PA government admits no Voter Fraud.

[amigocabal]

The voter ID law in Pensylvania will disenfranchise over 800,000 voters less than six months before the election.

Voter fraud is statistically irrelevant. As Jon Stewart said. "But that's the price you pay to prevent something that doesn't happen,"

And as John Paul Stevens wrote, "not only is the risk of voter fraud real but that it
could affect the outcome of a close election" and "[a]s the
Carter-Baker Report observed, the “electoral system cannot
inspire public confidence if no safeguards exist to deter
or detect fraud or to confirm the identity of voters.”"

Is there a list of these 800,000 voters who would be disenfranchised?

[Lord MJ]

The voter ID law in Pensylvania will disenfranchise over 800,000 voters less than six months before the election.

Voter fraud is statistically irrelevant. As Jon Stewart said. "But that's the price you pay to prevent something that doesn't happen,"

And as John Paul Stevens wrote, "not only is the risk of voter fraud real but that it
could affect the outcome of a close election" and "[a]s the
Carter-Baker Report observed, the “electoral system cannot
inspire public confidence if no safeguards exist to deter
or detect fraud or to confirm the identity of voters.”"

Is there a list of these 800,000 voters who would be disenfranchised?

How can the rist of voter fraud be "real" when there is no evidence of that it is occurring. The fact that no evidence of in person voter fraud exists means that the risk of voter fraud can not be real.

[General Zod]

Let's be fair here, there is some evidence of voter fraud occurring. Just not the type the GOP has in mind. http://www.salon.com/2012/02/27/vote_fr ... _official/

White received one year of home detention — one year for each of his six convictions, to be served concurrently — plus a $1,000 fine and some community service. He was found guilty of, among other things, having lied about his home address, registering to vote from that address, receiving a salary from an elected position as a town council member from that address, and then having voted from it while winning the position of secretary of state. While White, as per Indiana law, is unable to serve in office as a convicted felon, over all he got off easy.

[Lord MJ]

So in other words, nothing that showing a picture ID at the polls would prevent.

[Alyeska]

The voter ID law in Pensylvania will disenfranchise over 800,000 voters less than six months before the election.

Voter fraud is statistically irrelevant. As Jon Stewart said. "But that's the price you pay to prevent something that doesn't happen,"

And as John Paul Stevens wrote, "not only is the risk of voter fraud real but that it
could affect the outcome of a close election" and "[a]s the
Carter-Baker Report observed, the “electoral system cannot
inspire public confidence if no safeguards exist to deter
or detect fraud or to confirm the identity of voters.”"

Is there a list of these 800,000 voters who would be disenfranchised?

It's all about the math. Actual confirmed voter fraud is extremely rare. Jon Stewart only found 10 confirmed cases in ten years.

The voter ID law is going to affect an estimated 800,000 people. The state knows how many citizens it has (within an acceptable accuracy) and it also knows how many IDs it has issued. That 800,000 represent 9% of the states population.

Let's assume that 95% of those 800,000 manage to get photo IDs just for this election. That other 5% represent 40,000 who have just lost their right to vote.

An actual investigation into voter fraud since the year 2000 has found only 10 cases. Over 10 years there had only been one case of fraud per 15 million voters.

Voter fraud is statistically insignificant. There is a .000002 chance of fraud in the coming election. That comes out to 3 possible cases per presidential election. Pensylvania wants to disemframchise 800,000 voters. And guess what, the laws authors admitted that they the sole purpose of the law is to deliver the election to Romney. It was never about fraud and always about getting rid of those 800,000.

http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/opinion/ ... stent.html

[amigocabal]

The voter ID law in Pensylvania will disenfranchise over 800,000 voters less than six months before the election.

Voter fraud is statistically irrelevant. As Jon Stewart said. "But that's the price you pay to prevent something that doesn't happen,"

And as John Paul Stevens wrote, "not only is the risk of voter fraud real but that it
could affect the outcome of a close election" and "[a]s the
Carter-Baker Report observed, the “electoral system cannot
inspire public confidence if no safeguards exist to deter
or detect fraud or to confirm the identity of voters.”"

Is there a list of these 800,000 voters who would be disenfranchised?

How can the rist of voter fraud be "real" when there is no evidence of that it is occurring. The fact that no evidence of in person voter fraud exists means that the risk of voter fraud can not be real.

It was explained here.

But the absence of prosecutions is explained by the endemic underenforcement of minor criminal laws (minor as they appear to the public and prosecutors, at all events) and by the extreme difficulty of apprehending a voter impersonator. He enters the polling place, gives a name that is not his own, votes, and leaves. If later it is discovered that the name he gave is that of a dead person, no one at the polling place will remember the face of the person who gave that name, and if someone did remember it, what would he do with the information? The impersonator and the person impersonated (if living) might show up at the polls at the same time and a confrontation might ensue that might lead to a citizen arrest or a call to the police who would arrive before the impersonator had fled, and arrest him. A more likely sequence would be for the impersonated person to have voted already when the impersonator arrived and tried to vote in his name. But in either case an arrest would be most unlikely (and likewise if the impersonation were discovered or suspected by comparing signatures, when that is done), as the resulting commotion would disrupt the voting. And anyway the impersonated voter is likely to be dead or in another district or precinct or to be acting in cahoots with the impersonator, rather than to be a neighbor (precincts are small, sometimes a single apartment house). One response, which has a parallel to littering, another crime the perpetrators of which are almost impossible to catch, would be to impose a very severe criminal penalty for voting fraud. Another, however, is to take preventive action, as Indiana has done by requiring a photo ID.
The plaintiffs argue that while vote fraud by impersonation may be a problem in other states, it is not in Indiana, because there are no reports of such fraud in that state. But that lacuna may reflect nothing more than the vagaries of journalists' and other investigators' choice of scandals to investigate. Some voter impersonation has been found (though not much, for remember that it is difficult to detect) in the states that have been studied, and those states do not appear to be on average more "dishonest" than Indiana; for besides the notorious examples of Florida and Illinois, they include Michigan, Missouri, and Washington (state). Indirect evidence of such fraud, or at least of an acute danger of such fraud, in Indiana is provided by the discrepancy between the number of people listed on the registered-voter rolls in the state and the substantially smaller number of people actually eligible to vote. The defendants' expert estimated that the registration rolls contained 1.3 million more names than the eligible voters in Indiana. This seems too high, but the plaintiffs' expert acknowledged that the rolls are inflated. How many impersonations there are we do not know, but the plaintiffs have not shown that there are fewer impersonations than there are eligible voters whom the new law will prevent from voting.

Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 472 F.3d 949 at 953-954 (6th Cir. 2007), aff'd 553 U.S. 181 (2008)

[Alyeska]

So voter fraud is so bad it's worth removing 9% of eligible voters? Voter fraud is so bad it isn't even recorded?

You are making a bullshit excuse. And you continue to ignore that the GOP wasn't even trying to stop voter fraud in the first place.

[SirNitram]

The voter ID law in Pensylvania will disenfranchise over 800,000 voters less than six months before the election.

Voter fraud is statistically irrelevant. As Jon Stewart said. "But that's the price you pay to prevent something that doesn't happen,"

And as John Paul Stevens wrote, "not only is the risk of voter fraud real but that it
could affect the outcome of a close election" and "[a]s the
Carter-Baker Report observed, the “electoral system cannot
inspire public confidence if no safeguards exist to deter
or detect fraud or to confirm the identity of voters.”"

Is there a list of these 800,000 voters who would be disenfranchised?

If there was a list, numbnuts, it'd be easy to make sure there wasn't.

I have a serious question: Do you have anything to support your claims besides copy-pasted quotes? Like evidence?

[amigocabal]

So voter fraud is so bad it's worth removing 9% of eligible voters? Voter fraud is so bad it isn't even recorded?

You are making a bullshit excuse. And you continue to ignore that the GOP wasn't even trying to stop voter fraud in the first place.

Ah, that 9% eligible voter myth.

When a similar law was challenged in federal court, the Sixth Circuit noted that "There is not a single plaintiff who intends not to vote because of the new law—that is, who would vote were it not for the law. There are plaintiffs who have photo IDs and so are not affected by the law at all and plaintiffs who have no photo IDs but have not said they would vote if they did and so who also are, as far as we can tell, unaffected by the law. There thus are no plaintiffs whom the law will deter from voting." Crawford, 472 F.3d at 951-952, and noted the "inability of the sponsors of this litigation to find any such person (who would vote if not for the law). id. at 952 A federal district court whose decision was affirmed by both the Sixth Circuit and Supreme Court in Crawford found a similar report that "up to 989,000 registered voters in the State of Indiana" would be disenfrachised to be "utterly incredible and unreliable". Indiana Democratic Party v. Rokita, 458 F.Supp.2d 775 at 803 (S.D. Ind. 2006) The district court also noted the "[p]laintiffs' inability to provide the names or otherwise identify any particular affected individuals persists despite various polls and surveys that were conducted for the specific purpose of discovering such individuals. The Democrats' failure in this regard is particularly acute in light of their assertion that nearly one million of Indiana's registered voters do not possess an Indiana driver's license or photo identification" and that "it is a testament to the law's minimal burden and narrow crafting that Plaintiffs have been unable to uncover anyone who can attest to the fact that he/she will be prevented from voting despite the concerted efforts of the political party and numerous interested groups who arguably represent the most severely affected candidates and communities." id. at 823

I have a serious question: Do you have anything to support your claims besides copy-pasted quotes? Like evidence?

Quoting legal and factual findings by courts, all of which were upheld by the Supreme Court.

[Alyeska]

Ah, that 9% eligible voter myth.

Math isn't a myth. The state knows how many voters it has registered. It knows how many IDs it had issued. It's real easy to do the math and determine how many people will be affected.

[Simon_Jester]

Does it matter whether those people intend to vote or not?

Either way, they can't vote, despite being American citizens who registered to vote lawfully. You can't say "oh, well people without driver's licenses never vote anyway so it doesn't matter if we make it illegal for them to vote." There's nothing in the Constitution that says "And anyone who doesn't vote loses the right to ever vote again."

[amigocabal]

Does it matter whether those people intend to vote or not?

Either way, they can't vote, despite being American citizens who registered to vote lawfully. You can't say "oh, well people without driver's licenses never vote anyway so it doesn't matter if we make it illegal for them to vote." There's nothing in the Constitution that says "And anyone who doesn't vote loses the right to ever vote again."

They can vote if they get ID.

[Simon_Jester]

They're still losing their vote if they don't have the cards, and there's no way in hell they're all going to get them in two months. Which is totally intentional, because as the guy said, 'this law will give Pennsylvania to Romney.' That's the point.

My right to free speech doesn't depend on having a little card that says I have permission to speak. My right not to be randomly searched or thrown in jail doesn't depend on having a little card that says I have permission to walk around the streets. My freedom of religion doesn't depend on having a Religion License.

Why does my right to vote depend on my having a little plastic card?

Please, stop just repeating what other people say and explain in your own words why you think this is okay.

[amigocabal]

They're still losing their vote if they don't have the cards, and there's no way in hell they're all going to get them in two months. Which is totally intentional, because as the guy said, 'this law will give Pennsylvania to Romney.' That's the point.

My right to free speech doesn't depend on having a little card that says I have permission to speak. My right not to be randomly searched or thrown in jail doesn't depend on having a little card that says I have permission to walk around the streets. My freedom of religion doesn't depend on having a Religion License.

Why does my right to vote depend on my having a little plastic card?

Please, stop just repeating what other people say and explain in your own words why you think this is okay.

The purpose of voter ID is to ensure that the person casting the vote is qualified to vote and ensure the integrity of elections. It is the same reason why we have fixed polling places, as well as an application process for absentee balloting.

Are there any voting regulations which you would find valid? From the reasoning of these arguments, it would appear they would apply to invalidate any sort of restriction on the time, place, and manner of voting. Against that sort of reasoning, how can fixed polling places be justified? How could regulations on applications for absentee balloting, and regulations on absentee ballots themselves be justified? Should not this reasoning mean that everyone should be able to vote merely by mailing in a handwritten ballot?

And a bigger question is why do you wish to relitigate the issue, when the Supreme Court has already rejected your arguments.

[Simon_Jester]

One:

So you think ensuring the integrity of the election with this procedure is important? Even if there is no evidence that this procedure affects the integrity of the election one way or the other?

Do we need a special procedure for people who vote under fake names? Because there aren't exactly a lot of them, as far as anyone can prove. Do we need a special procedure for ensuring that no elves or unicorns vote in our elections, too?

Two:

Having fixed voting locations is purely a practical matter- we have a finite number of voting machines, people to maintain them, and suitable places for people to gather. It does not prevent anyone from voting; voting-places are thick on the ground, and we require by law that employers and so on not stop people from voting.

Having an application process for absentee ballots is a practical matter- because it is EASY to fill out multiple absentee ballots. It is not easy to have the same person show up multiple times under false names on election day. If it were easy, it would be common, and if it were common, there would be proof people were doing it.

For normal crimes, like theft or murder or credit card fraud, I can point to examples of them happening in real life. It's not just a figment of my imagination. What you're talking about is like... I don't know, like installing a minefield in front of your door to deter invisible elves from stealing your stuff. The crime doesn't happen, so the deterrent isn't necessary. And the people who pass these laws are totally open about that fact, too.

Three:

As to the last, people who disagree with a Supreme Court decision have a right to dissent, and to hope that it will be reversed. Ever heard of the Dred Scott decision? Or Plessy v. Ferguson?

[General Zod]

The purpose of voter ID is to ensure that the person casting the vote is qualified to vote and ensure the integrity of elections. It is the same reason why we have fixed polling places, as well as an application process for absentee balloting.

Are there any voting regulations which you would find valid? From the reasoning of these arguments, it would appear they would apply to invalidate any sort of restriction on the time, place, and manner of voting. Against that sort of reasoning, how can fixed polling places be justified? How could regulations on applications for absentee balloting, and regulations on absentee ballots themselves be justified? Should not this reasoning mean that everyone should be able to vote merely by mailing in a handwritten ballot?

And a bigger question is why do you wish to relitigate the issue, when the Supreme Court has already rejected your arguments.

Is there anything keeping someone from just using a fake ID? If you're really determined to flood the ballot with fake voters why not drop a little extra on IDs to make sure they get in the lines?

I can't imagine polling people check the IDs that closely, and people can look drastically different from their ID if it's a few years old.

[PhilosopherOfSorts]

Does it matter whether those people intend to vote or not?

Either way, they can't vote, despite being American citizens who registered to vote lawfully. You can't say "oh, well people without driver's licenses never vote anyway so it doesn't matter if we make it illegal for them to vote." There's nothing in the Constitution that says "And anyone who doesn't vote loses the right to ever vote again."

They can vote if they get ID.

Which, as I said earlier in the thread, can be a serious pain in the ass, especially if you're working two McJobs to pay the rent, and the DMV is only open one day a week. The last time I had to get my driver's licence renewed, it took me around six weeks to catch a day off when the DMV was open, and I had to drive to the next county to get it done, even then. I'm lucky, I have a car, so I CAN drive to the next county to get things like that done if I have to. But I know a lot of people who don't have cars, and if they need something done at the DMV, and can't get that Thursday 9 to 4, off, they're pretty much fucked.