"Voter ID ... is going to allow Romney to win Pennsylvania."

[Direckshun]

So sayeth PA's House majority leader.



http://www.politicspa.com/turzai-vot...-win-pa/37153/

House Majority Leader Mike Turzai (R-Allegheny) suggested that the House’s end game in passing the Voter ID law was to benefit the GOP politically.

“We are focused on making sure that we meet our obligations that we’ve talked about for years,” said Turzai in a speech to committee members Saturday. He mentioned the law among a laundry list of accomplishments made by the GOP-run legislature.

“Pro-Second Amendment? The Castle Doctrine, it’s done. First pro-life legislation – abortion facility regulations – in 22 years, done. Voter ID, which is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done.”

The statement drew a loud round of applause from the audience. It also struck a nerve among critics, who called it an admission that they passed the bill to make it harder for Democrats to vote — and not to prevent voter fraud as the legislators claimed.

So how's that going for you, Pennsylvania Republicans?

Nearly 10 percent of Pennsylvania’s registered voters do not have photo identification cards from the state transportation department and could be ineligible to vote in November under the state’s new Republican-backed voter ID law.

The Pennsylvania Department of State reported Tuesday that more than 758,000 registered voters lack a standard driver’s license or a non-driver photo ID. That’s 9.2 percent of the state’s 8.2 million voters.

Onward, right?

In Philadelphia, where Democrats outnumber Republicans by about 6-1, 18 percent of the city’s registered voters do not have the state photo ID, the Philadelphia Inquirer reported.

To win the state, Democratic candidates traditionally must pile up big margins of victory in Philadelphia to offset Republican vote totals elsewhere in the state.

Makes perfect sense, since voter fraud has turned out to be SUCH a HUGE problem in this country.

The Republican-led legislature approved the measure in March, and Republican Gov. Tom Corbett signed it into law.

Nothing disingenuous here.

Just a coincidence it's an election year.

This year, 32 states introduced voter ID legislation, either new proposals or amendments to strengthen existing laws.

supporters called [it] an effort to crack down on voter fraud. Opponents said the legislation was an attempt to disenfranchise minority voters.

Not even disenfranchising voters is off the table.

Political brinksmanship. To the nth degree.

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Do you think we should have a voter ID law nationally?

Go.

Not without an Amendment. I'd lean toward no on the national level, let it be taken care of locally but I'd have no problem with my biometric database being administered by the Federal govt and accessible by local govt with individual permission.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

You two LUDDITES! How about my idea instead. Opt-in encrypted biometric db.. that's encryption is keyed to a person's biometric data making it near impossible for anyone to access the data without the individual approving.

Nor would I oppose that.

[HonestChieffan]

Originally Posted by Literature

And I think it's acceptable because, like a social security card, they are issued to every citizen at no cost, and they are free to reissue if you lose it, for several go-arounds.

Non Citizens can get a SS card as well

[mikey23545]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

So you don't think that significant numbers of the IDless wouldn't suffer from the following issues:

1. ignorance of voters laws

Check - sounds like dead people

2. inconvenience due to life circumstances

Check - sounds like dead people

3. sheer forgetfulness due to any number of legitimate reasons

Another check - these are dead people all right. Therefore, Dem voters. I can see now why you would be worried about them being dropped off the voter rolls.

[Direckshun]

AC,

In your efforts to prove you're "just" an ideological purist, rather than a hyperpartisan, you have ignored the one argument I've used all thread to attempt to turn this around on Republicans.

You've also responded with no evidence, and replies that say "I don't care" and to dictate which Americans deserve to vote.

You are making this argument 100% for hyperpartisan reasons.

As, I suspect, everybody else is and will be.

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Screw your head back on.

1. Both involve hypothetical threats we cannot prove. But we think they could happen.

2. Both invoke solutions that have political blowback.

3. Voter ID laws will disproportionally affect Democrats.

4. My proposed political contribution regulations disproportionally affect Republicans.

#3... tough shit, they don't deserve to vote. We've got .004% of a problem to fix, says AustinChief.

#4... well, new thread, wait a minute I'm not researched enough to voice an opinion, rabble rabble rabble

****, I had to scroll back 3 pages to quote this!

#1 Yes that is somewhat on topic
#2 I really am not concerned with that side, that is far too partisan and more your issue
#3 At first probably but in the end not at all.
#4-the rest I am not commenting because I don't have a strong opinion. I may come to agree 100% with you.. I haven't done the research. How hard is this to understand? It'd be different if you could find me commenting on this topic in any depth in the past... but I haven;t because it hasn't been a hot topic that I have felt the need to wade into. I will say, I tend toward sweeping political campaign reform and think the current system is broken in the regard that too many interests groups (corporations, unions, etc) have far too much sway.

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by HonestChieffan

Only those who don't make the effort to get an ID are affected.

That's correct.

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by Donger

You realize the flip side of that coin is that you are either deliberately or unintentionally encouraging potential voter fraud, no? All that those of us who want verification of citizenship are doing is asking for compliance with the law. That's just crazy, racist thinking, eh?

I'm just asking that a bunch of hoops aren't thrown in actual citizens' paths to exercise a fundamental freedom that this country supposedly stands for: voting for the people that represent us in government. I suppose that's crazy? I'm not trying to get a bunch of illegal immigrants to vote. I'm genuinely concerned about real citizens who don't have photo IDs or the time to get one before the election is over. I think voting should be like a national treasure that everyone likes to do, not some obstacle course that is more of a headache.

[mikey23545]

Gee, you know, in Florida where they are raising such a fuss about us purging the rolls of ineligible voters, there is an incredibly simple solution to any possible mistakes being made.

If you show up on election day to vote, and their records show you are not eligible, you are allowed to cast a provisional ballot, and it is held for a certain number of days. If you come back within that time with an ID or whatever you need to show you really are eligible, the vote is counted.

Why do Florida Dems hate that idea? Because they know when illegal voters leave the polling station they still won't be able to come back with documentation.

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

AC,

In your efforts to prove you're "just" an ideological purist, rather than a hyperpartisan, you have ignored the one argument I've used all thread to attempt to turn this around on Republicans.

You've also responded with no evidence, and replies that say "I don't care" and to dictate which Americans deserve to vote.

You are making this argument 100% for hyperpartisan reasons.

As, I suspect, everybody else is and will be.

Again are you on about CU? I am pleading ignorance I simply haven't taken the time to read the ruling and form a full opinion. Sorry that doesn't play in to your "gotcha" that you had planned, but it's true.

I have not tried to dictate who votes.. the GOVERNMENT HAS. The duly elected representatives of PA have passed a law. If it passes Constitutional muster... YOU are the one who has decided he knows what's best and who should vote.. over the voices of the people of PA. Your paternalistic attitude is showing.. may want to cover that up.

[mikey23545]

Originally Posted by Literature

I'm just asking that a bunch of hoops aren't thrown in actual citizens' paths to exercise a fundamental freedom that this country supposedly stands for: voting for the people that represent us in government. I suppose that's crazy?

You ****ing, lying idiot. People are voting to elect the most powerful man in the world, and they can't be bothered to show the same ID they would need to show to buy a six pack or a pack of cigarettes?

People as slimy and disingenuous as you belong in exactly the profession you are headed for.

Simply sickening.

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by Literature

I'm just asking that a bunch of hoops aren't thrown in actual citizens' paths to exercise a fundamental freedom that this country supposedly stands for: voting for the people that represent us in government. I suppose that's crazy?

I'm with you here. It should be reasonable and easy to get an ID in this case .. if it's not, then I too have serious issue with the law. Although as I have said, I prefer a 21st century solution which would make this whole thing moot.

Encrypted biometric id database that could be used for TSA purposes, voting, DL, passport, taxes, etc etc on an OPT-IN basis and you solve all sorts of issues. With a Federal db like this, you could have 100% accuracy on voting AND make the process so easy NO ONE would ever have an excuse for not voting.

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by mikey23545

You ****ing, lying idiot. People are voting to elect the most powerful man in the world, and they can't be bothered to show the same ID they would need to show to buy a six pack or a pack of cigarettes?

People as slimy and disingenuous as you belong in exactly the profession you are headed for.

Simply sickening.

I won't apologize for standing up for the fundamental freedom for the right to vote, no matter what social class or education level they've achieved, even if it's not the popular thing to do.

[mikey23545]

Originally Posted by Literature

I won't apologize for standing up for the fundamental freedom for the right to vote, no matter what social class or education level you've achieved, even if it's not the popular thing to do.

So should non-citizens be allowed to vote?

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

You are making this argument 100% for hyperpartisan reasons.

As, I suspect, everybody else is and will be.

Honestly, I want 100% accurate systems that work. You on the other hand simply want more votes. Who is the partisan here?

My ultimate perfect system wouldn't have one bit of bias in it... would you be behind my biometric federal db idea?