amend its laws regarding such votes must not take effect before Election Day — Nov. 6.

So, it appears from his ruling, election officials can ask for an ID. But a voter's lack of one will not invalidate his vote.

The ruling can be appealed to the state's Supreme Court.

QuoteAs the AP wrote before the ruling was released:

"Pennsylvania's new law, among the toughest in the nation, is a signature accomplishment of Republicans in control of Pennsylvania state government who say they fear election fraud. But it is an emotional target for Democrats who call it a Jim Crow-style scheme to make it harder for their party's traditional voters, including young adults and minorities, who might not carry the right kind of ID or know about the law."

Update at 10:20 a.m. ET. Bottomline Is "Pennsylvanians will not be required to show ID to vote this year."

Harrisburg's The Patriot-News sums up the story this way:

"Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson has ruled that Pennsylvanians will not be required to show ID to vote this year. Simpson is postponing Pennsylvania's tough new voter identification requirement, ordering that it not be enforced in the presidential election. ...

"The ruling means people will be asked to show ID but will be allowed to vote even if they don't. That was also the policy in effect for the primary this year."

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette explains Simpon's ruling this way:

"The injunction would have the effect of extending the transition period of the law — when voters were asked for identification but could vote without it — through the November election."

In latest voting-rights win, judge restores early voting in Ohio

http://leanforward.msnbc.com/_news/2012/10/05/14247418-in-latest-voting-rights-win-judge-restores-early-voting-in-ohio?lite (http://leanforward.msnbc.com/_news/2012/10/05/14247418-in-latest-voting-rights-win-judge-restores-early-voting-in-ohio?lite)

QuoteA federal judge has ruled that Ohio must restore full early voting hours for all voters—the latest high-profile win for voting-rights supporters.

Judge Joseph Hood of the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled (pdf) in support of a lawsuit filed by the Obama campaign, arguing that Ohio was violating the constitution by allowing military service-members, but not civilians, to vote on the last three days before the election.

After coming to power in 2010, state Republicans scrapped early voting for all but the military, raising an uproar among voting-rights supporters and Democrats. Many African-Americans traditionally vote on the Sunday before the election, after attending church—a ritual known as "souls to the polls." Around 93,000 people are estimated to have used those three days to vote in 2008, when  Obama won the state.

Lean Forward reported last month that the coalition of military groups supporting the law in court was organized by national Republican operatives.

Secretary of State Jon Husted (pictured) gave no indication of whether he planned to appeal, saying in a statement his office is reviewing the decision.

On Tuesday, in another win for voting rights, a Pennsylvania judge blocked a state law requiring voters to present photo ID.

Damn liberal judges.  ;)

Quote from: nathanm on October 05, 2012, 04:44:10 PM
Damn liberal judges.  ;)

That Ohio thing is a motherflipping mind blower.

Quote from: Townsend on October 05, 2012, 04:48:33 PM
That Ohio thing is a motherflipping mind blower.

It's all mind blowing. They don't even bother to hide their intent any more. At least in the past they'd make something up that made it seem like they weren't blatantly trying to prevent minorities and the poor from voting.

Quote from: nathanm on October 05, 2012, 05:07:07 PM
It's all mind blowing. They don't even bother to hide their intent any more. At least in the past they'd make something up that made it seem like they weren't blatantly trying to prevent minorities and the poor from voting.

And in the past the "get out the vote" groups would try to hide the fact that they were targeting the minorities and poor while ignoring the likely voters who would not tow the Democratic Party line.

Quote from: Red Arrow on October 05, 2012, 05:57:09 PM
And in the past the "get out the vote" groups would try to hide the fact that they were targeting the minorities and poor while ignoring the likely voters who would not tow the Democratic Party line.

You're seriously trying to conflate private parties' get out the vote efforts with government efforts to keep people from voting?

Quote from: nathanm on October 05, 2012, 06:15:00 PM
You're seriously trying to conflate private parties' get out the vote efforts with government efforts to keep people from voting?

Funny how that works, huh?

Quote from: nathanm on October 05, 2012, 06:15:00 PM
You're seriously trying to conflate private parties' get out the vote efforts with government efforts to keep people from voting?

I know you don't buy into the voter fraud thing. I have no problem with preventing people from voting who have no right to vote or who cannot be bothered to play by reasonable rules. The intentions of private "get out the vote" parties which are obviously partisan but claim to be "neutral" are offensive to me.  A reasonable voter ID law is acceptable to me.  We have all been back an forth on this.  I believe that any voter ID should be FREE and easy to get.  Some states do need to get their act together.  Surprisingly, Oklahoma's law is reasonable. At least I think Oklahoma's law is reasonable.

Quote from: Red Arrow on October 05, 2012, 06:25:59 PM
I know you don't buy into the voter fraud thing. I have no problem with preventing people from voting who have no right to vote or who cannot be bothered to play by reasonable rules.

That's right, I don't buy into it. It's simply too small of a problem to be worth keeping some eligible voters (including Jim Cramer's dad, apparently) from voting, IMO.

Quote
Surprisingly, Oklahoma's law is reasonable. At least I think Oklahoma's law is reasonable.

I am also surprised that we allow the voter registration card to count as acceptable ID.

I'm still not sure why GOTV efforts offend you.

Quote from: nathanm on October 05, 2012, 06:29:10 PM
That's right, I don't buy into it. It's simply too small of a problem to be worth keeping some eligible voters (including Jim Cramer's dad, apparently) from voting, IMO.

A few tweaks and everyone who is eligible to vote will.  Until then, I agree with some of the injunctions against the laws.

QuoteI'm still not sure why GOTV efforts offend you.

Because it only targets voters likely to vote for Democratic Party candidates.  If it were truly non-partisan, I would agree whole heartedly.  You may still disagree but you should understand.

Nathan,

Do you buy your gasoline at QT on a credit card?  If so what do you think about being required to input your Zip Code?  QT (counter clerk) claims it is for security.  I think differently, believing it is for marketing surveys.

Yes. I was surprised when the pump asked me for my User ID the other day.

It's anti-fraud. If they send a ZIP code with the authorization request the response they get back will tell them whether it's right or not. I don't know if they actually deny transactions where AVS comes back not verified or failure or if they use the ZIP code for other purposes beyond AVS. It protects against skimmed cards. It's less useful against physically stolen cards since the thief probably has your address.

Radio Shack, on the other hand, only asks you for your info so they can send you crap. ;)

Quote from: nathanm on October 05, 2012, 07:51:28 PM
It's anti-fraud.

The way I understand it is that, barring absolute negligence, the vendor gets their money on a credit card transaction.  That's why I am suspect of the motivation.  I don't know about debit cards, I don't have one.

Quote from: Red Arrow on October 05, 2012, 09:09:20 PM
The way I understand it is that, barring absolute negligence, the vendor gets their money on a credit card transaction.

Not with non-signature transactions. If they can produce a signed credit card slip, they won't get dinged for the chargeback, presuming they bother to respond to the dispute. In the card not present or self swipe case, they only get that protection if they use AVS. (online merchants have to submit the CVV code as well) That said, they don't actually need anything but a card number and expiration date to charge you. They just need the rest if they want to protect themselves against chargebacks.

I believe the rules are slightly different in the case of card present transactions under $25.

Quote from: Red Arrow on October 05, 2012, 06:45:47 PM
A few tweaks and everyone who is eligible to vote will.  Until then, I agree with some of the injunctions against the laws.

Because it only targets voters likely to vote for Democratic Party candidates.  If it were truly non-partisan, I would agree whole heartedly.  You may still disagree but you should understand.

I'm sure Dems would be all up in arms over a group like the Heritage Foundation or the local Tea Party driving vans through the projects to pick people up to go vote.

Quote from: Conan71 on October 06, 2012, 11:09:30 AM
I'm sure Dems would be all up in arms over a group like the Heritage Foundation or the local Tea Party driving vans through the projects to pick people up to go vote.

Both parties have been providing transportation to the polls for longer than you've been able to vote, my friend. Why would that bother me?

Quote from: Red Arrow on October 05, 2012, 05:57:09 PM
And in the past the "get out the vote" groups would try to hide the fact that they were targeting the minorities and poor while ignoring the likely voters who would not tow the Democratic Party line.

You really ought to pay more attention to your surroundings...I have encountered various 'get out the vote' groups who even went after me...old white guy... how does that play into your demographic myopia?  I REALLY don't look like the guy who would tow the Democratic Party line, and yet every encounter was accompanied by extreme enthusiasm to get me signed up - in spite of my looks.  See how different that is in reality from the efforts from the other direction?

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on October 06, 2012, 11:29:43 PM
You really ought to pay more attention to your surroundings...I have encountered various 'get out the vote' groups who even went after me...old white guy... how does that play into your demographic myopia?  I REALLY don't look like the guy who would tow the Democratic Party line, and yet every encounter was accompanied by extreme enthusiasm to get me signed up - in spite of my looks.  See how different that is in reality from the efforts from the other direction?

Not all old white guys are Republicans.  My best friend is an old white guy.  He is a die hard Democratic Party, Union supporter through and through.  (Yeah, strange best friend for me but he is a pilot so we have that in common.)  They could tell by looking at you that you were firmly NOT Republican.  You just think you were in camouflage.  Those guys are good at what they do.

Quote from: Red Arrow on October 06, 2012, 11:36:26 PM
Not all old white guys are Republicans.  My best friend is an old white guy.  He is a die hard Democratic Party, Union supporter through and through.  (Yeah, strange best friend for me but he is a pilot so we have that in common.)  They could tell by looking at you that you were firmly NOT Republican.  You just think you were in camouflage.  Those guys are good at what they do.

So, huffing that av-gas is really THAT good??  Have always heard it gave the best delusions, but never wanted to spend that much money on something that might be a bust...will have to try it.  I presume there is a place to buy some over there at the airport??  Can the general public come in and buy some??

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on October 06, 2012, 11:44:05 PM
So, huffing that av-gas is really THAT good??  Have always heard it gave the best delusions, but never wanted to spend that much money on something that might be a bust...will have to try it.  I presume there is a place to buy some over there at the airport??  Can the general public come in and buy some??

No you have to have special identification.  It's even more strict than voter ID.

Quote from: Red Arrow on October 07, 2012, 12:03:47 AM
No you have to have special identification.  It's even more strict than voter ID.

Then general aviation is racist!

Quote from: Conan71 on October 07, 2012, 12:26:24 AM
Then general aviation is racist!

Not really.  More like speciesist.  The gas pumps will sell gas to any brand of airplane and even homebuilts.

They cannot sell to cars and trucks because the road use tax on gasoline for ground use vehicles is replaced by the aviation tax.  Some smaller airports have been known to allow sales to boats and in portable containers for race cars.  I doubt that will happen at RVS or TUL.

I kind of remember being able to buy avgas with road tax added in the late 70s on about 61st St just east of Mingo.  That was when there were still a fair amount of cars without catalytic converters. 

Quote from: Red Arrow on October 07, 2012, 11:41:44 AM
Not really.  More like speciesist.  The gas pumps will sell gas to any brand of airplane and even homebuilts.

They cannot sell to cars and trucks because the road use tax on gasoline for ground use vehicles is replaced by the aviation tax.  Some smaller airports have been known to allow sales to boats and in portable containers for race cars.  I doubt that will happen at RVS or TUL.

I kind of remember being able to buy avgas with road tax added in the late 70s on about 61st St just east of Mingo.  That was when there were still a fair amount of cars without catalytic converters. 

Is there lead in it???

I remember some of the performance shops used to sell avgas for 'high' octane use in high performance cars....  Seemed counterproductive to me - just go with the nitrous....

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on October 07, 2012, 05:35:24 PM
Is there lead in it???

The "LL" in 100LL is for "low lead".  Yes, it has lead which is why the EPA is trying to kill piston engine aviation.

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on October 07, 2012, 05:35:24 PM
I remember some of the performance shops used to sell avgas for 'high' octane use in high performance cars....  Seemed counterproductive to me - just go with the nitrous....

Some of the high performance cars from before catalytic converters needed the high octane that was not available in "regular no-lead".  When Premium no-lead became available, most of the older cars could handle the no-lead fuel.  Adding to the confusion was the old Octane (Research vs. Motor) numbers vs. the new (R+M)/2 Octane numbers.

Quote from: Red Arrow on October 07, 2012, 05:52:45 PM
The "LL" in 100LL is for "low lead".  Yes, it has lead which is why the EPA is trying to kill piston engine aviation.

I thought some folks had piston engines in their aircraft that run fine on mogas? It's a little sad that the FAA certification requirements force piston engine aircraft owners to use engines straight out of the 40s. I understand they need to move slowly, given the safety risk of having aircraft fall out of the sky onto people, but it's getting ridiculous. I guess nobody really wants to put the time and money into getting a new design certified?

Quote from: nathanm on October 07, 2012, 08:00:47 PM
I thought some folks had piston engines in their aircraft that run fine on mogas? It's a little sad that the FAA certification requirements force piston engine aircraft owners to use engines straight out of the 40s. I understand they need to move slowly, given the safety risk of having aircraft fall out of the sky onto people, but it's getting ridiculous. I guess nobody really wants to put the time and money into getting a new design certified?

Airplanes with engines that used 80/87 can frequently get ($, but not too many considering the aircraft world) an STC (Supplemental Type Certificate) to use unleaded car gas provided it contains NO alcohol.  While that includes a lot of planes, there are some disadvantages of using car gas which include the vapor pressure of the gasoline and the fact that long term storage of auto gas is not good.  I don't believe Sta-Bil is allowed in airplanes.  Summer temperatures and hot under-cowl temperatures can lead to vapor lock on some planes which is NOT GOOD.  Operating at altitudes that cars do not get to gives more consideration to the vapor pressure of the gasoline.  There are other elements that I cannot identify that have always made airplane exhaust smell different than automobile exhaust even before catalytic converters. Avgas is different than Mogas.  Under many conditions, some airplanes can operate satisfactorily using Mogas.  Mostly they are lower performance planes.

Obviously an engine designed for 100 octane wouldn't run so well on 87. :D

I would expect that a modern fuel injected engine would be a lot better about vapor lock and the like. It seems like fuel icing could be a problem in one that wasn't purpose built for aircraft use, though. I suppose you'd probably want one with a blower to help compensate for the altitude. Suddenly I'm less keen on the idea

I want an electric airplane. Too bad battery technology isn't quite there yet. There's just so much less to go wrong than in a gas motor.

Quote from: nathanm on October 07, 2012, 10:36:53 PM
Obviously an engine designed for 100 octane wouldn't run so well on 87. :D

The common (only) aviation fuel available now is 100 Octane.  Engines designed to run on 80/87 can use it but there can be some problems. I think 80/87 had a lot less (maybe no) lead than 100LL.  Leaning the mixture (done manually on most small aircraft) allows engines designed to run on 80/87 to survive on 100LL.

QuoteI would expect that a modern fuel injected engine would be a lot better about vapor lock and the like.

I'm not so sure about that due to the altitude consideration.  Hot engine restarts (after filling the gas tanks and then not taking a potty break for example) on fuel injected aircraft are notoriously difficult due to warm under cowl temperatures.  I don't know why, but they are.

QuoteIt seems like fuel icing could be a problem in one that wasn't purpose built for aircraft use, though.

Water in the fuel could freeze.  Sump draining the fuel tanks to check for water is part of a pre-flight inspection.  That is another reason that avgas is not allowed to contain alcohol. Nearly instant separation of any water in the fuel allow the pilot to drain the water.  You may also be thinking of carburetor ice which is a different problem.

QuoteI suppose you'd probably want one with a blower to help compensate for the altitude.

Turbocharging or supercharging allows the engine to maintain power at altitude.  It is not really a fuel issue.  All normally aspirated engines lose power as they climb in altitude.  Take your car to Denver from here and you will notice the difference.  In the days of carburetor type cars, the difference was even more noticeable as many carbs  had fixed orifice jets.  Some had vacuum modulated jets which kept you from blowing a bunch of black exhaust but the power level  was still down.

QuoteI want an electric airplane. Too bad battery technology isn't quite there yet. There's just so much less to go wrong than in a gas motor.

There is at least one electric self launch sailplane.  There is enough energy for a launch but not for sustained flight. After the launch, the engine/propellor are stowed and the sailplane relies on thermal/ridge/wave lift for sustained flight.  Battery energy density is just not enough for a typical power plane.

Uh oh...

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/10/11/republican-party-voter-register-i-dont-get-credit-for-democrats/

High Court refuses to weigh in on early voting in Ohio

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/16/14484280-high-court-refuses-to-weigh-in-on-early-voting-in-ohio?lite (http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/16/14484280-high-court-refuses-to-weigh-in-on-early-voting-in-ohio?lite)

QuoteThe Supreme Court has refused to issue an order that would have cut back on early voting in Ohio.

The state asked the court to block lower court orders that directed the state to let individual counties decide if they want to permit early voting on the weekend and the Monday before the general election for all registered voters. The state wanted to permit it only for members of the U.S. military.

In a brief, one sentence order, the court said the application for a stay was addressed to Justice Elena Kagan, the circuit justice for that part of the country. She followed the usual practice of referring it to the full court, which then declined to take up the case.

Swing-State Billboards Warning Against Voter Fraud Stir Backlash

http://publicradiotulsa.org/post/swing-state-billboards-warning-against-voter-fraud-stir-backlash (http://publicradiotulsa.org/post/swing-state-billboards-warning-against-voter-fraud-stir-backlash)

QuoteDozens of anonymous billboards have popped up in urban areas in the crucial battleground states of Ohio and Wisconsin. The signs note that voter fraud is a felony, punishable by up to 3 1/2 years in prison and a $10,000 fine.

Civil rights groups and Democrats complain that the billboards are meant to intimidate voters.

The billboards began appearing two weeks ago — 85 of them in and around Milwaukee, and an additional 60 in Cleveland and Columbus. The signs say in large white letters "Voter Fraud is a Felony!" There's a big picture of a judge's gavel and small letters at the bottom that say the ads are funded simply by a "private family foundation."

A number of liberal groups and labor organizations are demanding that the billboards be taken down.

"I think that these billboards are designed to suppress the vote. That is their intention," says Scot Ross, executive director of one of those groups, the Institute for One Wisconsin.

Ross notes that many of the signs are located in predominantly black, Hispanic and university neighborhoods.

"Just the concentration of them is a pretty good indication what the end goal is and who these anonymous billboards are targeting for voter suppression," he says. In other words, students, minorities and others who tend to vote Democratic.

And in such a close election, this has lots of people wondering who is behind the ads.

Clear Channel Communications, which owns the billboards, isn't saying. A spokesman wrote in an email to NPR that the advertiser asked to be anonymous. That goes against company policy, but he said the contract was signed by mistake and the company does not plan to take the billboards down.

"We will do all we can to ensure it does not happen again," the spokesman said.

He didn't respond to questions about why the company allowed almost identical billboards to go up anonymously in Milwaukee in 2010. They were also funded by a "private family foundation."

ColorOfChange, an online civil rights group, has launched a petition drive calling on Clear Channel to remove the ads. So far, more than 65,000 people have signed on.

"We're going to work incredibly hard to find out who's behind these," says Rashad Robinson, the group's executive director.

Even though the ads are factually correct, Robinson says, they imply that voter fraud is rampant.

"In fact, you're more likely to get hit by lightning than to have in-person voter fraud," he says. "These anonymous donors are not running billboards warning us about getting hit by lightning. They are running these billboards in black and brown neighborhoods with the real intention of scaring people."

He adds that it doesn't help that Clear Channel is owned in large part by Bain Capital, the former company of Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney — although the acquisition occurred long after Romney's departure.

To some, all of this is much ado about nothing.

Nathan Conrad, a spokesman for the Republican Party of Wisconsin, says the party has no connection to the billboards, although it does take the issue of voter integrity very seriously.

"My impression and understanding is that they simply state what the law is in the state of Wisconsin," says Conrad. "And that being said, I'm not sure how it would intimidate anyone who was not planning on voting illegally going into the election season."

Larry Gamble of Wisconsin GrandSons of Liberty, a citizens group also concerned about voter fraud, says he doesn't think the billboards are intimidating or racist. He notes that two of them are near his home, well outside Milwaukee.

Instead, he thinks the ads are educational, because they inform people who might not know that voter fraud is a serious crime.

"If it's somebody that might be coerced into trying to game the system and vote twice or manipulate the elections process somehow, it sends a very clear signal, and maybe it would be a wake-up call for that individual," Gamble says.

Even if the billboards are intended to intimidate voters, there's no evidence such tactics work — that they don't instead have the opposite impact.

A coalition of billboard opponents called Election Protection hopes so. They put up new billboards Thursday in Milwaukee and Cleveland encouraging people to vote and stand up for their rights.

(http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/shared/npr/201210/163158444.jpg)

Someone say "Voter Intimidation"?

Nothing to see here, move along.  The Justice Department will get right on it.

(http://media.philly.com/images/600*450/20100728_inq_denvir28.JPG)

Quote from: Townsend on October 18, 2012, 04:41:30 PM
Swing-State Billboards Warning Against Voter Fraud Stir Backlash

http://publicradiotulsa.org/post/swing-state-billboards-warning-against-voter-fraud-stir-backlash (http://publicradiotulsa.org/post/swing-state-billboards-warning-against-voter-fraud-stir-backlash)

(http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/shared/npr/201210/163158444.jpg)

Nevermind the first amendment or the fact that voting legal is perfectly legal. This should only be suppressing the fraudulant vote.

And to think, some people want to strip funding for NPR because they think its biased.

None of this should be done.

It's pathetic.  Not sure why anyone would argue it.

Quote from: Townsend on October 18, 2012, 04:48:35 PM
None of this should be done.

It's pathetic.  Not sure why anyone would argue it.

And you shouldn't have to tell people to come in out of the rain either, but...

Quote from: erfalf on October 18, 2012, 04:55:30 PM
And you shouldn't have to tell people to come in out of the rain either, but...

I agree, you shouldn't.  You do this a lot?

Quote from: Townsend on October 18, 2012, 04:59:04 PM
I agree, you shouldn't.  You do this a lot?

Old saying. Maybe not a city folk thing.  :-\

Maybe you should go read the thread on moving the deer crossing signs...

Her vote counts as much as yours...   And twice as much if someone can talk her into voting two times.

Quote from: TeeDub on October 18, 2012, 09:35:41 PM
Maybe you should go read the thread on moving the deer crossing signs...

Her vote counts as much as yours...   And twice as much if someone can talk her into voting two times.

As much as that frightens me, we do live in America. And I thank the Lord everyday for that fact.

Quote from: erfalf on October 18, 2012, 09:45:23 PM
As much as that frightens me, we do live in America. And I thank the Lord everyday for that fact.

Accident of birth.  You just happen to be one of the lucky one out of 20 on this planet who got those "lottery numbers".


Or do you believe God chose 1 out of every 20 humans to be more special than the other 19??

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on October 19, 2012, 10:41:35 AM

Accident of birth.  You just happen to be one of the lucky one out of 20 on this planet who got those "lottery numbers".


Or do you believe God chose 1 out of every 20 humans to be more special than the other 19??

All I can say is that at least we agree that America is special.

Quote from: erfalf on October 19, 2012, 10:48:44 AM
All I can say is that at least we agree that America is special.

Sometimes helmet special.

Is this some kind of pattern?

http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/breaking-gop-contractor-arrested-for-throwing-voter-registrations-in-dumpster/politics/2012/10/18/51559

Pitter Pattern....

QuoteDoes the Romney Family Now Own Your e-Vote?

Friday, 19 October 2012 09:12
By Gerry Bello, Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman, Free Press | Report

Do you feel that mainstream media spin is obscuring the truth during this election season? Truthout doesn't take advertising or corporate sponsorships, so we can bring you honest, fact-based election coverage. Click here to help support this effort by making a donation by the end of this week!

A Hart e-Voting Machine. (Photo: Joe Hall / Flickr)
Will you cast your vote this fall on a faulty electronic machine that's partly owned by the Romney Family? Will that machine decide whether Romney will then inherit the White House?
Through a closely held equity fund called Solamere, Mitt Romney and his wife, son and brother are major investors in an investment firm called H.I.G. Capital. H.I.G. in turn holds a majority share and three out of five board members in Hart Intercivic, a company that owns the notoriously faulty electronic voting machines that will count the ballots in swing state Ohio November 7. Hart machines will also be used elsewhere in the United States.
In other words, a candidate for the presidency of the United States, and his brother, wife and son, have a straight-line financial interest in the voting machines that could decide this fall's election. These machines cannot be monitored by the public. But they will help decide who "owns" the White House.
Also see: Will Bain-Linked E-Voting Machines Give Romney the White House?
They are especially crucial in Ohio, without which no Republican candidate has ever won the White House. In 2004, in the dead of election night, an electronic swing of more than 300,000 votes switched Ohio from the John Kerry column to George W. Bush, giving him a second term. A virtual statistical impossibility, the 6-plus% shift occurred between 12:20 and 2am election night as votes were being tallied by a GOP-controlled information technology firm on servers in a basement in Chattanooga, Tennessee. In defiance of a federal injunction, 56 of Ohio's 88 counties destroyed all election records, making a recount impossible. Ohio's governor and secretary of state in 2004 were both Republicans, as are the governors and secretaries of state in nine key swing states this year.
As we have previously reported, H.I.G. Capital has on its board of directors at least three close associates of the Romney family. H.I.G. Capital directors John P. Bolduk and Douglas Berman are major Romney fundraisers. So is former Bain and H.I.G. manager Brian Shortsleeve. H.I.G. employees have contributed at least $338,000 to Romney's campaign. Fully a third of H.I.G.'s leadership previously worked at Romney's old Bain firm.
But new research now shows that the association doesn't stop with mere friendship and business associations. Mitt Romney, his wife Ann Romney, and their son Tagg Romney are also invested in H.I.G. Capital, as is Mitt's brother G. Scott Romney.
The investment comes in part through the privately held family equity firm called Solamere, which bears the name of the posh Utah ski community where the Romney family retreats to slide down the slopes.
Unlike other private equity firms, Solamere does not invest in companies directly. Instead, Solamere invests in other private equity funds, like H.I.G. Capital. Solamere calls them partners. These partners, like H.I.G., then invest in various enterprises, like Hart Intercivic, the nation's third-largest voting machine manufacturer.
As reported by Lee Fang of The Nation, Solamere was founded by Tagg Romney and Spencer Zwick, Papa Romney's campaign finance chair. Ann Romney and Mitt's brother G. Scott Romney are also invested. Mitt himself threw in $10 million "seed money" to get the fund going, and spoke personally to its first full investors conference. Solamere's public web presence has been reduced to a front page only, so a complete list of it's partners can not be found. But reportage by the New York Times, Boston Globe, Esquire and the Nation have slowly given us a partial picture of which funds are being funded by Solamere. Some $232 million has been raised so far, according to SEC filings and industry publications.
In addition to Romney's finance chair Spencer Zwick, Solamere has also provided the campaign with its finance director, Richard Morley, and a western regional finance coordinator, Kaitlin O'Reilly. O'Reilly is listed as an executive assistant at Solamere, and also at SJZ LLC, which was founded by her boss Spencer Zwick. The SJZ LLC campaign finance consulting firm has billed Mitt's campaign over $2 million this election cycle as well as doing another $9,687,582 in billing to various Congressional Campaigns. The host of the private fundraiser at which Romney made his infamous "47%" speech was Marc J. Leder, co-CEO of Sun Capital, another "partner" of the Solamere fund.
As in virtually every close presidential race, Ohio may well hold the key to the Electoral College decision as to who will become the nation's next chief executive. The presence of Hart Intercivic machines in Hamilton County, home to Cincinnati, means there is a high likelihood the votes that will decide the presidency will be cast on them. Major media like CBS have begun reporting that Cincinnati could be "ground zero" in this year's election.
But these Hart machines are deeply flawed and widely know to be open to a troubling variety of attacks and breakdowns. There is no legal or other means to definitively monitor and re-check a tally compiled on Hart or other electronic voting machines. Ohio's current governor and secretary of state are both Republicans.
Does this mean the Romney investment in Hart Intercivic through H.I.G. Capital and Solamere will yield it not only financial profits but the White House itself?
Tune in during the deep night of November 7, when the electronic votes in swing state Ohio are once again opaquely reported to the nation and the world, without meaningful public scrutiny or legal recourse.
This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license.

Quote from: erfalf on October 19, 2012, 10:48:44 AM
All I can say is that at least we agree that America is special.

I suspect we agree on a lot more than that, it's just some of the things you bring up require so much time for response, so we don't get to explore similarities much.  2nd Amendment as an individual right??

Fiscal conservatism.  I want to know why the Republican party became the party of Sell-outs during Reagan and onward, and stopped working toward a balanced budget amendment?  (I know the answer - they NEVER wanted the actual amendment - just the lemming response attached to that 'position'.)  I want to know why we have incurred such massive debt by such fiscal irresponsibility, outside of a legitimate wartime effort.  (Be careful how you answer these if you choose to do so...I am lurking in the weeds waiting for you!  Remember, rust never sleeps! )  What we as a country has done in the last 30 years due to our unbridled selfishness is an Abomination.  What we have done to our kids - and yes, YOU are one of those included - is unconscionable.  It is despicable.  It is beyond comprehension how 'parents' could do this to their children - everything from the debt to the outsourcing of jobs - the ones kids need when starting out, to the throwing away of 4,000+ lives of your contemporaries - my kids and grandkids - for no more than a frivolous boost to a spoiled little brat's ego to get back for his daddy being a little bit embarrassed.  Abomination!

I am more social liberal - actually probably more libertarian - than you likely are.  I think it is obscene the way we infringe on people's freedom to practice their religion of choice.  I think it is obscene to infringe on people's personal lives in all the ways we do so much of.  I will start working on a list if you are interested....in many ways you are living "The Truman Show" and don't even realize some of what you have lost, since you never had it.

And NO, I don't consider a corporation a "people" as defined by the Constitution or by any other possible rational definition.

Opened up the journal this morning and no joke, there was a picture of Obama getting ready to vote early in Chicago, and get this, he was showing his ID.

Now that's funny stuff.

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on October 19, 2012, 07:50:00 PM

I suspect we agree on a lot more than that, it's just some of the things you bring up require so much time for response, so we don't get to explore similarities much.  2nd Amendment as an individual right??

Fiscal conservatism.  I want to know why the Republican party became the party of Sell-outs during Reagan and onward, and stopped working toward a balanced budget amendment?  (I know the answer - they NEVER wanted the actual amendment - just the lemming response attached to that 'position'.)  I want to know why we have incurred such massive debt by such fiscal irresponsibility, outside of a legitimate wartime effort.  (Be careful how you answer these if you choose to do so...I am lurking in the weeds waiting for you!  Remember, rust never sleeps! )  What we as a country has done in the last 30 years due to our unbridled selfishness is an Abomination.  What we have done to our kids - and yes, YOU are one of those included - is unconscionable.  It is despicable.  It is beyond comprehension how 'parents' could do this to their children - everything from the debt to the outsourcing of jobs - the ones kids need when starting out, to the throwing away of 4,000+ lives of your contemporaries - my kids and grandkids - for no more than a frivolous boost to a spoiled little brat's ego to get back for his daddy being a little bit embarrassed.  Abomination!

I am more social liberal - actually probably more libertarian - than you likely are.  I think it is obscene the way we infringe on people's freedom to practice their religion of choice.  I think it is obscene to infringe on people's personal lives in all the ways we do so much of.  I will start working on a list if you are interested....in many ways you are living "The Truman Show" and don't even realize some of what you have lost, since you never had it.

And NO, I don't consider a corporation a "people" as defined by the Constitution or by any other possible rational definition.

I guess I never saw this post. Personally I think most American's have way more in common than political hacks would have you believe. Politicians look for the tiniest wedge to create a huge divide. We are not dividing ourselves. If you put a random groups of people together, they would work together. Happens every day. Look at what our military members go through and I doubt every one of them thinks in lock step with each other.

You may be a tad more socially liberal/libertarian, but I would argue that I am as well. I have my personal opinions, but I understand that what I believe doesn't stand for everyone. If you want to be gay, be gay. But I don't have to be, nor do I have to like you for it (which I don't care, but it's my right to think what I want to think).

Quote from: erfalf on October 26, 2012, 08:36:20 AM
I guess I never saw this post. Personally I think most American's have way more in common than political hacks would have you believe. Politicians look for the tiniest wedge to create a huge divide. We are not dividing ourselves. If you put a random groups of people together, they would work together. Happens every day. Look at what our military members go through and I doubt every one of them thinks in lock step with each other.

You may be a tad more socially liberal/libertarian, but I would argue that I am as well. I have my personal opinions, but I understand that what I believe doesn't stand for everyone. If you want to be gay, be gay. But I don't have to be, nor do I have to like you for it (which I don't care, but it's my right to think what I want to think).

Wow.  Like you believe people have a choice in the matter?

Quote from: Hoss on October 26, 2012, 09:04:02 AM
Wow.  Like you believe people have a choice in the matter?

The other day I prayed some gay away.    (Or it could be that she was just walking by.)

Quote from: erfalf on October 26, 2012, 08:36:20 AM

You may be a tad more socially liberal/libertarian, but I would argue that I am as well. I have my personal opinions, but I understand that what I believe doesn't stand for everyone. If you want to be gay, be gay. But I don't have to be, nor do I have to like you for it (which I don't care, but it's my right to think what I want to think).

If you "don't like" gay, then you are not socially liberal NOR libertarian.  On at least that one point, you are deeply embedded in the Teabagger BS mentality. 


Epilepsy was targeted in the 50's and 60's and for hundreds if not thousands of years before as "demonic possession" and people born that way were discriminated against and denied basic rights.  Being Native American, African American, Irish, Chinese, unwed mothers, etc, etc has also been targeted for those same hundreds of years here in this country.  Gay just happens to be the latest target of discrimination that we seem to have to indulge in for some reason.

Again, it goes back to that whole "accident of birth" thing.  If you were accidentally born something other than what you are - whatever that is, since I have no information about that - then you would most likely have a viewpoint based on the experience set deriving from the perspective of that particular "accident of birth".

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on October 26, 2012, 11:14:43 AM

If you "don't like" gay, then you are not socially liberal NOR libertarian.  On at least that one point, you are deeply embedded in the Teabagger BS mentality.  

I know this is totally childish, but don't you find it a tad inappropriate to use the teabagger when discussing homosexuals?  ;D

In all seriuosness, I didn't say I gave a flip, I said I have the right to give a flip. There is a difference, and a true libertarian would know the difference. Maybe you are more liberal in that you are for gay rights and for smaking sure everybody else agrees with you lock step. That's not libertarian, that's fascistic.

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on October 26, 2012, 11:14:43 AM


Again, it goes back to that whole "accident of birth" thing.  If you were accidentally born something other than what you are - whatever that is, since I have no information about that - then you would most likely have a viewpoint based on the experience set deriving from the perspective of that particular "accident of birth".

I honestly didn't mean to imply that gays have a choice per say. I meant it in the same vain as if I said there goes Hoss, just being Hoss. Nothing durogatory really. Well...

The point being, I have a preference in lifestyle, I don't force everyone else to conform to me. It's America for pete sake. Not Ericville

Quote from: erfalf on October 26, 2012, 12:39:25 PM
I know this is totally childish, but don't you find it a tad inappropriate to use the teabagger when discussing homosexuals?  ;D

In all seriuosness, I didn't say I gave a flip, I said I have the right to give a flip. There is a difference, and a true libertarian would know the difference. Maybe you are more liberal in that you are for gay rights and for smaking sure everybody else agrees with you lock step. That's not libertarian, that's fascistic.

I honestly didn't mean to imply that gays have a choice per say. I meant it in the same vain as if I said there goes Hoss, just being Hoss. Nothing durogatory really. Well...

The point being, I have a preference in lifestyle, I don't force everyone else to conform to me. It's America for pete sake. Not Ericville

And where the hell are the LGBT communities 'forcing' everyone to conform?  Can you cite one reference?  Remember, it's the 'hetero' religious fanatics who say the gay can 'prayed away' and actually have facilities that claim it does just that.  I don't think I've seen any in the LGBT community going around trying to recruit people or 'pray the hetero away'....

Quote from: erfalf on October 26, 2012, 12:39:25 PM
I know this is totally childish, but don't you find it a tad inappropriate to use the teabagger when discussing homosexuals?  ;D

In all seriuosness, I didn't say I gave a flip, I said I have the right to give a flip. There is a difference, and a true libertarian would know the difference. Maybe you are more liberal in that you are for gay rights and for smaking sure everybody else agrees with you lock step. That's not libertarian, that's fascistic.

No.


I'm not just for gay rights - I'm for human rights.  And geez...again...don't you know anything about the Libertarians either??  Since the 70's, they have had an official position of the same rights for gays as for other people.  I wish you would get some...ANY!...information/learning whatever from somewhere OTHER than Fox!!

Tell me in your own words why it is that YOU think that gays should not be accorded equal rights that other people get?  What is YOUR personal opinion/position etc on the topic.  I have told you mine...I think it would be refreshing to get something other than the official position from "The Script"....

Quote from: Hoss on October 26, 2012, 12:45:12 PM
And where the hell are the LGBT communities 'forcing' everyone to conform?  Can you cite one reference?  Remember, it's the 'hetero' religious fanatics who say the gay can 'prayed away' and actually have facilities that claim it does just that.  I don't think I've seen any in the LGBT community going around trying to recruit people or 'pray the hetero away'....

I believe there were a few idiot mayors saying that Chick fil-A's weren't allowed anymore because their opinions didn't comport with those of the city (whatever that means).

I am not by any means defending those people you mention either.

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on October 26, 2012, 06:36:26 PM

No.


I'm not just for gay rights - I'm for human rights.  And geez...again...don't you know anything about the Libertarians either??  Since the 70's, they have had an official position of the same rights for gays as for other people.  I wish you would get some...ANY!...information/learning whatever from somewhere OTHER than Fox!!

Tell me in your own words why it is that YOU think that gays should not be accorded equal rights that other people get?  What is YOUR personal opinion/position etc on the topic.  I have told you mine...I think it would be refreshing to get something other than the official position from "The Script"....

I am for human rights. And yes, I know plenty about libertarians, and I don't watch FOX (although I do play FBN and CNBC off each other).



Tell me where I said that I didn't think that they shouldn't get the same rights. I do. Although I disagree greatly on how they are going about it. For example, on the marriage issue, I think they are using the wrong tools to get the desired result. First, the tax code in my opinion needs to be flat and this antiquated notion of giving a tax break for being able to procreate should be banished. Second, marriage (in my opinion) is a religious recognition between two individuals, therefore it should be kept there and not regulated by the state whatsoever. Third, the state's only role will be that of a contractual enforcer. With shared assets, there must be some sort of "contract" between two parties (and only two). Forth, (this is where I am not a legal expert) iron out all the issues regarding privacy issues that prevent gays from hospital visits, records releases and adoptions and whatever else their are different standards for gays.

Again, try having a conversation with me and what I say, not your interpretation of a typical Obama hater.

And to clarify my earlier point I summon the words of Sgt. Hartman, "There is no racial (gender) bigotry here. I do not look down on niggers, kikes, wops or greasers. Here you are all equally worthless." I am perfectly free to think what I want. But I would not let my opinion stop another American from being afforded the same rights I am. I am human(e). I think the Chick-fil-a thing I mentioned earlier is an excellent example. the guy doesn't agree with it, but as a Christian he treats gays (not that he would know any better just bumping into someone at a store) just like everyone else.

I like to point to MLK when talking about this because I think so many in the present day "movements" are taking the wrong approach. MLK took the high road, above reproach. He knew he would piss off people, but he still did it the right way.

This guy gets it: http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-823655

Again, the high road.

Quote from: erfalf on October 26, 2012, 08:31:41 AM
Opened up the journal this morning and no joke, there was a picture of Obama getting ready to vote early in Chicago, and get this, he was showing his ID.

Now that's funny stuff.

Ironically Illinois requires photo ID for early voting, but not for election day voting. Even more ironic is that we are constantly told that minorities often vote early because they cannot vote on election day (although not just minorities, but that's the meme).

Quote from: erfalf on October 26, 2012, 07:57:21 PM
And to clarify my earlier point I summon the words of Sgt. Hartman, "There is no racial (gender) bigotry here. I do not look down on niggers, kikes, wops or greasers. Here you are all equally worthless." I am perfectly free to think what I want. But I would not let my opinion stop another American from being afforded the same rights I am. I am human(e). I think the Chick-fil-a thing I mentioned earlier is an excellent example. the guy doesn't agree with it, but as a Christian he treats gays (not that he would know any better just bumping into someone at a store) just like everyone else.

Nobody called you racist. You just support laws that are racist in effect. When religious groups felt like they were under attack by laws of general applicability that prevented them from exercising their religious freedom, they went to Congress and got the Religious Freedom Restoration Act passed. Clearly those folks didn't believe it was OK to be discriminated against just because the law that discriminated against them didn't mention religion or only apply to religious people.

It's great that you don't intend for racist/sexist/whatever things to happen. We need more people like you! The problem is that while your intent may be pure and you may be a good person, that doesn't change the fact that a group of people are being discriminated against. Practically speaking, I don't think your motivations matter to those subject to discrimination. The effect is the same regardless of intent.

Whether you think it matters or not, the fact is that minorities and the poor are much less likely to have photo ID than you or I. Especially those that live in cities and don't drive. The fact is that minorities and the poor die younger, so increases in the retirement age hit them harder than it does you or I. The fact is that poor and minority majority neighborhoods get patrolled by police more often, leading young people in those neighborhoods to be disproportionately likely to be brought up on charges of drug possession even though they're less likely to actually have drugs in the first place.

The point being that overt bigotry is not the only kind of bigotry.

Have we made a lot of progress in the last several decades? Unequivocally yes. Do we still have a long way to go? Also yes.

Out of curiosity, why only two people for nonreligious marriage? It seems like the libertarian view would be to take no position on the number of people a person can marry. After all, they're not concerned with how many cars you own or how many kids you have.

Quote from: erfalf on October 26, 2012, 07:57:21 PM


I am for human rights. And yes, I know plenty about libertarians, and I don't watch FOX (although I do play FBN and CNBC off each other).



Tell me where I said that I didn't think that they shouldn't get the same rights. I do. Although I disagree greatly on how they are going about it. For example, on the marriage issue, I think they are using the wrong tools to get the desired result. First, the tax code in my opinion needs to be flat and this antiquated notion of giving a tax break for being able to procreate should be banished. Second, marriage (in my opinion) is a religious recognition between two individuals, therefore it should be kept there and not regulated by the state whatsoever. Third, the state's only role will be that of a contractual enforcer. With shared assets, there must be some sort of "contract" between two parties (and only two). Forth, (this is where I am not a legal expert) iron out all the issues regarding privacy issues that prevent gays from hospital visits, records releases and adoptions and whatever else their are different standards for gays.

Again, try having a conversation with me and what I say, not your interpretation of a typical Obama hater.

And to clarify my earlier point I summon the words of Sgt. Hartman, "There is no racial (gender) bigotry here. I do not look down on niggers, kikes, wops or greasers. Here you are all equally worthless." I am perfectly free to think what I want. But I would not let my opinion stop another American from being afforded the same rights I am. I am human(e). I think the Chick-fil-a thing I mentioned earlier is an excellent example. the guy doesn't agree with it, but as a Christian he treats gays (not that he would know any better just bumping into someone at a store) just like everyone else.

I like to point to MLK when talking about this because I think so many in the present day "movements" are taking the wrong approach. MLK took the high road, above reproach. He knew he would piss off people, but he still did it the right way.

This guy gets it: http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-823655

Again, the high road.

Apparently not, or you would not have said what you did relative to liberal versus libertarian.  You words...not mine.


So, you think they are going about it using the "wrong tools".  Please, do tell...what in your opinion is the "right way"??   Hint: asking nicely to be treated like everyone else did not work.  So, part two of that question - should they have just stopped then and there and let it be - the good old fashioned "sit down and shut up"??  And that tax code nonsense - very weak attempt at deflection - like the 8 ball says...Try Again Later.

So, doing street demonstrations would then have to fall into the way you disagree with greatly - your words, not mine.  And yet, that is exactly one of the tools of MLK and the Civil Rights movement in this country.  How did you not know that?

Another tool they are using is the courts.  Presumably another way you disagree with greatly, since you disagree greatly on how they are doing it - again, your words, not mine.  And yet, here we have another example of the tools MLK and company used.  Did you miss that one, too?

Or how about Civil Disobedience?  Again, one of those 'bad ways' for the same reasons as above.  One more time, MLK and Friends.... do I really need to say it again?  What you would have noticed if you had paid any attention to at least the last 15 years or so - from your mid-teens on - is that the LGBT have observed and learned a lot about strategy from efforts that went before - like MLK and the entire Civil Rights movement.  And having watched that effort first hand, I see a lot of similarities - and maybe it is not a conscious effort - maybe it is just one of those things that many humans come to 'naturally'.  Don't know about that...but there have been sublime examples in the past - don't think for a second that MLK was the first to use those tools.  Mohandas Gandhi was a master at leading a movement based on peaceful resistance and civil disobedience.  And Henry Thoreau wrote about Civil Disobedience about two hundred years ago.

And then you spew some nonsense about how the state should not really be involved at all...except to make sure it is ONLY two people who can get married.  Obviously, another example of how woefully inadequate your knowledge of history is.  A religious recognition between two people - you do realize where the whole concept of institutionalized monogamy evolved, don't you?  (I'm betting no.)  Or why it came about in that time and place?  It sure wasn't any religion that you or anyone else in this country adhere to today.  So what is your problem with people who want to have their families consisting of 3, 4, or more adult people as the core family unit?  How does that affect YOUR version of marriage in any way, shape or form?  How could it possibly affect your observance of religious belief if someone else were allowed to freely observe theirs??  It IS however one of those examples of the lie that the extremist right spews about related to "religious freedom" in this country.

Ahhhh...the "high road".  Except that the guy who runs Chik-fil-a, adheres to and actively supports with his actual cash contributions, organizations that are indeed 'hate groups'.  These are groups that actually DO adhere to the belief and aggressively work toward the ideal that homosexuality should actually be criminalized again.  And even that gays should be put to death.  Yeah...that's the high road all right.  Look behind the curtain once in a while.  If the view there doesn't sink in and give you at least a little chill, well, that's just sad.

If SANDY causes so much power outage everywhere in 6 states http://www.bradblog.com/?p=9670 then will FEMA dictate where the priority power restoration points will be and when they get activated? Isn't FEMA governed by POTUS OBAMA?  Next we will hear of Republican strongholds complaining their power did not get restored in time for them to vote. I see many false allegations regarding voting on the horizon...and it's not a pretty picture.

(http://assets.amuniversal.com/145dbd70f89a012ff474001dd8b71c47)

Well, poot. I guess those voter ID laws are necessary after all:

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2012/nov/02/southern-nevada-woman-arrested-suspicion-trying-vo/

Oh, wait..Nevada doesn't have one.

Quote from: nathanm on November 03, 2012, 01:11:26 PM
Well, poot. I guess those voter ID laws are necessary after all:

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2012/nov/02/southern-nevada-woman-arrested-suspicion-trying-vo/

Oh, wait..Nevada doesn't have one.

more: http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/11/02/1132171/gop-claims-voting-machines-are-stealing-elections-for-obama/

They won't be able to live with a legit victory....crybabies and losers. Lots of hate for government the next 4 years.

That's hilarious, given that the statistical evidence (softly) indicates that someone was engaged in vote flipping on Romney's behalf in the primaries. What's even more hilarious is that would be the absolute stupidest way to steal an election. People have so little conception of how computers work, they think that what's on the screen necessarily has a relation to what the machine records as your vote. Even if you were dumb enough to flip votes at the individual machine level, it wouldn't be a case of "OMG I tapped Romney but the checkbox appeared in Obama's box".

That's why a paper trail is vital to having a system that can be trusted.

And so it begins: Florida Early Vote Totals Drastically Changed, Raises Questions
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/10/30/florida-early-vote-totals-drastically-changed-raises-questions/

This http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/04/florida-early-voting_n_2073119.html is why I predict Floriduh will go to Romney. Did you see the lines in Dade and the controversy over early voters who could not cast a vote due to all the congestion. Then they were told they could cast absentee ballots but they would be provisional.

The state gave us the Bush years...

Supreme Court To Weigh Constitutionality Of Voting Rights Act

http://kwgs.com/post/supreme-court-weigh-constitutionality-voting-rights-act (http://kwgs.com/post/supreme-court-weigh-constitutionality-voting-rights-act)

QuoteThe Supreme Court has agreed to weigh the constitutionality of the decision by Congress in 2006 to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act, the landmark Civil Rights legislation enacted in 1965 that let millions of African-Americans cast ballots for the first time in states that had long blocked them from voting booths.

According to Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSBlog:

"Specially at issue is the constitutionality of the law's Section 5, the most important provision, under which nine states and parts of seven others with a past history of racial bias in voting must get official clearance in Washington before they may put into effect any change in election laws or procedures, no matter how small. The Court came close to striking that down three years ago, but instead sent Congress clear signals that it should update the law so that it reflects more recent conditions, especially in the South. Congress did nothing in reaction."

As The Associated Press adds:

"The basic question is whether state and local governments that once boasted of their racial discrimination still can be forced in the 21st century to get federal permission before making changes in the way they hold elections.

"Some of the governments covered — most of them are in the South — argue they have turned away from racial discrimination over the years. But Congress and lower courts that have looked at recent challenges to the law concluded that a history of discrimination and more recent efforts to harm minority voters justify continuing federal oversight."

The case the court is taking has been brought by Shelby County, Alabama.

Ex-Republicans claim Fla. GOP suppressed Democratic vote

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/ex-republicans-claim-fla-gop-suppressed-democratic-vote-194121956--election.html (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/ex-republicans-claim-fla-gop-suppressed-democratic-vote-194121956--election.html)

QuoteFormer Republican Party of Florida Chairman Jim Greer has been claiming for months that state party members engineered a new law to suppress voter turnout, falsely touting voter fraud concerns to advance their mission. Now, other former Republicans and consultants are backing Greer up, The Palm Beach Post reports.

Greer, who is under indictment and accused of funneling campaign funds from the Republican Party, has been claiming that state Republicans supported a law (HB 1355)—which, in part, curtailed early voting—simply as a means to stymie the Democratic vote.

Staff and consultants "never came in to see me and tell me we had a (voter) fraud issue," Greer told the newspaper. "It's all a marketing ploy."

Former Republican Gov. Charlie Crist, GOP consultant Wayne Bertsch and one unnamed consultant now tell the newspaper that state Republicans and consultants were actively seeking ways to suppress Democratic turnout following the 2008 election.

"I know that the cutting out of the Sunday before Election Day was one of their targets only because that's a big day when the black churches organize themselves," the anonymous longtime GOP consultant told the newspaper.

State officials continue to discredit Greer as a disgruntled former Republican. Greer, in a deposition filed against the party this summer, accused leaders of working to suppress black turnout and made other damning claims.

Crist is also regarded as an enemy of the GOP following his party switch, his decision to back President Barack Obama for re-election this year, and his subsequent attacks on his former party. This past summer, Crist lambasted the Florida GOP for backing new laws that applied more restrictive voter ID requirements.

Republicans claim that Greer was not privy to the alleged meetings, that the discussions that he claimed took place never happened, and that the GOP did not seek to suppress turnout—a potentially illegal act.

Those silly Floridians.  They just keep trying to repeat 2000.  Good idea.

Quote from: Townsend on November 27, 2012, 10:09:38 AM


Those silly Floridians.  They just keep trying to repeat 2000.  Good idea.

I am sure you are not surprised at all.  (I'm not - when either side does it.)

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on November 27, 2012, 10:53:47 AM

I am sure you are not surprised at all.  (I'm not - when either side does it.)

It makes me imagine a bunch of Jefferson Davis Hoggs and Buford T. Justices sitting around a table making plans.

Quote from: Townsend on November 27, 2012, 11:30:58 AM
It makes me imagine a bunch of Jefferson Davis Hoggs and Buford T. Justices sitting around a table making plans.

You DO understand!!!  That's exactly how it works.

Bilderberg Group.    http://www.bilderbergmeetings.org/index.php

Virginia State Senate Moves Ahead on Electoral College-Rigging Bill

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/01/23/virginia_state_senate_moves_ahead_on_electoral_college_rigging_bill.html (http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/01/23/virginia_state_senate_moves_ahead_on_electoral_college_rigging_bill.html)

QuoteThese guys are swiftly becoming my favorite state legislative body. From the AP:

Virginia's Republican-ruled legislature has taken the first steps toward ending the state's winner-takes-all system of apportioning its 13 presidential electoral votes. A Senate subcommittee recommended Sen. Bill Carrico's bill on Wednesday on a 3-3 party line vote.

I interviewed Carrico about the bill last month, asking why he added a provision that makes this even less democratic than other vote-split schemes. Most of these bills assign one electoral vote for every congressional district, then give the two at-large districts to whoever wins the state. But the Carrico bill would assign the final two electors to whoever won the most districts.

"We're still not sure we're going to leave it at that," he told me. "If we tweak the legislation somewhat to allow those votes to the statewide winner, the metropolitan voters may understand that their vote is going to be heard."

Not quite. The new language:

Receipt by a slate of electors of the highest number of votes in a majority of congressional districts constitutes the election of the two at-large electors of that slate.

Look at the map from 2012. Mitt Romney won the 1st (53%), 4th (50%), 5th (53%), 6th (59%), 7th (57%), 9th (63%), and 10th (50%) districts. Barack Obama won the four remaining districts -- the 2nd (50%), 3rd (79%), 8th (68%), and 11th (62%). Had the Carrico plan been in place in 2012, Mitt Romney would have won nine of Virginia's electoral votes, and Barack Obama would have won four -- even though Obama won the popular vote of the state by nearly 150,000 ballots, and four percentage points.

It gets worse. You'll notice that the 2nd, 4th, and 10th districts were squeaker, with margins between 4000 and 5000 votes. Carrico's theory is that an electoral vote split would made rural areas more vital. But these districts cover the Tidewater region and the exurbs of Washington, D.C. One: Had Obama campaigned to win them, in particular, he wouldn't have necessarily focused on anything that didn't work statewide. Two: Had won them, he would taken eight electors to Mitt Romney's five. Winning Virginia wouldn't have been worth 13 votes. It'd have been like taking New Hampshire or Rhode Island. That's because this reform is designed to disenfranchise Democrats, not make the state more important.

Some In GOP Want New Electoral College Rules

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2013/01/25/170276794/some-in-gop-want-new-electoral-college-rules?ft=1&f=1001&sc=tw&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter (http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2013/01/25/170276794/some-in-gop-want-new-electoral-college-rules?ft=1&f=1001&sc=tw&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter)

I picture a bunch of GOP Gremlins running around breaking stuff.

Why are they trying so hard to scam the system instead of changing the party line to make it more acceptable to more American voters?

QuoteNot many Americans are fans of the Electoral College. But trying to change the way electoral votes are allocated makes lots of people unhappy, too.

That's what Republicans in a number of states are finding just now. There are a half-dozen states that President Obama carried last November where both the legislature and the governor's office are controlled by the GOP — Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida and Virginia.

In most of those states, there are efforts under way to change how electoral votes are distributed.

"I think it's something that a lot of states that have been consistently blue that are fully controlled red ought to be looking at," Reince Priebus, who was just re-elected chairman of the Republican National Committee, told the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel.

A bill in Virginia might get a vote as early as next week. It would award most electoral votes by congressional district, setting aside two votes to be given to the candidate who carries the most districts in the commonwealth.

Currently, every state but Maine and Nebraska awards all its electoral votes to the statewide popular vote winner. (Those two states have systems that would allocate electors based on congressional district results, but so far neither has split their electoral college votes because a single candidate has swept the state.)

If changes such as the Virginia bill had been in place last year, Obama would have won far fewer electoral votes. In Virginia, he would have taken four electoral votes rather than all 13.

Democrats therefore have characterized the Republican proposals as "sore loser" bills, an effort to game the system in states where their presidential candidates have struggled.

"They're trying to win by rigging the process," says Graeme Zielinski, communications director for the Wisconsin Democratic Party. "They seem consumed by this idea that they need to rig elections."

Republicans counter that changing the system could more accurately reflect the popular vote. Why should a candidate who carries a state with 51 percent of the vote get 100 percent of its electors?

"The goal is very simple," says Erik Arneson, spokesman for Pennsylvania Senate Republican Leader Dominic Pileggi. "It's to more closely align the electoral vote in Pennsylvania with the popular vote."

Pileggi tried to switch to a system based on congressional district voting in time for the 2012 election. His new bill, which will be introduced next month, would award electoral votes based on popular-vote percentages.

Under this plan, Obama, who won 52 percent of the vote in Pennsylvania in November, would have gotten 52 percent of the state's electoral votes. (Rounding would favor the statewide winner.)

Pileggi offered these changes to answer criticism that awarding electoral votes by congressional district would unfairly reflect the partisan gerrymandering that is often a major factor in how district lines are drawn.

That's what has Democrats upset about proposals such as the one in Virginia. Democrats currently have an Electoral College advantage, thanks to their success in most of the large states.

Changing the current system would give a boost to Republicans. In many states, Democrats may carry the overall vote, but they tend to be concentrated in fewer, densely populated metropolitan areas. The GOP might dominate in more districts because its voters are more spread out.

"Distributing electoral votes by congressional district is a terrible idea," says George Edwards, a visiting professor of American government at Oxford University. "Such a system would have elected Mitt Romney, despite President Obama winning the popular vote by millions of votes."

Some Republicans have come out against the idea of tampering with electoral-vote allocation, out of concern that it might skew the outcome.

"To me, that's like saying in a football game, 'We should have only three quarters, because we were winning after three quarters and they beat us in the fourth,' " Will Weatherford, the Republican speaker of the Florida House, told the Tampa Bay Times. "I don't think we need to change the rules of the game, I think we need to get better."

Over the past few years, Democrats have sought to make their own electoral vote changes. Eight states and the District of Columbia have enacted laws that would grant their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote nationwide.

"No matter where you land on the reforms, the current system is broken and has to be fixed," says Laura Brod, a consultant to the National Popular Vote Initiative.

The popular-vote laws would take effect only if states representing a majority of the electoral votes go along with the idea. So far, the effort is well short of that goal, with the nine jurisdictions representing 132 electoral votes.

It's possible that the GOP will fall short in its current efforts, as well.

"Nobody is satisfied with the current system," says Arneson, the Pennsylvania Senate aide, "and none of the alternatives have generated a consensus."

Quote from: Townsend on January 25, 2013, 02:34:19 PM


Why are they trying so hard to scam the system instead of changing the party line to make it more acceptable to more American voters?

Because, people who lie will cheat and steal as well....

I realize this is an old-assed thread, but resurrecting because this article belongs I believe.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/stateroundup/judge-invalidates-floridas-congressional-districts/2188031

Anyone know what happened to T-Town?

Gerrymandering is a time-honored tradition.  8)  Curious if there would have been such butt-hurt from the League of Women Voters if it were a Democrat incumbent?

When Jim Jones was in jeopardy of not winning, our little sliver of north Bixby was transferred to Mike Synar.  As I have said before, I didn't like either one of them.

Quote from: AquaMan on July 15, 2014, 09:53:55 PM
Anyone know what happened to T-Town?

I have been wondering about that....I'm guessing he just got sick of the "piling on" we do around here....  But then I have also wondered if he wasn't also Breadburner playing an alter-ego thing - both sides against the middle.

Quote from: AquaMan on July 15, 2014, 09:53:55 PM
Anyone know what happened to T-Town?

(http://flashfictiononline.com/flashblog/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Spuggy-The-Clown-behind-bars-at-Perth-prison-1991-1412422.jpg)

I hate resurrecting an old thread, but thought it was more relevant here than starting a new one.

I'm sure alot of you don't care for John Oliver.  However, he makes good points here, and not just about the disenfranchisement of voters, but some nefarious voting practices going on in state houses.  It's about 14 minutes long, but give it a watch when you get a chance.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHFOwlMCdto