And if they're actually serious about it (which I seriously doubt), they can make up rules that everyone should be able to comply with, including the state ID agencies, for 2016 - in late 2012 or early 2013.
"What his ruling won’t answer is how it feels to be the party that’s afraid of having too many voters show up." Seriously, how does it feel? Plus, this isn't anything new. Remember how the Republicans opposed the Motor Voter bill?
" EJ Dionne, columnist for the Washington Post and author of "Our Divided Political Heart," talks with Rachel Maddow about the trouble the Republican Party is in now that the questionable contractor they hired to boost voter registrations is mired in a fraud scandal leaving them with no push for new registrations in five important swing states in the final days before registration closes" So voting fraud IS happening...but the GOP is responsible....Care to look in the mirror much.?...and if ACORN was such a scandal (out of a nonexistent one) that Fox and company made such a big fuss about it...how about this one? Where are the conservatives....and their "righteous" (or right wing) indignation? Crickets, crickets.....the silence is deafening...
VFish I am truly curious to know what your take on this is, and what they are saying about it in the conservative world.
I know I don't care which side commits the fraud, the integrity of the system is what is tarnished. Every post I have made in this thread has been to that point.
Only one side has been clearly demonstrated to have committed the fraud. Oh, and none of the laws that have been passed would have prevented the fraud this company wantonly committed.
Also, voter registration fraud doesn't lead to voter fraud. Fraudulent registration alone can't rig an election, and doesn't enable any other type of fraud. It doesn't undermine the process - it simply exposes the downside of providing incentive for voter registration, a downside felt almost entirely by the campaigns footing the bill. Again, we can talk about some sensible voter identification. But the question remains - why are we devoting the time and the money and the bureaucracy for a problem we don't know that exists, or will ever exist?
And the organization that actually pre-screened the registrations they gathered to make sure they weren't sending fraudulent registrations to the various SoS became a political punching bag for Conservatives and driven out of business, while the organization that didn't pre-screen their registrations and sent hundreds of fraudulent registrations to the various SoS has gotten crickets from the Conservatives..
In this case I say "fraud" in the sense that this company fraudulently led people to believe that they were registered to vote, when actually they just threw away their form. So no, what they did doesn't let someone vote more than once. But it does prevent someone from voting at all. Which is, in many respects, far more reprehensible.
I clearly need to pay more attention to this story, but you are saying they not only submitted false registrations, but they also trashed valid registrations?
Unlike the Electoral College, without which the kind of bullshit we see related to tampering with the voting structures in the this country wouldn't be nearly so tempting.
Meh... Would think going purely popular vote would encourage more of it because you'd be doing it at a national level instead of a few key states.
Yes, but only ones for people who were registering Democrat. As far as I can tell, it's about as egregious a thing you can do as someone signing people up to vote. Oh, and this company. They did this in 2004. So why in the world were they contracted by the GOP to be the SOLE provider of voter registration services for the GOP in 5 vital swing states? Great question. But they DID change their name at the request of the GOP. You know... to throw off the scent.
I haven't been following the "War on Voters" and I don't watch Rachel Maddow. I will say this, I was having dinner and watching the NBC Nightly News while visting my sister's. My brother from Holland was also there. When the news story about the Voter ID law being struck down in PA came on I asked my brother if he had to produce an ID when voting in Holland. The answer was yes. My sister agreed that showing an ID made sense. Both thought the liberal arguement was absurd and both are what this board would consider very liberal.
Sorry, I didn't. I simply smiled when both reaffirmed how absurd the stupid liberal "War Against Sane Voter Laws" is.
Well, your family sure beat the shit out of that strawman. Can you show us where the "liberal argument" is that nobody should be required to show any form of ID in order to vote? The arguments on this thread have consistently been that changing the requirements close to an election, to require government-issued photo ID, while also making that government-issued photo ID (a) not free, and (b) difficult to get for people with inflexible hours (e.g. someone who will get fired if they go spend all day at the DMV) will have the intended effect of reducing the number of poor and minority citizens who can vote. The Pennsylvania law = bad; the Virginia law (which also requires an ID) = reasonable.
So after this election we can require an ID? I am happy with that, but you might want to discuss it with the rest of board. They'll never go for that.
Read the thread before you make assumptions. Most of us have come out against restrictions of said laws, not against photo ID for voters. Those are two separate issues.
I'm cool with it. And you really should play the Turzai video so they're not functioning on decontextualized information.
If Republican state legislatures want to pass reasonable laws in 2013, that's fine -- but they won't bring it up again until 2016. Apparently voter fraud is only an issue in the nine months before a Presidential election.
My wife, not being a citizen, asked last night, "if you don't have to show ID when casting a absentee ballot, how do you prevent fraud?" I had no answer.
Best way is for everyone to go vote - that way, no one would be tempted to say they were you and "steal" your vote, which is how voter fraud happens (if it happens at all). Currently the way you do it is you make the penalties for getting caught way more than it could be possibly worth to even consider doing that. The first real question though is - how to get the most possible people to vote in the first place - the idea of requiring an ID to prove it is down the list a way. If your county/state/country provides free, easy-to-get picture IDs than you can ask that question first and truly feel confused about it. Until then, you are being biased answering the question the way you did, you can only answer it from your perspective as a well-enough-to-do dude who has a car he drives every day so he already has gone through the hassle of getting an ID and doesn't remember what his life was like before that happened.