Pa PASSES VOTER "PHOTO- ID" LAW

@firefly,

my experiences with the Cali DMV make me glad that I'm here and not there.

but Indiana, Illinois, and Tennessee have much simpler systems by comparison...

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

Have you ever voted?

In every single election since I've been old enough to vote. I was also the Democratic party representative/captain for my Election District/precinct for a number of years. But I still didn't know the person who sat at the voter sign-in table on behalf of the Democratic party.

I was also a poll watcher one year, which would have allowed me to challenge someone's right to vote on an issue like identity.

Quote:

The voting places are usually manned by local neighbors who know where people live by the list they have that must be matched with the voter's signature

When I go in, I tell them where I live, so they know I'm at the correct ED/precinct table, then they find my name in the book. But, in all the many decades I've been voting, I've yet to recognize anyone sitting at the precinct table, and they don't know me, or whether I'm who I say I am.

They just glance at the signature, it can just be an approximation. My mother had a stroke that significantly affected her ability to sign her name, and I thought she might have a problem when she voted, but they didn't say a word.

Places like Chicago used to be notorious for voter fraud.

1 Reply

@firefly,

Sure, that's an anecdotal incident with your mother, but most who have suffered a stroke changes the individual's ability to perform normal tasks.

When I used to go to the voting place, I usually recognized some neighbors. Also, when I was on the Civil Grand Jury in 2003-2004, our jury inspected the voting places and voting machines before, during, and after the voting process.

The number of signatures in the book had to match the number of votes cast as recorded by the machine.

1 Reply

@Rockhead,

But she was speaking of non-driver ID cards.

Speaking of which, why should a non-driver ID card ever expire? Kind of like having to renew a birth certificate, if you ask me.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

It's really quite easy for someone to go into the polling place and claim they are a deceased person who had lived in that precinct. You just read the obits in the newspaper and then look up the exact address of the deceased person, so you know which precinct to go to vote. The names of deceased people remain on the voting rolls for some time. And you can see their last signature in the sign-in book, and you just have to approximate it--the inspectors aren't checking for forgeries, they just glance at it after you sign. It's not that difficult a fraud to pull off. And they can have a lot of people doing this in many different precincts, and no one may suspect anything.

Quote:

The number of signatures in the book had to match the number of votes cast as recorded by the machine.

But, if you claim to be a deceased person, and fake their signature in the book, and then vote, the machine count will match the number of people signing in.

It's a long story, but during one presidential election, I actually entered a voting booth twice in one day. The first time no vote was cast--I had a problem with the machine, some of the levers suddenly jammed, and a fight ensued with the Republican inspector who wouldn't give me a paper and pencil to cast a write-in vote for the offices I couldn't pull a lever for. A paper and pencil was supposed to be in the machine by law. The Republican inspector finally entered the booth, lifted up all the levers I had managed to depress (all for Democratic candidates), and she opened the curtain, completely invalidating my vote--and she did this in front of a policeman who wasn't sure what to do. Anyway, I was fuming and I immediately went to the Board of Elections and appeared before a judge who called that inspector, and he was so horrified by her behavior, that she admitted to, that he issued an order allowing me to re-enter the voting booth. That threw the count on that machine off because it showed one more person voting than there were votes cast for anything on the ballot.

A friend of mine was the county attorney at the time and he told me the judge actually issued an illegal order because you can't allow someone in a voting booth twice in a day--it does throw the machine count off. My friend said the judge should have allowed me to cast an absentee ballot instead, but the judge was so upset by what the idiot inspector had done, he allowed me to go back and re-enter the booth again. When I finally got back to the polling place, I had a little cheering aquad of Democrats waiting for me and that nitwit Republican inspector (one of the people who sits at the sign-in table) had been replaced. But I was determined I would cast my ballot that day, and I finally did.

So, when someone is determined to vote, they vote. Smile

6 Replies

@firefly,

How does that person sign the voter rolls? Signatures are matched to the registration records.

0 Replies

@firefly,

Also, please provide evidence that such things are happening, since you claim that it can happen.

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

you forgot to respond to this [I had not seen it. David]

Quote:
@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:
Even defeating ONE fraudulent vote is sufficient justification for the law

Apply this logic to GUN CONTROL and talk to me

Would saving one life from being smoked by a gun, justify new gun control laws?

NO. The Bill of Rights puts freedom of gun possession beyond the reach of government's jurisdiction.
We are the Land of the FREE.
The way to amend that is by vote of 2/3 of each house of Congress
ratified by 3/4 of all the States.

Any citizen who wants to vote shud register
and shud get id. with his picture on it.
IF I needed more id., for SURE, I 'd GET it.

David

1 Reply

@firefly,

With respect FF, not everybody has the wherewithal that you do. Some people are intimidated by authority.

1 Reply

@firefly,

firefly wrote:

But, if you claim to be a deceased person, and fake their signature in the book, and then vote, the machine count will match the number of people signing in.

That's what I really don't understand. (Probably mainly, because here deceased persons aren't on the voters list or they are marked 'manually' as deceased, if they died shortly before the election.)

0 Replies

@firefly,

So Firefly you are trying to make up a problem with zero indication that it exist to justify interfering with the right to vote of valid voters.

Dead or alive there is no indication that any meaningful voters fraud is occurring and these laws are on their faces are attempts to reduce the voting of the lower classes.

1 Reply

@firefly,

firefly wrote:

It's really quite easy for someone to go into the polling place and claim they are a deceased person who had lived in that precinct. You just read the obits in the newspaper and then look up the exact address of the deceased person, so you know which precinct to go to vote. The names of deceased people remain on the voting rolls for some time. And you can see their last signature in the sign-in book, and you just have to approximate it--the inspectors aren't checking for forgeries, they just glance at it after you sign. It's not that difficult a fraud to pull off.

YES.
It is especially ez when
there are no Republican poll watchers.

1 Reply

@firefly,

firefly wrote:

The names of deceased people can remain on the voting rolls for some time. That's probably the easiest dumbest type of voter fraud to pull off

I fixed that for you.

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

in Pa, the voter lits are purged twice a year vi a computer code that is administered by the Board of ELections for each county and district.
While the ability to vote as a "dead guy" has been referred to as a common Illinois and Boston Prcatice, I wonder how accurate the tales of fraud are.

Id say that in out township, where the area is broken down into two precincts, the voters are subject to scrutiny by a group of volunteer neighbors and sigs compared . Ive seen someone taken from tne line for signing too deliberately. It seemed that the person suffered a debilitating illness and the registrar wasnt familiar with the elderly man.

Its all a GOP "CODE" for "lets trim the eligible voters who wont vote for Romney"
Cynical lying GOP is running this show. Im waiting to see here the court cases go

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

With respect FF, not everybody has the wherewithal that you do.
Some people are intimidated by authority.

Some have been; Americans shud be taught from the earliest grades in school,
to suspect, resent and CHALLENGE authority, with all judges
being sworn into office avowing that thay will subordinate
government below the mighty boot of the Individual citizen
at every reasonable opportunity, thereby to exalt & aggrandize personal freedom, the essence of America.

I 'll c u in about a week, Izzy.
I 'm leaving for a convention in Upstate NY.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Have a good time.

I agree with you about some of the things you say should be. Unfortunately should is the operative word, it's not the same as what's actually happening.

I would suggest that some elderly citizens, particularly those from ethnic minority backgrounds, are so intimidated by authority, they would not fight against being disenfranchised for fear that something far worse would happen.

From all the evidence I've seen, actual voter fraud is insignificant, being measured in tens of people. Contrary, the disenfranchisement of legitimate voters that this law would result in, is measured in the hundreds of thousands. That seems like the real way to swing an election dishonestly.

1 Reply

@engineer,

engineer wrote:

Mame wrote:

Do they have a paycheque, a copy of last year's tax return, a cheque book with their name and address on it? A health card, an unemployment stub, a library card? A credit card, a pharmacy receipt, a Safeway card, Airmiles card?

Of course all of those aren't acceptable in Pa and any of them are easily forged so they don't prevent fraud. If requiring an ID doesn't prevent fraud and does prevent voting, what's the purpose again?

It is extremely unlikely that anyone would go to all the effort of forging any of those documents just so they can vote fraudulently.

I'm suggesting that instead of a Photo ID, two of any of the forms of identification I mentioned would suffice. I agree that Photo ID shouldn't be REQUIRED. Especially for elderly people who've no (easy) access to a location where they can obtain one. We show no ID here when we vote and there's been no fraud, that I've ever heard of. However, Photo ID is rapidly becoming the norm, so unless you're in your 70s and up and live out in the boondocks, we may as well suck it up and get one.

I had to show Photo ID when I got remarried recently. Didn't have to back in 1980. I had to show it to get a replacement social insurance card. Didn't have to back in 1968. I had to show it to get a Criminal Record Check in order to volunteer. I had to show it to open a bank account. Didn't have to for my first bank account back in the Dark Ages.

It's becoming the norm. Perhaps there could be a mobile truck that could travel to hither, thither and yon to assist people in obtaining one?

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

NO. The Bill of Rights puts freedom of gun possession beyond the reach of government's jurisdiction.
We are the Land of the FREE.
The way to amend that is by vote of 2/3 of each house of Congress
ratified by 3/4 of all the States.

Any citizen who wants to vote shud register
and shud get id. with his picture on it.
IF I needed more id., for SURE, I 'd GET it.

Equally, the Constitution puts freedom to vote in the same category. If the government puts obstacles, no matter how slight, in the way of gun ownership, you are now in favor of it since it is just like voting?

0 Replies

@Mame,

Mame wrote:

It is extremely unlikely that anyone would go to all the effort of forging any of those documents just so they can vote fraudulently.

I agree. I think the evidence shows that no one is going through any effort at all to vote fraudulently. But, if as those pushing voter fraud say, there is a conspiracy to vote fraudulently then I can see the fraudsters actually making the minimal effort to set up a camera, printer and laminator to crank out a few false ID's. You can get the materials at your local office supply store.

Mame wrote:

I'm suggesting that instead of a Photo ID, two of any of the forms of identification I mentioned would suffice. I agree that Photo ID shouldn't be REQUIRED.

But if you think no one is going to the trouble of trying to fraudulently vote then why put up the barrier? What fraction of people are going to arrive at the polling place and realize they forgot/dropped/left in the car/brought the wrong form, fouling up the lines and making people who want to vote go through more hoops and hassles?

Mame wrote:

We show no ID here when we vote and there's been no fraud, that I've ever heard of.

Exactly, so how is showing an ID an improvement?

Mame wrote:

However, Photo ID is rapidly becoming the norm, so unless you're in your 70s and up and live out in the boondocks, we may as well suck it up and get one.

I have a photo ID, in fact several of them, but if someone wants to live a life without one for whatever reason, it's no skin off my back. I'm not going to try to take away their vote to force them into compliance. And what if someone steals my wallet the day before the election? Guess I can't vote.

Mame wrote:

I had to show Photo ID when I got remarried recently. Didn't have to back in 1980. I had to show it to get a replacement social insurance card. Didn't have to back in 1968. I had to show it to get a Criminal Record Check in order to volunteer. I had to show it to open a bank account. Didn't have to for my first bank account back in the Dark Ages.

So you can see how if you don't have ID, you can't do things that get you ID's. The reality is that the old and the poor don't get to utilize these services that the majority of us take for granted. It's very much a first world problem where those without a certain minimal means or access cannot penetrate the system. But we've always at least allowed them to vote. Now some people are saying you must enter the system in order to get a basic right.

Mame wrote:

It's becoming the norm. Perhaps there could be a mobile truck that could travel to hither, thither and yon to assist people in obtaining one?

If the government, at government expense, went to every person in the US and assigned them a governement ID I'd have less of a concern (that is Carter's national ID idea), but the righties would howl about government intrusion, the cost would be prohibitive and all the voter ID laws would be dropped since they would no longer be effective at suppressing voter turnout. Even Social Security cards are not mandatory. If something is common sense for 99.99% of citizens, it still doesn't merit disenfranchising the 0.01% (30,000 people). It's a problem all people have with number understanding. We look around us at a few dozen, maybe a few hundred people, most of them like ourselves, and say "What is the big deal? Everyone has picture ID's." When you expand that to a country of 300 million you can find plenty of cases where ID becomes a problem. The Pennsylvania government found 100,000 cases of concern in their state and they are pushing the law. (The ACLU fighting the law says 1,000,000). 100,000 people with no ID is not an insignificant problem.

0 Replies

From all the articles posted by FF and others, it seems the voting system is wracked with problems galore already (so many dead people on the rolls, for example - hey, update your list, for a start). They should attempt to fix those first before trying to implement some unnecessary Photo ID law.

I wonder how many of those old, frail, whatever people even vote in the first place. But if they want and are able to vote, I think consideration should be taken in each case. If they don't have any ID (and how could they possibly have NONE?), then as one article mentioned, they can produce a utility bill. I think ID of any type (mentioned already) should suffice to prevent double-voting, etc. I highly doubt these people will be voting more than once if they have such a hard time getting to a station in the first place. These are not the people they should be concerned about.

0 Replies

Pa PASSES VOTER "PHOTO- ID" LAW

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know