• 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?

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

spittledip

Diamond Member
Apr 23, 2005
4,483
1
81
Passable fakes, sure. Anything that will withstand much scrutiny- no.

There's not much scrutiny at polling places in that regard. If it looks like a driver's license, it is a driver's license, or at least it was though the scratched up plastic window in my wallet.

What we really need are dna tests, retinal scans, fingerprints & anal probes, just to be sure that nobody, and I mean nobody, will get past security measures. As if they'd bother, and as if the very few who get past current non- photo ID measures matter in the slightest.
Hm, I guess we should do away with driver's licenses altogether if they can be so easily faked.
 

spittledip

Diamond Member
Apr 23, 2005
4,483
1
81
To me, having some type identification to vote is common sense. My wife, who is not from this country, finds it ridiculous that people can VOTE in this country without having to prove their identity, and i can't help but agree. How is it that we as a supposedly "civilized" nation have gone years and years without requiring ID to vote?

Let us reason together for a short moment. I think there is a possibility that Republicans are pushing this forward to squelch the votes that would go toward the democrats, but does this mean that requiring voter ID is a bad idea? Obviously not. It is only plain common sense to require proof of identity to vote or participate in any citizenship-exclusive activities.

You do not kill a good idea just b/c someone may have bad motivation for pushing it forward. If you do kill an idea that is obviously important and necessary, that makes your own motives for killing the idea suspect. As much as I believe there is a possibility for repubs to push this idea b/c of bad motives, i believe that there is an equally great possibility that dems are killing this idea b/c of bad motives. I know how each side likes to pass themselves off as saints....
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
So how many of these have occurred to warrant enacting a new law?

We do know when the Bush admin investigated 2000-2007 there were 86 cases of in person voter fraud in over 300 million votes

While were at it why not a new law outlawing stealing girl scout cookies.
If the Bush administration was right about everything then Iraq would have been teeming with WMDs...
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,652
13,732
136
To me, having some type identification to vote is common sense. My wife, who is not from this country, finds it ridiculous that people can VOTE in this country without having to prove their identity, and i can't help but agree. How is it that we as a supposedly "civilized" nation have gone years and years without requiring ID to vote?

Let us reason together for a short moment. I think there is a possibility that Republicans are pushing this forward to squelch the votes that would go toward the democrats, but does this mean that requiring voter ID is a bad idea? Obviously not. It is only plain common sense to require proof of identity to vote or participate in any citizenship-exclusive activities.

You do not kill a good idea just b/c someone may have bad motivation for pushing it forward. If you do kill an idea that is obviously important and necessary, that makes your own motives for killing the idea suspect. As much as I believe there is a possibility for repubs to push this idea b/c of bad motives, i believe that there is an equally great possibility that dems are killing this idea b/c of bad motives. I know how each side likes to pass themselves off as saints....
What bad motives can be ascribed to Dems in this whole fracas?

Reasonable ones, that is... not some grand conspiracy theory about legal & illegal aliens voting Democratic in droves.

If strict voter ID were obviously important and necessary, then we'd have a lot more evidence that such is the case rather than mere belief... proponents would be able to cite significant fraud, not a few edge cases. Not to mention that if good ideas have bad motivations, they're few & far between, entirely accidental, the result of unintended consequences.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
What bad motives can be ascribed to Dems in this whole fracas?

Reasonable ones, that is... not some grand conspiracy theory about legal & illegal aliens voting Democratic in droves.
If Obama is not interested in illegal immigrants voting for him then why does he spend so much time pandering to them?

If strict voter ID were obviously important and necessary, then we'd have a lot more evidence that such is the case rather than mere belief... proponents would be able to cite significant fraud, not a few edge cases. Not to mention that if good ideas have bad motivations, they're few & far between, entirely accidental, the result of unintended consequences.
And how do you prove that a voter is an illegal immigrant without requiring ID?
 

GarfieldtheCat

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2005
3,708
1
0
Anyone claiming to defend this to prevent voter fraud want to comment on this?

The defendants (the commonwealth of Pennsylvania) have made an interesting stipulation (pdf). They have agreed that there have been no investigations or prosecutions of in-person voter fraud in the state, and that they have no personal knowledge of any such voter fraud. They have agreed not to introduce any evidence of voter fraud in Pennsylvania or anywhere else, nor will they argue that any voter fraud is likely to occur in future elections.
Link

How do you claim this is to prevent voter fraud, when the state itself has officially and legally admitted there is no evidence of voter fraud, and that there is no likelihood that it will occur in the future?

Kind of blows your reasoning out of the water now doesn't it?

What reason is left? Racism and voter suppression.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Garf, this has already been address, discussed, and explained a myriad of times. Jhhnn simply cannot remember anything past his own current post, so that explains why he repeats the same debunked line of reasoning over and over again. I know you are smarter than that. The short of it is:

How can you catch someone for pretending to be someone else when you are not allowed to check a photo ID to see if they are pretending to be someone else?

To put it another way:

How can you catch someone for having hand grenades in their car if you are not allowed to search their car for hand grenades?
 
Last edited:

GarfieldtheCat

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2005
3,708
1
0
Garf, Garf, Garf, always a day late and a dollar short. This has already been address, discussed, and explained a myriad of times. The short of it is:

How can you catch someone for pretending to be someone else when you are not allowed to check a photo ID to see if they are pretending to be someone else?

To put it another way:

How can you catch someone for having hand grenades in their car if you are not allowed to search their car for hand grenades?
I see lying and thread crapping are still your only posting styles huh?

The state admitted that there is no proof, no allegations, nothing to even make them think there may be voter fraud.

You grenade "duh-version" is typical of not liking the facts, and trying to change the argument.

Why don't they propose a law to strip-search everyone in the state to make sure they don't have hidden nuclear material? Answer: Because no one does it, it is a law in search of a problem.

But you know this, you are just as always lying and trolling.
 

GarfieldtheCat

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2005
3,708
1
0
I have to admit it, I was wrong. You are not as smart as I thought you were. :(
Let me see, a known troll who has trolled and been banned from multiple forums for trolling and lying, and now has been temp banned many times here for lying and trolling, is lying again.

Lets see how much we care? Um, about zero?

Known lying troll lies again...has no credibility, nothing. Could care less what you think.
 

Double Trouble

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,276
103
106
Haven't we had 50 threads on the voter ID laws by now?

The thread title for this one is bullshit to boot. There are multiple types of voter fraud. Creating a law that attempts to prevent one of them doesn't mean one supports another possible kind of fraud.

I don't think the law was really needed, but given the ample leeway given in the law so that people have plenty of time to get an ID, and that they can get it for free, and that they don't even have to leave the house to do it, I find it very difficult to believe this is going to prevent anyone who planned to vote from being able to do so.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
Anyone claiming to defend this to prevent voter fraud want to comment on this?
The defendants (the commonwealth of Pennsylvania) have made an interesting stipulation (pdf). They have agreed that there have been no investigations or prosecutions of in-person voter fraud in the state, and that they have no personal knowledge of any such voter fraud. They have agreed not to introduce any evidence of voter fraud in Pennsylvania or anywhere else, nor will they argue that any voter fraud is likely to occur in future elections.

Link

How do you claim this is to prevent voter fraud, when the state itself has officially and legally admitted there is no evidence of voter fraud, and that there is no likelihood that it will occur in the future?

Kind of blows your reasoning out of the water now doesn't it?

What reason is left? Racism and voter suppression.
So the fact that no one has bothered to look for in person voter fraud is evidence it does not exist? :confused:

But of course if I were to want to start investigating it the first thing to do would be to have people voting produce ID.
 

berzerker60

Golden Member
Jul 18, 2012
1,233
1
0
No sir, no voter suppression as the goal here:
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 GOP Election Board Member: Our Voting Process Shouldn’t Accommodate Black Voters"


I want to see evidence that bears aren't kidnapping Republican voters when they go to polling place! There's no way to tell within the current system, how could we gather the stats to show there's an actual problem to be solved?!?
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,445
0
0
No sir, no voter suppression as the goal here:
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 GOP Election Board Member: Our Voting Process Shouldn’t Accommodate Black Voters"


I want to see evidence that bears aren't kidnapping Republican voters when they go to polling place! There's no way to tell within the current system, how could we gather the stats to show there's an actual problem to be solved?!?
LMAO at stinkprogress.dem
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
LMAO at stinkprogress.dem
Sigh, so intellectually lazy. Here's the original, from the Columbus Post Dispatch: Voting in Ohio | Fight over poll hours isn't just political.

Note that this is an actual news article, not an op-ed. Here is the relevant quote:
“I guess I really actually feel we shouldn’t contort the voting process to accommodate the urban — read African-American — voter-turnout machine,” said Doug Preisse, chairman of the county Republican Party and elections board member who voted against weekend hours, in an email to The Dispatch. “Let’s be fair and reasonable.”
He called claims of unfairness by Ohio Democratic Chairman Chris Redfern and others “bullshit. Quote me!”
I suspect the GOP will find a new role for him, where he is less likely to ever make a statement that might be publicized. Talk about tone deaf.


Edit: Guys, do yourself and everyone else here a favor and stop linking to places like ThinkProgress and Breitbart. It immediately gives people a good reason to ignore content. When you can source something back to a legitimate news organization, use it instead.
 
Last edited:

GarfieldtheCat

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2005
3,708
1
0
So the fact that no one has bothered to look for in person voter fraud is evidence it does not exist? :confused:

But of course if I were to want to start investigating it the first thing to do would be to have people voting produce ID.
LOL, so despite no voter fraud, "just in case" you want to suppress tens of thousands of voters "just in case", and almost all of those suppressed are minority.

Your concepts of suppression being OK is duly noted. Papers please!
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,652
13,732
136
Edit: Guys, do yourself and everyone else here a favor and stop linking to places like ThinkProgress and Breitbart. It immediately gives people a good reason to ignore content. When you can source something back to a legitimate news organization, use it instead
There is no "good reason" to ignore content. The concept is hogwash. Our resident Righties ignore it anyway, because it's not what they want to hear, because it doesn't reinforce their beliefs, their faith.

It's all the damned Libruhl Media, anyway, unless it's Breitbart, Newsmax, Fox, the Washington Times & so forth.

Hell, it's obvious at times that they won't even click links because of who posted them... as if doing so would infect their minds, poison their precious bodily fluids...
 

Thegonagle

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2000
9,774
0
71
Voter fraud is what got Al Franken into the Senate, but Democrats are happy about that because it was a benefit to Democrats.
ID will not prevent felons from voting. Improved access to other state agency's records by the Sec of State's office would. In 2009, a bipartisan state legislature voted to do just that, and the governor vetoed it.

The greatest election fraud this go round comes from Republicans attempting to limit the right to vote. It's so obvious, so blatant, it's ridiculous. People who can't see it for what it is when presented with actual facts about voter fraud (as opposed to made-up hyperbole) are being blind ignorant fools.

Voter ID solves a "problem" that does not exist. But it sure makes it harder for grandma who doesn't drive anymore to vote. You got a problem with grandma?
 
Last edited:

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,445
0
0
Sigh, so intellectually lazy. Here's the original, from the Columbus Post Dispatch: Voting in Ohio | Fight over poll hours isn't just political.

Note that this is an actual new article, not an op-ed. Here is the relevant quote:I suspect the GOP will find a new role for him, where he is less likely to ever make a statement that might be publicized. Talk about tone deaf.


Edit: Guys, do yourself and everyone else here a favor and stop linking to places like ThinkProgress and Breitbart. It immediately gives people a good reason to ignore content. When you can source something back to a legitimate news organization, use it instead.
Very good point Bow.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
There is no "good reason" to ignore content. The concept is hogwash. Our resident Righties ignore it anyway, because it's not what they want to hear, because it doesn't reinforce their beliefs, their faith.

It's all the damned Libruhl Media, anyway, unless it's Breitbart, Newsmax, Fox, the Washington Times & so forth.

Hell, it's obvious at times that they won't even click links because of who posted them... as if doing so would infect their minds, poison their precious bodily fluids...
I agree, "good reason" was a poor choice of words. I should probably have said "easy excuse", or something in that vein. The point is that some people will immediately reject content from such blatantly partisan sources, regardless of the original source or its merits. (This applies on both the left and the right.) Of course as you note, many will also reject legitimate sources who state something they don't want to hear, but it's a smaller group.
 
Last edited:

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
ID will not prevent felons from voting. Improved access to other state agency's records by the Sec of State's office would. In 2009, a bipartisan state legislature voted to do just that, and the governor vetoed it.
And in 2009 the Governor of Minnesota was a Democrat. Sounds to me like Democrats are in favor of voter fraud.

The greatest election fraud this go round comes from Republicans attempting to limit the right to vote. It's so obvious, so blatant, it's ridiculous. People who can't see it for what it is when presented with actual facts about voter fraud (as opposed to made-up hyperbole) are being blind ignorant fools.

Voter ID solves a "problem" that does not exist. But it sure makes it harder for grandma who doesn't drive anymore to vote. You got a problem with grandma?
My grandma does not drive, and yet she has ID. She needed it to open a bank account. Unless you think the bank was lying and did not want my grandma's money.
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,445
0
0
There is no "good reason" to ignore content. The concept is hogwash. Our resident Righties ignore it anyway, because it's not what they want to hear, because it doesn't reinforce their beliefs, their faith.

It's all the damned Libruhl Media, anyway, unless it's Breitbart, Newsmax, Fox, the Washington Times & so forth.

Hell, it's obvious at times that they won't even click links because of who posted them... as if doing so would infect their minds, poison their precious bodily fluids...
The known and measured bias in the mainstream press is a factor in what stories get covered. Sorry you don't like the fact that your side does all it can to silence critics, but that's just the way it is. I don't click the links on stinkprogress because it isn't journalism, it's a bought and paid for propaganda blog.

http://thinkprogress.org/about/
Think Progress is a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund. The Center for American Progress Action Fund is a nonpartisan organization. Through this blog, CAPAF seeks to provide a forum that advances progressive ideas and policies.

ThinkProgress was voted “Best Liberal Blog” in the 2006 Weblog Awards and chosen as an Official Honoree in the 2009 and 2012 Webby awards. It was also named best blog of 2008 by The Sidney Hillman Foundation, receiving an award for journalism excellence. In 2009, ThinkProgress was named a “Gold Award Winner” by the International Academy of Visual Arts.

Without your generous support, we cannot do the work that we do. Please consider donating. Thank you.
Editors

Judd Legum Judd Legum is Editor-in-Chief of ThinkProgress. Previously, Judd was the Research Director for the Hillary Clinton for President campaign. .....................
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,652
13,732
136
The known and measured bias in the mainstream press is a factor in what stories get covered. Sorry you don't like the fact that your side does all it can to silence critics, but that's just the way it is. I don't click the links on stinkprogress because it isn't journalism, it's a bought and paid for propaganda blog.

http://thinkprogress.org/about/
Your confirmation bias is showing, as always.

While you may not like the slant from more progressive sources, what you really need to take issue with is the *content*, but only if you're claiming to make sense.

I read all the biased & dumb-ass links posted by our Rightie-tighties, you included, just for that purpose- to address the *content*, not the slant.

If you can't get past the spin to get to the facts, if the prospect of doing that offends your oh so tender sensibilities, then you really have no business commenting on what other posters have to say about the links they post.

Silence critics? Critics who don't read what they criticize aren't "critics" at all. They're willful know-nothings, desperately proud to remain ignorant, locked in denial, yet eager to shoot their mouths off.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY