WWTBAM Bored

Pennsylvania recently passed a Voter ID law. The primary (but not the only) form of ID to be used for voting is a driver's license. Just one problem. According to new estimates from the Secretary of the Commonwealth, approximately 758,000 registered voters don't have one. That's 9.2% of all registered voters in the Commonwealth. When the bill was being considered, the Secretary claimed that 99% of registered voters already have a license. To quote Dick Nixon's Press Secretary, Ron Ziegler, that estimate now appears to be "inoperative."

It will surprise no one that the problem is concentrated in urban areas. Fully 18% of registered voters in Philadelphia don't have a driver's license.

The law has been challenged as violating the state constitution. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court is expected to reach and decide the case before November. --Bob

Well assuming they don't have a license, they'd have to take the bus to get to the booth. And if it's in Pittsburgh, they might not make it anyway given how bad our bus system can be, so perhaps it's all a moot point!

Weyoun wrote:Well assuming they don't have a license, they'd have to take the bus to get to the booth. And if it's in Pittsburgh, they might not make it anyway given how bad our bus system can be, so perhaps it's all a moot point!

In Los Angeles I've always lived within easy walking distance of my polling places. --Bob

The state House Republican leader has declared, "Voter ID - which is going to allow Gov. Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania - done."

I sure hope that's wishful thinking. I don't want the Presidential election result affected by some eligible voters not having ID. A few things could happen that would help:

• Some of the voters without ID have moved and will re-register.
  Many counties are notifying voters of the new rules, and how they can get an ID.
  The Obama campaign will also help potential voters register, get ID, and (if it's too far to walk) get to the poll or get an absentee ballot.
  The state Supreme Court may decide the law is unconstitutional.

Bob78164 wrote:

Weyoun wrote:Well assuming they don't have a license, they'd have to take the bus to get to the booth. And if it's in Pittsburgh, they might not make it anyway given how bad our bus system can be, so perhaps it's all a moot point!

In Los Angeles I've always lived within easy walking distance of my polling places. --Bob

Well I can't speak for LA, or its public transport.

However I actually agree that doing this at this point is poor, suspicious timing. Pass it and give people two years to get an ID. However I also think that you should have an ID to vote, just as you need an ID to buy booze. Doesn't mean it has to be a government issued one, but I would strongly, strongly prefer that.

Weyoun wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

Weyoun wrote:Well assuming they don't have a license, they'd have to take the bus to get to the booth. And if it's in Pittsburgh, they might not make it anyway given how bad our bus system can be, so perhaps it's all a moot point!

In Los Angeles I've always lived within easy walking distance of my polling places. --Bob

Well I can't speak for LA, or its public transport.

However I actually agree that doing this at this point is poor, suspicious timing. Pass it and give people two years to get an ID. However I also think that you should have an ID to vote, just as you need an ID to buy booze. Doesn't mean it has to be a government issued one, but I would strongly, strongly prefer that.

But you don't need an ID to vote absentee. And many of the IDs that are accepted don't establish that you are actually eligible to vote. They just establish that you are who you claim to be. Voter ID laws are justified by preventing voter impersonation, but instances of voter impersonation are, for obvious reasons (inefficiency and risk) surpassingly rare. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

Weyoun wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:In Los Angeles I've always lived within easy walking distance of my polling places. --Bob

Well I can't speak for LA, or its public transport.

However I actually agree that doing this at this point is poor, suspicious timing. Pass it and give people two years to get an ID. However I also think that you should have an ID to vote, just as you need an ID to buy booze. Doesn't mean it has to be a government issued one, but I would strongly, strongly prefer that.

But you don't need an ID to vote absentee. And many of the IDs that are accepted don't establish that you are actually eligible to vote. They just establish that you are who you claim to be. Voter ID laws are justified by preventing voter impersonation, but instances of voter impersonation are, for obvious reasons (inefficiency and risk) surpassingly rare. --Bob

That's fine and I am not disputing that impersonation is rare, though I have no idea how either one of us would actually know the truth of that. I still think you need an ID to show you who are, just like you need an ID to board a plane, identify yourself at a hospital, or, in my case, get a bus pass. IDs are good ideas.

BTW the comment about Pittsburgh buses was a *joke* about my city.

Weyoun wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

Weyoun wrote:Well assuming they don't have a license, they'd have to take the bus to get to the booth. And if it's in Pittsburgh, they might not make it anyway given how bad our bus system can be, so perhaps it's all a moot point!

In Los Angeles I've always lived within easy walking distance of my polling places. --Bob

Well I can't speak for LA, or its public transport.

However I actually agree that doing this at this point is poor, suspicious timing. Pass it and give people two years to get an ID. However I also think that you should have an ID to vote, just as you need an ID to buy booze. Doesn't mean it has to be a government issued one, but I would strongly, strongly prefer that.

2 years to get an ID? Cmon.

I am sure you are aware of James O'Keefe, the guy that exposed ACORN for what it truly is, also recorded his ability to cast a vote as Eric Holder. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government ... der-Ballot He just went to Eric Holders precinct, asked if Eric Holder was registered (did not say he was Eric Holder) and was offered a ballot. He protested that he could go out to his car and get his ID, (again not saying he WAS Eric Holder), and was told that was not necessary, that they would go ahead and give him Eric Holder's ballot. He did not vote for Eric Holder, but he, or anyone else, could have.

But we do not need voter's showing that they are who they say they are, when virtually anywhere else these days, you have to. Why do people who protest that it's too hard to get an ID to vote, or that it's somehow racist or some other 'ist' to require at least a minimum amount of proof to who they are before they vote restrict it to voting? It's obvious if you think about it, but why think about it?

What's even worse is the the public officials, when they saw this video, instead of acknowledging there is a problem, tried to go after O'Keefe, even though he did not break any law or lie to anyone.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Weyoun wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:In Los Angeles I've always lived within easy walking distance of my polling places. --Bob

Well I can't speak for LA, or its public transport.

However I actually agree that doing this at this point is poor, suspicious timing. Pass it and give people two years to get an ID. However I also think that you should have an ID to vote, just as you need an ID to buy booze. Doesn't mean it has to be a government issued one, but I would strongly, strongly prefer that.

2 years to get an ID? Cmon.

I am sure you are aware of James O'Keefe, the guy that exposed ACORN for what it truly is, also recorded his ability to cast a vote as Eric Holder. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government ... der-Ballot He just went to Eric Holders precinct, asked if Eric Holder was registered (did not say he was Eric Holder) and was offered a ballot. He protested that he could go out to his car and get his ID, (again not saying he WAS Eric Holder), and was told that was not necessary, that they would go ahead and give him Eric Holder's ballot. He did not vote for Eric Holder, but he, or anyone else, could have.

But we do not need voter's showing that they are who they say they are, when virtually anywhere else these days, you have to. Why do people who protest that it's too hard to get an ID to vote, or that it's somehow racist or some other 'ist' to require at least a minimum amount of proof to who they are before they vote restrict it to voting? It's obvious if you think about it, but why think about it?

What's even worse is the the public officials, when they saw this video, instead of acknowledging there is a problem, tried to go after O'Keefe, even though he did not break any law or lie to anyone.

If you were to be as specific as requiring a drivers license (for people who dont drive and dont have cars) yeah you would need to give that much heads up. the PA legislature is acting in bad faith here, despite the issue itself being one of concern, as you demonstrate.

I think one of three or four acceptable kinds of government ID should be accepted. Of course I also think you should have such an ID to get welfare, and what do you know that office could serve as one stop shopping!

Imagine a world where you swiped your ID at the booth after being identified, and then voted in a separate booth so no one would know which card went with which vote. And then the machine computed the results and the results were known in three hours nationwide!

It's crazy, I tell you! It's almost like both parties want total chaos at the booth just to make the hijinks part of how the game is played.

Voter ID laws can be written in an unbiased way. But in Pennsylvania, the Republican legislature rejected forms of ID that many Democratic voters have. For example, student photo IDs are only accepted if they have an expiration date. Some of the large urban universities, like Temple, have IDs without expiration dates. And the legislature also cut funding to Temple, so they can't afford to remake their photo IDs.

Weyoun wrote:BTW the comment about Pittsburgh buses was a *joke* about my city.

It might not be much of an exaggeration since I've read in the news about a funding crisis, mostly driven by retiree pension and health care costs, that may cause much of the system to shut down. Chapter 9 was a consideration, much like with Stockton, CA government.

A state bailout may be in the works per a story today:
http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/loc ... ks-643253/

Snaxx wrote:

Weyoun wrote:BTW the comment about Pittsburgh buses was a *joke* about my city.

It might not be much of an exaggeration since I've read in the news about a funding crisis, mostly driven by retiree pension and health care costs, that may cause much of the system to shut down. Chapter 9 was a consideration, much like with Stockton, CA government.

A state bailout may be in the works per a story today:
http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/loc ... ks-643253/

Pittsburgh bus drivers are the highest paid in the land IIRC, though you wouldn't guess it by their attitudes.

When I was in school part deux the university bus system was driven by students making student-level wages. They were a self-selected group with an esprit de corps, much like the band or something. It seemed to work.

Gotta remember to renew my DL as it expires before Election Day.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:I am sure you are aware of James O'Keefe, the guy that exposed ACORN for what it truly is, also recorded his ability to cast a vote as Eric Holder. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government ... der-Ballot He just went to Eric Holders precinct, asked if Eric Holder was registered (did not say he was Eric Holder) and was offered a ballot. He protested that he could go out to his car and get his ID, (again not saying he WAS Eric Holder), and was told that was not necessary, that they would go ahead and give him Eric Holder's ballot. He did not vote for Eric Holder, but he, or anyone else, could have.

And if he actually had cast that ballot, what do you think would have happened when the real Eric Holder showed up to vote? That's why voter impersonation is risky and rare. You need to find a registered voter who hasn't voted and won't vote, or you've got a serious problem on your hands. And that's also how we know it's rare -- we don't have legions of impersonated would-be voters coming out of the woodwork. --Bob

Am I in the right line to vote for Romney?

I have no interest in yet another partisan political argument, but I'll refer y'all to tonight's Final Jeopardy clue as being relevant to this discussion.
Paraphrased clue: This state has the lowest percentage of licensed drivers at 58%.
Correct response:

Spoiler

****** New York *******

TheConfessor wrote:I have no interest in yet another partisan political argument, but I'll refer y'all to tonight's Final Jeopardy clue as being relevant to this discussion.
Paraphrased clue: This state has the lowest percentage of licensed drivers at 58%.
Correct response:

Spoiler

****** New York *******

Spoiler

Thanks to New York City, home of the infamous Boss Tweed!

Coincidence? I think not!

MarleysGh0st wrote:

TheConfessor wrote:I have no interest in yet another partisan political argument, but I'll refer y'all to tonight's Final Jeopardy clue as being relevant to this discussion.
Paraphrased clue: This state has the lowest percentage of licensed drivers at 58%.
Correct response:

Spoiler

****** New York *******

Spoiler

Thanks to New York City, home of the infamous Boss Tweed!

Coincidence? I think not!

I just watched and got it wrong

Spoiler

in spite of living there nearly all my life and all three contestants getting it. I considered NY but figured the percentage low for any of the lower 48 so I figured either AK or HI, going with Hawaii.

Bob78164 wrote: Voter ID laws are justified by preventing voter impersonation, but instances of voter impersonation are, for obvious reasons (inefficiency and risk) surpassingly rare. --Bob

You actually have no way of knowing if your claim here is true.

What is true is that instances of voter impersonation are rarely detected and prosecuted, but that does not in any degree prove that the occurrence is rare.

Bob78164 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:I am sure you are aware of James O'Keefe, the guy that exposed ACORN for what it truly is, also recorded his ability to cast a vote as Eric Holder. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government ... der-Ballot He just went to Eric Holders precinct, asked if Eric Holder was registered (did not say he was Eric Holder) and was offered a ballot. He protested that he could go out to his car and get his ID, (again not saying he WAS Eric Holder), and was told that was not necessary, that they would go ahead and give him Eric Holder's ballot. He did not vote for Eric Holder, but he, or anyone else, could have.

And if he actually had cast that ballot, what do you think would have happened when the real Eric Holder showed up to vote? That's why voter impersonation is risky and rare. You need to find a registered voter who hasn't voted and won't vote, or you've got a serious problem on your hands. And that's also how we know it's rare -- we don't have legions of impersonated would-be voters coming out of the woodwork. --Bob

No, we don't know it's rare. You keep claiming that to be the case, but you just can't know.

It's easy to impersonate a voter who hasn't voted and won't vote. Just find someone who has not been purged after death. And as someone who has worked as an Election Judge in a County that is probably more diligent than most about cleaning up the voter roll, I can tell you that scenario isn't nearly as rare as it should be.

It also isn't hard to scan the voter registration rolls to find the people who never, ever vote. Those people would also for impersonation.

However, as you have mentioned, Voter ID laws do nothing to prevent the majority of voter fraud, which occurs with absentee/mail-in ballots. However, if we tried to restrict those forms of voting more, you can rest assured that the Democrats would scram holy hell about those efforts, too.

TheCalvinator24 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote: Voter ID laws are justified by preventing voter impersonation, but instances of voter impersonation are, for obvious reasons (inefficiency and risk) surpassingly rare. --Bob

You actually have no way of knowing if your claim here is true.

What is true is that instances of voter impersonation are rarely detected and prosecuted, but that does not in any degree prove that the occurrence is rare.

More importantly, you don't know that it's false, and the lack of detection (in a setting where there are participants who are highly motivated to detect fraud) is certainly evidence that it is rare. But we do know that these laws will deter eligible voters from voting.

And it's no coincidence that many perfectly good forms of identification (that happen to be forms more likely to be carried by Democrats than by Republicans) are not being accepted by these state laws. --Bob

TheCalvinator24 wrote:
However, as you have mentioned, Voter ID laws do nothing to prevent the majority of voter fraud, which occurs with absentee/mail-in ballots. However, if we tried to restrict those forms of voting more, you can rest assured that the Democrats would scram holy hell about those efforts, too.

No, what you can rest assured is that Republicans won't try to curb any "abuses" unless they have a disproportionate effect against voters who primarily vote Democratic.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

We don't need to worry about this just look how well the NY 15 primary went.