• 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."

Pennsylvania Voter ID Law Trial Set

Page 10 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,731
13,842
136
Please do not put words into Jhhnn's mouth. He's not denying voter fraud has ever occurred, just that its occurrence is so low that it doesn't undermine elections.
Thank you.

He will persist, unfortunately, see below, because he has no real argument in favor of Picture ID for voting, other than using it to undermine the integrity of elections by restricting the franchise to those more likely to vote for his side.

The rest is distraction, misdirection, obfuscation in support of such. Supporters of Jim Crow employed them all, and advocates of the new & improved version do the same.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Thank you.

He will persist, unfortunately, see below, because he has no real argument in favor of Picture ID for voting, other than using it to undermine the integrity of elections by restricting the franchise to those more likely to vote for his side.

The rest is distraction, misdirection, obfuscation in support of such. Supporters of Jim Crow employed them all, and advocates of the new & improved version do the same.
OK...then explain what your intention is for saying in person voter fraud is the same as something which does not exist. The only way I can see it is for you to can claim you are not saying it does not exist is if you say bigfoot exists - in which case you are then saying in person voter fraud exists.

So explain your comparison.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
That's called Concern Trolling-

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Concern_troll

You're not advocating no registration for voting, at all.
No, it is called reduction to absurdity. You know, the debating tactic Aristotle used frequently. It is a good one to use, as it clearly shows the argument it is used against is stupid and should not be used.

Voter registration obviously does stop some otherwise legal voters from voting. There is simply no way anyone can say otherwise. We all agree this is fine, for all they need to do is a very small amount of work and they are registered. It is free and easy. Voter ID obviously will stop some otherwise legal voters from voting. There is simply no way anyone can say otherwise. We should all agree this is fine, for all they need to do is a very small amount of work and they are registered. It is free and easy.

The two are so similiar it is silly to claim one is completely acceptable but the other should be a crime.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,731
13,842
136
OK...then explain what your intention is for saying in person voter fraud is the same as something which does not exist. The only way I can see it is for you to can claim you are not saying it does not exist is if you say bigfoot exists - in which case you are then saying in person voter fraud exists.

So explain your comparison.
you're the one saying they are "the same". I say they are "alike".

It's also like telling people they need to be fearful & take precautions against falling into the raging torrent when they're standing in the middle of the Sahara. Yeh, there's a raging torrent somewhere, but it doesn't matter.

If putting words in my mouth is all you've got, well, it's all you've got, and it's obvious you'll continue doing so.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,731
13,842
136
No, it is called reduction to absurdity. You know, the debating tactic Aristotle used frequently. It is a good one to use, as it clearly shows the argument it is used against is stupid and should not be used.

Voter registration obviously does stop some otherwise legal voters from voting. There is simply no way anyone can say otherwise. We all agree this is fine, for all they need to do is a very small amount of work and they are registered. It is free and easy. Voter ID obviously will stop some otherwise legal voters from voting. There is simply no way anyone can say otherwise. We should all agree this is fine, for all they need to do is a very small amount of work and they are registered. It is free and easy.

The two are so similiar it is silly to claim one is completely acceptable but the other should be a crime.
It's concern trolling, and anybody with a lick of sense recognizes that.

Your characterization for obtaining voter Id is inaccurate & immaterial, considering that you show no necessity for it beyond reference to a trivial problem unworthy of such attention.

You're making a mountain out of a molehill, just like Jim Crow.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Are you still lying and saying there have never been cases of in person voter fraud in the US? Really?

EDIT: Just so you cannot claim, from this point on, that there is no in person voter fraud in the US, here is proof of it:


http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/local&id=8301269
Yet another example of a voter suppression cheerleader citing examples of vote fraud that would NOT be affected by a voter photo ID. Each person voted twice ... as himself or herself. You tools fail hard, but at least you fail consistently.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
you're the one saying they are "the same". I say they are "alike".
a·like

   /əˈlaɪk/ http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.htmlShow Spelled[uh-lahyk] http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/Spell_pron_key.htmlShow IPA
adverb 1. in the same manner or form; similarly: They treated all customers alike.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/alike?s=t

If putting words in my mouth is all you've got, well, it's all you've got, and it's obvious you'll continue doing so.
You still refuse to actually explain why you say they are alike. In what ways, specifically, are they alike? YOU made the comparison, tell us what you mean by it.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Yet another example of a voter suppression cheerleader citing examples of vote fraud that would NOT be affected by a voter photo ID. Each person voted twice ... as himself or herself. You tools fail hard, but at least you fail consistently.
Did I claim voter ID would solve all voter fraud issues? No, in fact I have claimed the opposite. Unlike you, who claims in person voter fraud exists in the same way bigfoot exists - which obviously means you are lying and saying it does not exist.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
... Unlike you, who claims in person voter fraud exists in the same way bigfoot exists - which obviously means you are lying and saying it does not exist.
You're lying again. That is against forum rules, kindly send yourself to the principal's office.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/alike?s=t



You still refuse to actually explain why you say they are alike. In what ways, specifically, are they alike? YOU made the comparison, tell us what you mean by it.
You should really stop the dictionary quoting. You invariably do it ineptly, which, along with your frequent spelling errors, suggests your are at best poorly educated in English, if not functionally illiterate.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
You still refuse to actually explain why you say they are alike. In what ways, specifically, are they alike? YOU made the comparison, tell us what you mean by it
 

peonyu

Platinum Member
Mar 12, 2003
2,038
23
81
How many people dont have ID of some sort at all ? You need it to get a job, you need it to drive, you need it to buy beer, you need it to get a passport, you need it to prove your identity for virtually anything. Welfare [for the dirt poor] requires ID to get on aswell, so there goes the "im to poor" excuse.

You also need ID to be a registered gun owner..And owning a gun is a right guaranteed by the constitution - just as voting is a right. If you need ID to own a gun then surely having ID to vote is in the same ballpark.

Why is this even a issue ? Just require ID and be done with it.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,574
5
81
It is no more damaging than requiring voter registration. Are you against the obvious disenfranchisement caused by voter registration, or are you holding a double standard that disenfranchisement caused by voter registration is OK but by voter ID is not ok?
Stop diverting with your usual irrelevant, dishonest garbage and respond:

shira said:
In other words, you don't have any studies whatsoever to back up your claim that there's "no damaging effect of requiring voter ID."
Show us the studies to back up your claim or admit that you've made a baseless claim.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
How many people dont have ID of some sort at all ? You need it to get a job, you need it to drive, you need it to buy beer, you need it to get a passport, you need it to prove your identity for virtually anything. Welfare [for the dirt poor] requires ID to get on aswell, so there goes the "im to poor" excuse.

You also need ID to be a registered gun owner..And owning a gun is a right guaranteed by the constitution - just as voting is a right. If you need ID to own a gun then surely having ID to vote is in the same ballpark.

Why is this even a issue ? Just require ID and be done with it.
Read the other 20 threads on this issue. All of your questions have been answered ... over and over and over. Your presumptions about how everybody needs IDs in the normal course of their day is a very narrow view of the world. You regularly use ID in your life, so you assume everyone else must have a life just like yours. That's not at all the case. America is a quite diverse country.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
I read through the full ruling this weekend and found it not quite so one-sided as it's been presented. In particular the judge recognized that a certain subset of residents do face a "somewhat heavier burden" under this law, including those born out of state, the elderly, and the infirm. He then notes that he cannot do anything about this since the petitioners sought broad relief for all voters rather than something more narrowly focused just on those who are most burdened.

I'll also say that it appears the Pennsylvania law is the best I've seen in terms of accommodating those most likely to be disenfranchised. First, it accepts a much broader range of IDs, e.g., student IDs, unlike some other states. Further, not only does it provide free IDs for those most burdened, but they essentially mitigated the whole birth certificate issue (for those born in PA) by giving their DMVs the access required to directly verify birth information. This still requires a trip to a DMV office, but at least it can all be done in one trip and the poor aren't burdened by the cost of a certified birth certificate.

Finally, for those born outside Pennsylvania, there is apparently something new coming called "DOS ID". The ruling states this will also allow a substitute for the certified paper document. This does assume the State of Pennsylvania's implementation of the law will be fair and non-partisan, but there are additional remedies available should that become an issue. In the meantime, it looks to me like Pennsylvania has done almost everything it can to minimize disenfranchisement while still adding an extra layer of (pointless) security. It's not such a blatant voter suppression law unlike other states.
 

OneOfTheseDays

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2000
7,052
0
0
The sad thing is PA is still going to vote for Obama despite all of the GOP's efforts to undermine voting in this country.
 

tweaker2

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
11,934
3,161
136
I read through the full ruling this weekend and found it not quite so one-sided as it's been presented. *snip* QUOTE]

Good to know. Thanks for the effort.

The first paragrah of the judge's ruling is all I need to know. He readily recognizes that some voters will be disinfranchised. How many will be disinfranchised? Even one disinfranchised voter is too many considering there is no need for these laws in the first place and that these laws were obviously written in ways to make it difficult/more difficult for more Dem leaning voters than Repub leaning ones.

I submit that the Penn. "Voter Fraud" laws were written with the least amount of "give" toward Dem leaning voters while still being able to pass into law when considering the real political demographics found in that state.
 
Last edited:

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Stop diverting with your usual irrelevant, dishonest garbage and respond:
You are now pretending that voter registration does not disenfranchise anyone? Or are you saying you do not care about those disenfranchised by voter registration?

You appear to be fine with voter disenfranchisement, how do you justify it?
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Good to know. Thanks for the effort.

The first paragrah of the judge's ruling is all I need to know. He readily recognizes that some voters will be disinfranchised. How many will be disinfranchised? Even one disinfranchised voter is too many considering there is no need for these laws in the first place and that these laws were obviously written in ways to make it difficult/more difficult for more Dem leaning voters than Repub leaning ones.

I submit that the Penn. "Voter Fraud" laws were written with the least amount of "give" toward Dem leaning voters while still being able to pass into law when considering the real political demographics found in that state.
I absolutely agree that the Pennsylvania law is still a net negative, causing significant harm with no material benefit. Nonetheless, it is not the best example to cite for those opposing such laws. On the other hand, if you're a voter suppression cheerleader, this is the best law to cite given it's extra provisions to mitigate (but not fully eliminate) the harm it causes. I can see this being exploited by the right as "proof" these laws aren't so bad, while ignoring the more blatant suppression in other states.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS