• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Do absentee abllots in PA support or abet voter fraud?

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
25,645
10,694
136
With all the new voter ID laws enacted in PA, according to Republicans "to prevent voter fraud", thought since I will be out of state on election day, get a jump on absentee voting.

Here is a copy of the absentee ballot application for PA
http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/9530/abaj.jpg

About 5-6 lines down note a drivers license is is required. Also note if you don't have a drivers license the last 4 digits of your SSN can be used.

Isn't the reason Republicans were enacting photo ID requirements, voter fraud prevention? Guess what, if you are using an absentee ballot photo ID is not required. Using GOP logic this means Republicans favor voter fruad for absentee ballots.

Herein lives the big lie with all the new voter ID laws. Republicans know the proportion of constituents without photo ID are elderly, minority, the poor, college students, vote for a higher proportion of Democrats.

If you vote via absentee ballot(used overwelmonly by Republicans) you only need SSN#. If you vote in person you need state issued photo ID.

So its a supression issue not a fraud issue.

You were asked to change your title. You did not, so I did it for you. It's probably not what you would have chosen, but that's what happens.

admin allisolm


Didn't take this seriously did you?????

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuOT1bRYdK8
 
Last edited by a moderator:

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,599
5
0
When you sign the ballot, you are asserting under oath that the signer is the person ballot addressed to.

Legal repercussions.

Such is not done at polling places
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
When you sign the ballot, you are asserting under oath that the signer is the person ballot addressed to.

Legal repercussions.

Such is not done at polling places
Are you sure? At least in Iowa we do sign in at the polls. I believe the form we sign has similar language, though I cannot confirm this. I'll check in November.

HomerJS is absolutely correct in his conclusion, however. Photo voter ID laws achieve exactly nothing to reduce individual voter fraud. Nothing. Anyone intent on voter impersonation will do so with absentee ballots. They are far faster (no standing in line for a half hour or more to cast one extra vote), easier, and less risky. The GOP juggernaut on IDs is 100% about voter suppression. Period.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
25,645
10,694
136
When you sign the ballot, you are asserting under oath that the signer is the person ballot addressed to.

Legal repercussions.

Such is not done at polling places
In PA you sign a registration book that has your original signature. Worker compares.
 

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,361
8
0
Study finds voter fraud nearly nonexistent
http://articles.kwch.com/2012-08-13/voter-id-laws_33188195

In-person voter-impersonation fraud is rare. The database shows 207 cases of other types of fraud for every case of voter impersonation.

There is more fraud in absentee ballots and voter registration than any other categories. The analysis shows 491 cases of absentee ballot fraud and 400 cases of registration fraud. A required photo ID at the polls would not have prevented these cases.
 

Pr0d1gy

Diamond Member
Jan 30, 2005
7,776
0
76
Voter fraud is wrong no matter who it benefits. I couldn't possibly come up with a way to stop it because it seems like there is a method to scam anything these days, but turning this into a left/right issue is wrong by both you and the OP.
 

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,361
8
0
Voter fraud is wrong no matter who it benefits. I couldn't possibly come up with a way to stop it because it seems like there is a method to scam anything these days, but turning this into a left/right issue is wrong by both you and the OP.
Its a voter suppression issue under the guise of voter fraud.

Example:
Federal court: New Florida law could dramatically cut black votes
http://jacksonville.com/news/florida/2012-08-17/story/federal-court-new-florida-law-could-dramatically-cut-black-votes
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,649
13,732
136
When you sign the ballot, you are asserting under oath that the signer is the person ballot addressed to.

Legal repercussions.

Such is not done at polling places
Classic example of what researchers have discovered- confronted with new factual information, Righties simply reject it, cling even more ferociously to what they already believe.

Being desperately afraid of being wrong just makes them wrong more often.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,649
13,732
136

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,445
0
0
That's Gawd-awful lame, assuming that ex-offenders always vote Democratic.

Nice smear, however.
Yes the horrible Forbes and the horrible U.S. News and World report are trying to smear 2 partisan Democrats in the ATP&N forums. Tools.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,649
13,732
136
Yes the horrible Forbes and the horrible U.S. News and World report are trying to smear 2 partisan Democrats in the ATP&N forums. Tools.
They, and you, are just trying to smear Franken any way they can, using study conclusions from a right wing group as "evidence".

The reasoning is entirely circular.

You say Franken won because felons voted.

I say it's impossible to say how they voted.

You say Franken won because felons voted, merely re-asserting your original notion as if it were fact, because it's what you already believe, independent of fact or reason.

Look closely at what you believe. It's not reasonable to assume they all voted for Franken, but it's what you believe, anyway, and are prepared to defend as the truth. It's not.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Voter fraud is what got Al Franken into the Senate,
Duped again, huh? That is a purely partisan allegation, unsupported by facts presented and based on the highly questionable assumption that the vast majority of the ineligible felons in question voted for Franken.


but Democrats are happy about that because it was a benefit to Democrats.
You don't say? Democrats are happy they won an election. Go figure. As opposed to Republicans who are gloomy when they win?

Oh wait, you're trying to insinuate there is something wrong with Democrats being happy because a conservative group cried foul. This conservative group can't offer factual data demonstrating this, of course, but Dems should be morose just because of the allegation. Just curious, what color is the sky in your world?


As usual, the voter suppression proponents breathlessly huff and puff about how this is exactly what they're talking about, ignoring the fact that their beloved photo voter ID laws would have done nothing to prevent it. The votes in question were NOT due to voter impersonation at all. They were cast by registered voters, voting as themselves, but now ineligible to vote in Minnesota due to felony convictions. You are perfectly aware of this. You acknowledged it in the last thread where it was raised. Nonetheless, here you are again willfully spreading misinformation.
 
Last edited:

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Yes the horrible Forbes and the horrible U.S. News and World report are trying to smear 2 partisan Democrats in the ATP&N forums. Tools.
Both are op-eds Sparky, not news articles. You wouldn't be so actively disinformed if you learned the difference.
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,445
0
0
When all else fails, hurl invective over your shoulder as you dive into the bunker o' denial.

The headset you're wearing doesn't look good on anybody.
Recognize this?
Nice smear, however.
or this?
Both are op-eds Sparky, not news articles. You wouldn't be so actively disinformed if you learned the difference.
I was not the one that started the personal attacks in this thread. I posted 2 articles from Forbes and U.S. News about the vote fraud issue. You and Bow were the ones that started the personal attacks. Don't start whining when I respond in kind.
 

GarfieldtheCat

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2005
3,708
1
0
Voter fraud is what got Al Franken into the Senate, but Democrats are happy about that because it was a benefit to Democrats.
Funny, becuase the ex-head of the FL GOP claims they aren't trying to eliminate voter fraud, but eliminate black voting. He says they never had evidence of voter fraud, it was all about getting rid of D voters.

Funny how that works, huh?

Link

He said that there’s “no doubt” that Florida's GOP lawmakers were working to “make sure that the Republican Party has an advantage in this upcoming election by reducing early voting, putting roadblocks up for potential voters.”
Nothing to do with fraud, everything to do with racism and suppression.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
[ ... ]
I was not the one that started the personal attacks in this thread. I posted 2 articles from Forbes and U.S. News about the vote fraud issue. You and Bow were the ones that started the personal attacks. Don't start whining when I respond in kind.
Orly?

I know you hate facts, but I replied to this:
Yes the horrible Forbes and the horrible U.S. News and World report are trying to smear 2 partisan Democrats in the ATP&N forums. Tools.
And Jhhnn was referring to the articles you linked, as you recognized in your comment above: "Yes the horrible Forbes and the horrible U.S. News and World report are trying to smear ... "

Will there be anything else, or can we call you from your bunker if we need you?
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,445
0
0
Orly?

I know you hate facts, but I replied to this:


And Jhhnn was referring to the articles you linked, as you recognized in your comment above: "Yes the horrible Forbes and the horrible U.S. News and World report are trying to smear ... "

Will there be anything else, or can we call you from your bunker if we need you?
Oh gosh, you're right, I'm horrified. I'm sorry about the comment that you're a small yapping dog in these forums.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Oh gosh, you're right, I'm horrified. I'm sorry about the comment that you're a small yapping dog in these forums.
Just pointing out your lie. Honesty and integrity are the most critical components of character. Your "yapping" comment, in contrast, was meaningless noise, as immaterial as you are.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,649
13,732
136
I was not the one that started the personal attacks in this thread. I posted 2 articles from Forbes and U.S. News about the vote fraud issue. You and Bow were the ones that started the personal attacks. Don't start whining when I respond in kind.
It's not the personal attacks, but rather the lack of substance, the acceptance & dissemination of propaganda by you that I find objectionable.

Your very first post in this Pennsylvania voter fraud thread was about how Al Franken somehow cheated in Minnesota, as if there were some conspiracy allowing ex offenders to vote, with added slime about Dems being happy about fraud rather than Franken winning.

When called on that, when it was pointed out that it's impossible to know how they voted, anyway, you retrench, dig a little deeper, believe a little harder.

And now you're all huffy & puffy about it, as if you had something pertinent to offer but were persecuted instead.

Uhhh-Waaahhh!
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY