Jim Cramer's Dad couldn't vote in PA because of VoterID

[nehalem256]

You can download the form & mail it in for $.44. They'll mail you one or many, for free.

So its not free then.

The records required to get "free ID" aren't free, particularly birth certificates & court decrees, as with divorce. Fees vary wildly by locale. Lots of people, particularly seniors, have lost track of the required documentation & must obtain it all over again. Other than voting, they have no use for it.

So in other words they have no evidence of being eligible voters. You think people are incapable of proving their eligibility to vote should be allowed to vote?

 

[Jhhnn]

So its not free then.

In many states, it is, and it's close enough in the rest, particularly compared to the time, effort & expense many people will need to obtain the documentation required to obtain picture ID.

So in other words they have no evidence of being eligible voters. You think people are incapable of proving their eligibility to vote should be allowed to vote?

Of course they do. They have all sorts of ID- SS cards & statements, credit cards, employer ID cards, military discharge papers, utility bills & so forth, even expired picture ID. Many have a history of voting going back decades, with friends & neighbors who've known them their whole lives and will attest to that fact.

This whole "Prove you have the right to vote!" shtick is very, very unAmerican, dishonest, and an insult to honest citizens everywhere.

 

[nehalem256]

In many states, it is, and it's close enough in the rest, particularly compared to the time, effort & expense many people will need to obtain the documentation required to obtain picture ID.

So its not free

Of course they do. They have all sorts of ID- SS cards & statements, credit cards, employer ID cards, military discharge papers, utility bills & so forth, even expired picture ID. Many have a history of voting going back decades, with friends & neighbors who've known them their whole lives and will attest to that fact.

This whole "Prove you have the right to vote!" shtick is very, very unAmerican, dishonest, and an insult to honest citizens everywhere.

Utility bills etc are not proof of citizenship.

 

[Paratus]

So its not free



Utility bills etc are not proof of citizenship.

Voting is guaranteed in the constitution for all citizens. Burden should be low to prove citizenship for voting. Burden should more heavily rest on the state to prove your not who you say you are. Innocent until proven guilty and all that.

Current voter registration and identification results in in person voter fraud in less than 1% of 1% of all votes cast. Why do we need another law and more expense to prevent something that rarely happens.

Are you for big government? (outside of enforcing strict morals on women of course)

 

[Jhhnn]

Utility bills etc are not proof of citizenship.

I hate to break it to you, but neither are birth certificates. Minimal amounts of archival research and/or knowledge of local history can provide the information necessary to obtain somebody else's birth certificate, claim it as your own.

The whole voter ID sham is just another conspiracy theory designed to further purposes other than those stated.

 

[manimal]

Voting is guaranteed in the constitution for all citizens. Burden should be low to prove citizenship for voting. Burden should more heavily rest on the state to prove your not who you say you are. Innocent until proven guilty and all that.

Current voter registration and identification results in in person voter fraud in less than 1% of 1% of all votes cast. Why do we need another law and more expense to prevent something that rarely happens.

Are you for big government? (outside of enforcing strict morals on women of course)

good post!

 

[shortylickens]

In many states, it is, and it's close enough in the rest, particularly compared to the time, effort & expense many people will need to obtain the documentation required to obtain picture ID.



Of course they do. They have all sorts of ID- SS cards & statements, credit cards, employer ID cards, military discharge papers, utility bills & so forth, even expired picture ID. Many have a history of voting going back decades, with friends & neighbors who've known them their whole lives and will attest to that fact.

This whole "Prove you have the right to vote!" shtick is very, very unAmerican, dishonest, and an insult to honest citizens everywhere.

I served for 9 years, 1 in Kosovo, joined the VFW after I got out and marched in plenty of parades, not to mention helping out disabled vets.
I am an honest citizen.
I demand people prove their right to vote. The heck with your whiny opinion.

 

[werepossum]

I served for 9 years, 1 in Kosovo, joined the VFW after I got out and marched in plenty of parades, not to mention helping out disabled vets.
I am an honest citizen.
I demand people prove their right to vote. The heck with your whiny opinion.

Well said, and thank you for your service.

Not that I mean to imply that those people who don't work and are too damned trifling to even drag their dead asses to the DMV ONCE to get a photo ID are in any way less admirable than those who serve. Nope, I mean to state that outright.

 

[cybrsage]

You can download the form & mail it in for $.44.

POLL TAX!!! Why do you support poll taxes?

You are now being deliberately obtuse. The number of electronic voting machines & the support staff very much affects the rate at which people can vote at a given precinct. Too few machines create long lines & delays, discouraging voting. Citizens have responsibilities & obligations to meet, after all. Precincts with lots of registered voters will obviously need more than those with fewer registered voters. Some people still vote with paper ballots, and running out is unacceptable.

YOU are the one who claimed paper, not me. Just because you are stupid does not mean it is my fault you are. No one votes in person with paper ballots in my district.

The number of machines is based on the voting age population, not the number of registered voters.


Still waiting for you to give a good reason why you are fine with suppressing voters via voter registration. Having lots of paper for the electronic machines failed. Paying a poll tax to register failed. Pretending registration will make voting districts buy more machines failed.

Come on, you have a good reason somewhere for hating minorities, the poor, and the elderly by suppressing their votes due to demanding voter registration. Tell us!

 

[cybrsage]

This whole "Prove you have the right to vote!" shtick is very, very unAmerican, dishonest, and an insult to honest citizens everywhere.

I am saddened you think following the US Constitution is an unAmerican thing to do. It is not surprising, but still sad that you publically admit it so happily and boldly. There was a time people like you hid their shameful views.

Amendment 26 - Voting Age Set to 18 Years

1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.
2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am26.html

You do not want this part of the Constitution enforced. You hate America.

 

[Jhhnn]

POLL TAX!!! Why do you support poll taxes?

You're the one supporting poll taxes, in the form of expense required to obtain necessary documentation to obtain picture ID. It's not necessary to mail in the forms- they can be presented in person, as the previous link offers. Using the mail is a convenience.

Too bad Pennsylvania hasn't joined the 21st century, enabled online registration, huh?

YOU are the one who claimed paper, not me. Just because you are stupid does not mean it is my fault you are. No one votes in person with paper ballots in my district.

Optical scan machines are widely used, and require paper ballots.

The number of machines is based on the voting age population, not the number of registered voters.

Incorrect. See sec 2.4-

Based on the data collected from the counties, Gartner was able to determine the average number of registered voters per voting device in all these counties. Note that other factors such as the number of precincts and pollsites, voter turn-out and machine capacity are all used in determining the number of machines required by a jurisdiction, however the average ratio of registered voters to machines gives us a consistent measure to use across all the counties and enables us to objectively examine how devices are deployed in these counties.

http://vote.nyc.ny.us/pdf/documents...OE Voters Per Machine Report v-34.2 Final.pdf

Still waiting for you to give a good reason why you are fine with suppressing voters via voter registration. Having lots of paper for the electronic machines failed. Paying a poll tax to register failed. Pretending registration will make voting districts buy more machines failed.

Come on, you have a good reason somewhere for hating minorities, the poor, and the elderly by suppressing their votes due to demanding voter registration. Tell us!

Still lying, rather desperately. No wonder you're a Republican- you'll say anything in an attempt to win.

 

[Jhhnn]

I am saddened you think following the US Constitution is an unAmerican thing to do. It is not surprising, but still sad that you publically admit it so happily and boldly. There was a time people like you hid their shameful views.


http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am26.html

You do not want this part of the Constitution enforced. You hate America.

They had picture ID in 1789? The Constitution demands it? Really?

Perhaps you'll quote the passage, because I can't seem to find it...

 

[blackangst1]

They had picture ID in 1789? The Constitution demands it? Really?

Perhaps you'll quote the passage, because I can't seem to find it...

Well, its not the Constitution, but *voter ID laws have been ruled as constitutional.

*eligible voters without photo identification may cast provisional ballots that will be counted if they execute the required affidavit at the circuit court clerk’s office.

 

[Incorruptible]

Voter Id is necessary to stop voter fraud, illegals shouldn't be voting

 

[Jhhnn]

Well, its not the Constitution, but *voter ID laws have been ruled as constitutional.

*eligible voters without photo identification may cast provisional ballots that will be counted if they execute the required affidavit at the circuit court clerk’s office.

True, but Dred Scott was the law of the land, too, followed years later by Plessy vs Ferguson. Didn't make any of it right.

The plaintiffs did not present their case well in the Indiana decision, and the "Conservative" court apparently sided with state interests above citizen interests.

We've seen other abominations recently, as in Citizens United.

 

[Jhhnn]

Voter Id is necessary to stop voter fraud, illegals shouldn't be voting

Demonstrate that in person voter fraud exists to a significant degree sufficient to deny any citizen the right to vote.

 

[nehalem256]

They had picture ID in 1789? The Constitution demands it? Really?

Perhaps you'll quote the passage, because I can't seem to find it...

They also did not let women and black people vote in 1789. I guess we could go back to 1789 rules but I think that would result in a Republican landslide

 

[Incorruptible]

They also did not let women and black people vote in 1789. I guess we could go back to 1789 rules but I think that would result in a Republican landslide

This country wouldn't be as screwed if we went back to those times

 

[blackangst1]

True, but Dred Scott was the law of the land, too, followed years later by Plessy vs Ferguson. Didn't make any of it right.

The plaintiffs did not present their case well in the Indiana decision, and the "Conservative" court apparently sided with state interests above citizen interests.

We've seen other abominations recently, as in Citizens United.

Abominations?

Youre either a terrorist or a patriot depending on what side youre on

 

[blackangst1]

Demonstrate that in person voter fraud exists to a significant degree sufficient to deny any citizen the right to vote.

Just as our courts require the prosecution must prove the defendant murdered someone, lest one innocent man get locked up, if 5 people vote illegally, its too many.

 

[nehalem256]

Demonstrate that in person voter fraud exists to a significant degree sufficient to deny any citizen the right to vote.

1.) In this thread 113 convictions for in person voter fraud in one election in MN (possibly 2800 people confirmed, but since "oops, I didnt know it was illegal is a valid defense...)

2.) Previously I presented evidence of 100+ non-citizens registered to vote including several shown to have voted.

 

[Jhhnn]

1.) In this thread 113 convictions for in person voter fraud in one election in MN (possibly 2800 people confirmed, but since "oops, I didnt know it was illegal is a valid defense...)

2.) Previously I presented evidence of 100+ non-citizens registered to vote including several shown to have voted.

The so-called in person voter fraud in Minn would not have been hampered by photo ID, It was felons voting, and the numbers are debatable. Try again.

!00+ non citizens registered to vote is not significant in a nation where 125M votes were cast in 2008. If they all voted, and you haven't claimed they did, that be .0000008%, an unbelievable travesty, right?

 

[Jhhnn]

Just as our courts require the prosecution must prove the defendant murdered someone, lest one innocent man get locked up, if 5 people vote illegally, its too many.

That's incredibly ass-backwards. What you reference is Blackstone's formulation, which states

better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer

which means that it's better that 10 ineligible people vote than 1 eligible person be denied the right.

Ben Franklin put it in stronger terms-

it is better [one hundred] guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer

Sheesh.

 

[cybrsage]

Too bad Pennsylvania hasn't joined the 21st century, enabled online registration, huh?

Incorrect. See sec 2.4-http://vote.nyc.ny.us/pdf/documents/boe/rfi/2009/05_Header/NYC%20BOE%20Voters%20Per%20Machine%20Report%20v-34.2%20Final.pdf

I know you are not bright, but I really thought you knew the difference between New York City and Pennsylvania. I admit I was wrong, you do not actually know the difference. My mistake.

New York City is in New York state. Pennsylvania (which is actually a Commonwealth) is a different political entity. Now that you know, you can stop using New York City information when discussing Pennsylvania.

Still lying, rather desperately. No wonder you're a Republican- you'll say anything in an attempt to win.

And there we are, the tired old liberal tactic of "I already did answer it, and will refuse to show you where I did since we both know I did not". Sad that you so quickly resort to that one.

I am not going to let you off that easy. I am still waiting for you to explain why you say voter suppression is fine wrt voter registration. You at first tried to claim every single legitimate voter is registered - but dropped that lie just as fast, it was just too big for you to continue with. Then you tried to say paying money is not a poll tax - but that failed.

Now you are claiming that having to do something in order to vote is fine, but having to do something else in order to vote is evil and must be stopped. But you have failed to provide a logical reason why it is ok to disenfranchise people by forcing them to register.

 

[cybrsage]

They had picture ID in 1789? The Constitution demands it? Really?

Perhaps you'll quote the passage, because I can't seem to find it...

Wow, you just like showing yourself to be ignorant of the Constitution on a regular basis. The 26th Amendment was adopted in 1971. Before that amendment, there was no voting age minimum listed in the Constitution.

The Twenty-sixth Amendment (Amendment XXVI) to the United States Constitution barred the states or federal government from setting a voting age higher than eighteen. It was adopted in response to student activism against the Vietnam War and to partially overrule the Supreme Court's decision in Oregon v. Mitchell. It was adopted on July 1, 1971.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-sixth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution