The mental contortions one has to go through to oppose voter ID and support voter fraud must be exhausting. Sometimes people decide to just do the right thing, as they did here.
This seems like a much more reasonable bill than the one in Texas (not that Debbie Wasserman Schultz necessarily agrees, mind you). a) It doesn't take effect until 2014. b) It gives free I.D.s to those who can't afford it. And c) a person can still use their college I.D. to vote. I just don't see how anyone can protest vociferously to it.
No need to go through "mental contortions"... all you've got to do is look at the stats concerning how many will be disenfranchised due to these laws.
Looking at the stats regarding the virtually non-existent "problem" of voter fraud will give you an idea of how not needed these laws are. Not needed unless you want to prevent people who traditionally lean Democrat from voting, that is.
What we really need are laws designed to prevent elelection fraud.
The fact that this law was passed with an OVERWHELMING Democratic majority in BOTH houses and signed by a moderate to liberal independent Governor does seem to take the partisanship out of it, though.............And I still don't know how people can get through life (in general) without a photo I.D.. I know that I have to show mine a lot.
WD lied: "What we really need are laws designed to prevent elelection fraud."
Another hoax that you have bought into with an entirely uncritical mind. The real problem is that someone with a (R) after his name handily won an election over the guy with the (D) after his.
Since you have zero respect for the Constitution, you will grasp at any straw to ignore the actual will of the people, the actual real Constitutional process the way it is supposed to work.
WD: "TN having just passed a "supress the vote" law."
Unless you are a crook, you have nothing to fear from the law. Mickey Mouse has been disenfranchised by this law. I think that's a good thing.
You mustn't get out of the house or do very much business, wd. I just had to show mine the other day when I sold a rare coin to a dealer.............And did you see the theory about how African-Americans may be supporting it to disenfranchise Hispanics? That's pretty interesting, huh?............And it isn't a draconian law, either. In addition to the three things that I already mentioned, people will still be able to vote on election day via a provisional ballot that can be verified later.
And by getting rid of voter fraud, fake votes, the ACORN created list of bogus voters, it actually enfranchises people. Fake votes damage democracy and disenfranchise us all.
A question, wd. Do you think that people should be forced to show SOME identification prior to voting? Is it just the pictured I.D. component that bothers you? Yeah, well let me ask you this. What if a person doesn't have any identification of any kind? Would not the not allowing of this person to vote also be considered voter suppression? I'm just asking.
dmarks is going through a lot of mental contortions to justify his desire to see the vote supressed. I'm not fooled dmarks.
Also, it is you who is lying. First you claim I'm lying, then you say I've bought into a "hoax". Which is it? It can't be both. If I've bought into it that means I believe it. A lie is saying something you know is false.
Not only did dmarks lie (and get caught), but it was an incredibly dumb lie.
dmarks: ...the ACORN created list of bogus voters...
ACORN created no such list. This is a Rightwing hoax that you have bought into due to your entirely uncritical mind.
Will: people will still be able to vote on election day via a provisional ballot that can be verified later.
Yea right. A "provisional ballot" is really a placebo ballot. Those things are rarely, if ever, counted.
Actually, the ACORN voting scandal, in which they worked to wreck democracy by registering large numbers of fake voters, was created by the left-wing, not a 'right wing hoax'.
A scandal perpetrated by the left. Reported by the left. Your mention of "right wing" in your comment is thus entirely suprefluous.
Yes, I want to supress the vote of Mickey Mouse and vote-crooks who vote in multiple districts, register the dead, or vote more than one. And I am damn proud of that fact.
What you will not find me doing is wanting to supress the votes of actual legitimate voters.
Since I'm not advocating the former, it sure looks like you are angry with me for wanting to supress fraudulent voting.
"Yea right. A 'provisional ballot' is really a placebo ballot. Those things are rarely, if ever, counted."......And your evidence for this charge (not to mention advanced slander against the people of Rhode Island) is what?......And what about my question - do you think that people need to show SOME sort of ID in order to vote and, if so, how is that in and of itself also not voter suppression?
Will. Here's a fact check. WD was spewing words without thinking when he said what he did about provisional ballots. Perhaps he was thinking of how things work in some other country somewhere, who knows.
But it has nothing to do with Rhode Island election law.
From the Rhode Island government web site:
"Provisional Voting is a process to insure that all registered voters are allowed to participate in the election process. These qualified voters will be allowed to cast the same ballot as all others however, the disposition (full ballot, federal offices only, or disqualified) of that ballot will be determined by the voter’s local board of canvassers. The voter may then determine the disposition of their ballot by clicking on the link below or by calling the Board of Elections at 222-2345. ....
Ballot Dispositions
* Full Ballot - All offices and questions on the ballot will be counted. * Federal Offices Only - Only federal offices on the ballot will be counted. Congressional race will be counted if the ballot was cast in the correct Congressional District. * Disqualified Ballot - This ballot will not be counted.
A voter can determine if their provisional ballot was counted by visiting this Web site 48 hours after the election. The voter will need to have their Ballot ID number (printed on Provisional Ballot Receipt) and their Last Name in order to access the information. Or, they can contact their local Board of Canvassers."
There you have it. Real voters, real ballots, real votes, with the final disposition of the process open and viewable and verifiable. There's no 'placebo' in this law anywhere.
Don't count on it. If these discussions were like a game of chess, and basic research and intellectual honesty were like the rules of chess, WD routinely has his rooks move in diagonals and his bishops go from side to side, and he dumps over the board whenever he loses a piece.
Will (jummping to conclusions based on info provided by proven liar dmarks): That kind of sounds like, check-mate, doesn't it?
From Black Box Voting: Provisional Ballots or Placebo Ballots? [excerpt] What many voters do not realize is that provisional ballots are not counted on election night, have to be approved before they can count, could go uncounted for several days after the election, and in some states a high rate are rejected. ... More than one in three of the nearly 2 million provisional ballots cast in the 2004 election were ultimately rejected. Voters should do everything they can to get a regular ballot... [end excerpt]
dmarks: Actually, the ACORN voting scandal, in which they worked to wreck democracy by registering large numbers of fake voters...
Actually, what you're describing IS a Rightwing hoax. It didn't happen.
From The Guardian: The Republican Voter Fraud Hoax. [excerpt] ... none of it's true. None of it. ... Here are the facts. Acorn verifies the legitimacy of every registration its canvassers collect. If they can't authenticate the registration, or it's incomplete or questionable in other ways, they flag that form as problematic ("fraudulent", "incomplete", et cetera). They then hand in all registration forms, even the problematic ones, to elections officials, as they are required to do by law. In almost every case where you've heard about fraud by Acorn, it's because Acorn itself notified officials about the fraud that's been perpetrated on them by rogue canvassers. [end excerpt]
Not from a proven liar, wd, from the Rhode Island government web-site currently run predominantly by Democrats. People who cast provisional ballots can track them via this web-site. It all seems to be pretty kosher/above-board to me, buddy.
Will: I wish that wd would just for once site a respected (by both sides of the aisle) mainstream source.
Both sides? As if the Republicans would respect a paper that tells the truth regarding their election fraud shenanigans.
fyi, The Guardian was founded in 1821. They have a certified average daily circulation of 230,541 (as of October 2011), making them the 3rd
largest British newspaper.
I don't know what more you need to do to be considered "mainstream". Fall in line with the beliefs of Will Hart, apparently.
A clueless dmarks: ...an editorial piece by a foreign paper, from someone who has no idea what is going on with US affairs.
The article is by United States citizen Brad Friedman. Brad Friedman is an expert on election integrity in the United States.
dmarks: The voter fraud was actually perpetrated by a group allied with the Democrats: ACORN.
dmarks was up to bat twice, and both times he swung and missed... there was no voter fraud. ACORN wasn't allied with the Democrats. That's what the article I linked to says. What you're describing is a Republican hoax... and dmarks has obviously been totally snookered.
Will: It all seems to be pretty kosher/above-board to me, buddy.
I said nothing about how provisional ballots are handled in Rhode Island. I never said how Rhode Island handles provisional ballots wasn't "kosher" or "above board". You're lying.
I was talking about the nation as a whole, where the counting of provisional ballots has a pretty bad track record (as the article I excerpted says).
WRONG AGAIN, wd. A mainstream publication would be one that doesn't have a blatant ideological slant to it. It has absolutely nothing to do about agreeing with me. That is just you talking paranoiac again.............And what do you mean that you weren't talking about provisional ballots in Rhode Island? I brought up the fact that provisional ballots would be used in Rhode Island and you, in your typical knee-jerk manner, tried to put a damper on it, without even knowing a semblance of the facts.
WD: I have been up to bat and hit a home run each time. You keep bringing up Republicans, when they have nothing to do with this scandal. The documented voter fraud crimes were perpetrated by ACORN, a group in fact allied with the Democrats.
This is also informative and disputes dmarks' claims:
"Voter Fraud’ Claims Unchecked by Media
Restrictive laws spread based on scant evidence
By Roger Bybee
Among Republicans, it has been an “article of religious faith that voter fraud is causing us to lose elections,” declared Royal Masset, the former political director of the Republican Party of Texas (Houston Chronicle, 5/17/07).
This religious faith in widespread voter fraud—or illegal voting—even in the absence of any persuasive evidence, has translated into successful campaigns in 25 states to pass restrictive voter identification laws (e.g., requiring photo ID at the polling place), with other states looking to follow suit. (Masset, a rare dissenter from this Republican creed, is an outspoken foe of what he calls “racist” and “barbaric laws”—Burnt Orange Report, 4/23/07.)
Despite the threat these laws pose to Americans’ right to vote—many legitimate voters lack photo ID, and they are disproportionately poor, older and of color—corporate media have almost entirely failed to illuminate the debate. To properly shed light, the media would have to go beyond repeating each side’s arguments to actually examine the available evidence—which indicates that voter fraud is extremely rare and that efforts to remedy this “problem” result in restricting the franchise (Project Vote, “Restrictive Voter Identification Requirements,” 3/27/07).
Further, providing context for the current struggles would require discussing the long history of efforts to disenfranchise black voters. Southern Democrats began this campaign after the Civil War, but it’s been a part of Republican strategy since 1958; in 1982, in fact, the GOP agreed to a binding federal court order, known as a consent decree, that is supposed to prevent them from voter suppression activities specifically targeting areas with large minority populations. The amended decree is still in force, but rarely cited by major media in coverage of current conflicts over voter ID requirements (Project Vote, “Caging Democracy: A 50-Year History of Partisan Challenges to Minority Voters,” 9/07).
Instead, controversies over “voter fraud,” as translated by major media, are commonly portrayed as mere shoving matches for partisan advantage, rather than as major battles over the meaning of voting rights in a democracy. As Extra! documented after the 2004 election (1–2/05), coverage generally gives equal weight to Republicans who argue that large-scale illegal voting is prevalent enough to steal elections, and Democrats who argue that voter ID laws are really aimed at discouraging those likely to vote for their party—with actual facts and the threat to democracy outside the media frame.
David Iglesias, the Republican U.S. attorney for New Mexico who was fired by the Bush administration, said that he looked at over 100 claims of alleged voter fraud but found not a single prosecutable case. “We cannot prosecute on rumor and innuendo,” Iglesias told the Albuquerque Journal (3/15/07). (His refusal to prosecute cases that he felt were bogus was a central feature in his firing, as it was in the cases of nearly half of the 12 U.S. attorneys ousted by the administration—Washington Post, 5/14/07.) Iglesias’ findings are consistent with national data. Federal records “show that only 24 people were convicted or pleaded guilty to illegal voting between 2002 and 2005” (Project Vote, 3/5/07)."
Shaw Kenawe: This is also informative and disputes dmarks' claims...
A Republican who disagrees with the majority of other Republicans who think voter fraud is a widespread problem? Don't expect dmarks to agree with him. dmarks never allows an overwhelming preponderance of facts, nor extensive quotations from a number of highly authoritative people involved (like the Republicans you cite), get in the way of his belief in Republican hoaxes like "voter fraud" (carried out individually or perpetrated by organizations "allied" with the Democrats like ACORN).
It's like, damn it, dmarks thinks the sun rises in the west, and there's not a damn thing you can do to convince him otherwise.
Will: I brought up the fact that provisional ballots would be used in Rhode Island and you... tried to put a damper on it, without even knowing a semblance of the facts.
No, you're the one "putting a damper" on (or, more accurately, completely ignoring) the facts regarding the extremely poor record of provisional ballots being counted countrywide. I'd guess the reason is because it totally refutes your defense of voter ID laws.
Worse than me not knowing "a semblance of the facts" (which I actually do, but whatever), Will is informed what the facts are, and he ignores them because they hurt his argument.
Will: WRONG AGAIN, wd. A mainstream publication would be one that doesn't have a blatant ideological slant to it. It has absolutely nothing to do about agreeing with me.
Bullshit. It has everything to do with the source agreeing with you, as a source with a blatant centrist slant most likely would.
dmarks lied: I have been up to bat and hit a home run each time. You keep bringing up Republicans, when they have nothing to do with this scandal.
You've struck out each time. Republicans are the ones who created this hoax, when they lied about ACORN being involved in voter fraud. This is something that didn't happen. The Republicans made it up.
Shaw: The article ignores the actual voter fraud crimes committed by ACORN, a group allied with Democrats. The criminals in this organization padded voter registration with fake names.
"Despite the threat these laws pose to Americans’ right to vote—many legitimate voters lack photo ID, and they are disproportionately poor, older and of color"
Which is also an entirely bogus argument, as voter fraud elimination efforts such as the one in South Carolina provide free photo IDs to anyone who lacks one
WD: "Republicans are the ones who created this hoax"
Actually, this scandal was created by a Democratically allied group, ACORN. The Republicans did not create this.
dmarks lied: The article ignores the actual voter fraud crimes committed by ACORN...
ACORN committed no voter fraud, therefore it cannot be "ignored".
dmarks: ...as voter fraud elimination efforts such as the one in South Carolina provide free photo IDs to anyone who lacks one.
"Voter fraud elimination efforts" are, in actuality, voter suppression efforts. Republicans support these efforts because they know the supposed 50/50 split in this country (between Republican and Democrats) is bogus. A lot of the time the only way they can "win" elections is by cheating.
Also, what if a person needs a copy of their birth certificate to get an ID? Will that be provided gratis as well? I think not. I know I had to pay for a copy of mine (after I lost my original in a fire) to get a voter ID card.
dmarks lied: this scandal was created by a Democratically allied group, ACORN. The Republicans did not create this.
ACORN and the Democratic Party were never "allied". The Republicans most certainly *DID* create this hoax when they lied about how ACORN "padded voter registration with fake names". It never happened.
"Shaw: The article ignores the actual voter fraud crimes committed by ACORN, a group allied with Democrats. The criminals in this organization padded voter registration with fake names."
dmarks, you may be confused over voter fraud and registration fraud.
This is from Factcheck.org:
Neither ACORN nor its employees have been found guilty of, or even charged with, casting fraudulent votes.
What a McCain-Palin Web ad calls "voter fraud" is actually voter registration fraud.
Several ACORN canvassers have been found guilty of faking registration forms and others are being investigated.
But the evidence that has surfaced so far shows they faked forms to get paid for work they didn’t do, not to stuff ballot boxes.
Can you please drop this now?
Or do you have information that disputes Factcheck.org?
Satterberg: [A] joint federal and state investigation has determined that this scheme was not intended to permit illegal voting.
Instead, the defendants cheated their employer, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (or ACORN), to get paid for work they did not actually perform. ACORN’s lax oversight of their own voter registration drive permitted this to happen. … It was hardly a sophisticated plan:
The defendants simply realized that making up names was easier than actually canvassing the streets looking for unregistered voters. … [It] appears that the employees of ACORN were not performing the work that they were being paid for, and to some extent, ACORN is a victim of employee theft.
The $8-an-hour employees were charged with providing false information on voter registration forms, and in one case with making a false statement to a public official. Five of the seven who were charged pleaded guilty. ACORN was fined for exercising insufficient oversight, but it was not charged with masterminding any kind of deliberate fraud.
Wrong AGAIN, wd. You a prior judged that the provisional ballots in Rhode Island would be a problematic thing (a paranoiac and idiotic claim in that what possible reason would the Democratic legislature in Rhode Island have to NOT count the ballots there - duh!!).............And bullshit to your bullshit. A respected and unbiased source would be CNN, ABC News, Time Magazine, The Atlantic, Politico - you know, outlets that don't have an agenda like the crappolla that you're constantly citing; Daily Kos, Media Matters, MSNBC, Think Regress, etc..
Will: Wrong AGAIN, wd. You a prior judged that the provisional ballots in Rhode Island would be a problematic thing...
No, you're wrong. I never mentioned Rhode Island in my comment. I think you need to read more carefully next time... perhaps then you can avoid posting untrue accusations.
I SAID that the Rhode Island bill allowed for provisional ballots and you IMMEDIATELY and mindlessly shat upon that notion, as if it didn't matter that that was a component of the legislation. So, are you now saying that you WOULD trust provisional ballots in this case.
And you still haven't answered my question. Do you think that people should be forced to show SOME identification prior to voting? Is it just the pictured I.D. component that bothers you? Also, what if a person doesn't have any identification of any kind? Would not the not allowing of this person to vote also be considered voter suppression? Seriously, I'm curious, wd.
37 comments:
The mental contortions one has to go through to oppose voter ID and support voter fraud must be exhausting. Sometimes people decide to just do the right thing, as they did here.
This seems like a much more reasonable bill than the one in Texas (not that Debbie Wasserman Schultz necessarily agrees, mind you). a) It doesn't take effect until 2014. b) It gives free I.D.s to those who can't afford it. And c) a person can still use their college I.D. to vote. I just don't see how anyone can protest vociferously to it.
No need to go through "mental contortions"... all you've got to do is look at the stats concerning how many will be disenfranchised due to these laws.
Looking at the stats regarding the virtually non-existent "problem" of voter fraud will give you an idea of how not needed these laws are. Not needed unless you want to prevent people who traditionally lean Democrat from voting, that is.
What we really need are laws designed to prevent elelection fraud.
The fact that this law was passed with an OVERWHELMING Democratic majority in BOTH houses and signed by a moderate to liberal independent Governor does seem to take the partisanship out of it, though.............And I still don't know how people can get through life (in general) without a photo I.D.. I know that I have to show mine a lot.
I've shown my ID twice in the past seven years. I'm told I'll need it next time I vote though, TN having just passed a "supress the vote" law.
Shame on the Democratic sponsor of the legislation, state Representative Jon Brien.
WD lied: "What we really need are laws designed to prevent elelection fraud."
Another hoax that you have bought into with an entirely uncritical mind. The real problem is that someone with a (R) after his name handily won an election over the guy with the (D) after his.
Since you have zero respect for the Constitution, you will grasp at any straw to ignore the actual will of the people, the actual real Constitutional process the way it is supposed to work.
WD: "TN having just passed a "supress the vote" law."
Unless you are a crook, you have nothing to fear from the law. Mickey Mouse has been disenfranchised by this law. I think that's a good thing.
You mustn't get out of the house or do very much business, wd. I just had to show mine the other day when I sold a rare coin to a dealer.............And did you see the theory about how African-Americans may be supporting it to disenfranchise Hispanics? That's pretty interesting, huh?............And it isn't a draconian law, either. In addition to the three things that I already mentioned, people will still be able to vote on election day via a provisional ballot that can be verified later.
And by getting rid of voter fraud, fake votes, the ACORN created list of bogus voters, it actually enfranchises people. Fake votes damage democracy and disenfranchise us all.
A question, wd. Do you think that people should be forced to show SOME identification prior to voting? Is it just the pictured I.D. component that bothers you? Yeah, well let me ask you this. What if a person doesn't have any identification of any kind? Would not the not allowing of this person to vote also be considered voter suppression? I'm just asking.
dmarks is going through a lot of mental contortions to justify his desire to see the vote supressed. I'm not fooled dmarks.
Also, it is you who is lying. First you claim I'm lying, then you say I've bought into a "hoax". Which is it? It can't be both. If I've bought into it that means I believe it. A lie is saying something you know is false.
Not only did dmarks lie (and get caught), but it was an incredibly dumb lie.
dmarks: ...the ACORN created list of bogus voters...
ACORN created no such list. This is a Rightwing hoax that you have bought into due to your entirely uncritical mind.
Will: people will still be able to vote on election day via a provisional ballot that can be verified later.
Yea right. A "provisional ballot" is really a placebo ballot. Those things are rarely, if ever, counted.
Actually, the ACORN voting scandal, in which they worked to wreck democracy by registering large numbers of fake voters, was created by the left-wing, not a 'right wing hoax'.
Here is a CMM page about the scandal.
A scandal perpetrated by the left. Reported by the left. Your mention of "right wing" in your comment is thus entirely suprefluous.
Yes, I want to supress the vote of Mickey Mouse and vote-crooks who vote in multiple districts, register the dead, or vote more than one. And I am damn proud of that fact.
What you will not find me doing is wanting to supress the votes of actual legitimate voters.
Since I'm not advocating the former, it sure looks like you are angry with me for wanting to supress fraudulent voting.
(I'm not going to fix the above post. I mangled the name of CNN. But at least I admit I goofed, unlike those who can't spell Fox News).
"Yea right. A 'provisional ballot' is really a placebo ballot. Those things are rarely, if ever, counted."......And your evidence for this charge (not to mention advanced slander against the people of Rhode Island) is what?......And what about my question - do you think that people need to show SOME sort of ID in order to vote and, if so, how is that in and of itself also not voter suppression?
Will. Here's a fact check. WD was spewing words without thinking when he said what he did about provisional ballots. Perhaps he was thinking of how things work in some other country somewhere, who knows.
But it has nothing to do with Rhode Island election law.
From the Rhode Island government web site:
"Provisional Voting is a process to insure that all registered voters are allowed to participate in the election process. These qualified voters will be allowed to cast the same ballot as all others however, the disposition (full ballot, federal offices only, or disqualified) of that ballot will be determined by the voter’s local board of canvassers. The voter may then determine the disposition of their ballot by clicking on the link below or by calling the Board of Elections at 222-2345.
....
Ballot Dispositions
* Full Ballot - All offices and questions on the ballot will be counted.
* Federal Offices Only - Only federal offices on the ballot will be counted. Congressional race will be counted if the ballot was cast in the correct Congressional District.
* Disqualified Ballot - This ballot will not be counted.
A voter can determine if their provisional ballot was counted by visiting this Web site 48 hours after the election. The voter will need to have their Ballot ID number (printed on Provisional Ballot Receipt) and their Last Name in order to access the information. Or, they can contact their local Board of Canvassers."
There you have it. Real voters, real ballots, real votes, with the final disposition of the process open and viewable and verifiable. There's no 'placebo' in this law anywhere.
That kind of sounds like, check-mate, doesn't it?
Don't count on it. If these discussions were like a game of chess, and basic research and intellectual honesty were like the rules of chess, WD routinely has his rooks move in diagonals and his bishops go from side to side, and he dumps over the board whenever he loses a piece.
Will (jummping to conclusions based on info provided by proven liar dmarks): That kind of sounds like, check-mate, doesn't it?
From Black Box Voting: Provisional Ballots or Placebo Ballots? [excerpt] What many voters do not realize is that provisional ballots are not counted on election night, have to be approved before they can count, could go uncounted for several days after the election, and in some states a high rate are rejected. ... More than one in three of the nearly 2 million provisional ballots cast in the 2004 election were ultimately rejected. Voters should do everything they can to get a regular ballot... [end excerpt]
dmarks: Actually, the ACORN voting scandal, in which they worked to wreck democracy by registering large numbers of fake voters...
Actually, what you're describing IS a Rightwing hoax. It didn't happen.
From The Guardian: The Republican Voter Fraud Hoax. [excerpt] ... none of it's true. None of it. ... Here are the facts. Acorn verifies the legitimacy of every registration its canvassers collect. If they can't authenticate the registration, or it's incomplete or questionable in other ways, they flag that form as problematic ("fraudulent", "incomplete", et cetera). They then hand in all registration forms, even the problematic ones, to elections officials, as they are required to do by law. In almost every case where you've heard about fraud by Acorn, it's because Acorn itself notified officials about the fraud that's been perpetrated on them by rogue canvassers. [end excerpt]
Not from a proven liar, wd, from the Rhode Island government web-site currently run predominantly by Democrats. People who cast provisional ballots can track them via this web-site. It all seems to be pretty kosher/above-board to me, buddy.
WD said: "From The Guardian: The Republican Voter Fraud Hoax. [excerpt] ."
The voter fraud was actually perpetrated by a group allied with the Democrats: ACORN. We are talking about actual crimes here and actual charges.
All you linked to was an editorial piece by a foreign paper, from someone who has no idea what is going on with US affairs.
I wish that wd would just for once site a respected (by both sides of the aisle) mainstream source.
Will: I wish that wd would just for once site a respected (by both sides of the aisle) mainstream source.
Both sides? As if the Republicans would respect a paper that tells the truth regarding their election fraud shenanigans.
fyi, The Guardian was founded in 1821. They have a certified average daily circulation of 230,541 (as of October 2011), making them the 3rd
largest British newspaper.
I don't know what more you need to do to be considered "mainstream". Fall in line with the beliefs of Will Hart, apparently.
A clueless dmarks: ...an editorial piece by a foreign paper, from someone who has no idea what is going on with US affairs.
The article is by United States citizen Brad Friedman. Brad Friedman is an expert on election integrity in the United States.
dmarks: The voter fraud was actually perpetrated by a group allied with the Democrats: ACORN.
dmarks was up to bat twice, and both times he swung and missed... there was no voter fraud. ACORN wasn't allied with the Democrats. That's what the article I linked to says. What you're describing is a Republican hoax... and dmarks has obviously been totally snookered.
Will: It all seems to be pretty kosher/above-board to me, buddy.
I said nothing about how provisional ballots are handled in Rhode Island. I never said how Rhode Island handles provisional ballots wasn't "kosher" or "above board". You're lying.
I was talking about the nation as a whole, where the counting of provisional ballots has a pretty bad track record (as the article I excerpted says).
WRONG AGAIN, wd. A mainstream publication would be one that doesn't have a blatant ideological slant to it. It has absolutely nothing to do about agreeing with me. That is just you talking paranoiac again.............And what do you mean that you weren't talking about provisional ballots in Rhode Island? I brought up the fact that provisional ballots would be used in Rhode Island and you, in your typical knee-jerk manner, tried to put a damper on it, without even knowing a semblance of the facts.
WD: I have been up to bat and hit a home run each time. You keep bringing up Republicans, when they have nothing to do with this scandal. The documented voter fraud crimes were perpetrated by ACORN, a group in fact allied with the Democrats.
"What you're describing is a Republican hoax"
The Dems created this, not the Republicans.
According to this, voter fraud is not widespread.
This is also informative and disputes dmarks' claims:
"Voter Fraud’ Claims Unchecked by Media
Restrictive laws spread based on scant evidence
By Roger Bybee
Among Republicans, it has been an “article of religious faith that voter fraud is causing us to lose elections,” declared Royal Masset, the former political director of the Republican Party of Texas (Houston Chronicle, 5/17/07).
This religious faith in widespread voter fraud—or illegal voting—even in the absence of any persuasive evidence, has translated into successful campaigns in 25 states to pass restrictive voter identification laws (e.g., requiring photo ID at the polling place), with other states looking to follow suit. (Masset, a rare dissenter from this Republican creed, is an outspoken foe of what he calls “racist” and “barbaric laws”—Burnt Orange Report, 4/23/07.)
Despite the threat these laws pose to Americans’ right to vote—many legitimate voters lack photo ID, and they are disproportionately poor, older and of color—corporate media have almost entirely failed to illuminate the debate. To properly shed light, the media would have to go beyond repeating each side’s arguments to actually examine the available evidence—which indicates that voter fraud is extremely rare and that efforts to remedy this “problem” result in restricting the franchise (Project Vote, “Restrictive Voter Identification Requirements,” 3/27/07).
Further, providing context for the current struggles would require discussing the long history of efforts to disenfranchise black voters. Southern Democrats began this campaign after the Civil War, but it’s been a part of Republican strategy since 1958; in 1982, in fact, the GOP agreed to a binding federal court order, known as a consent decree, that is supposed to prevent them from voter suppression activities specifically targeting areas with large minority populations. The amended decree is still in force, but rarely cited by major media in coverage of current conflicts over voter ID requirements (Project Vote, “Caging Democracy: A 50-Year History of Partisan Challenges to Minority Voters,” 9/07).
Instead, controversies over “voter fraud,” as translated by major media, are commonly portrayed as mere shoving matches for partisan advantage, rather than as major battles over the meaning of voting rights in a democracy. As Extra! documented after the 2004 election (1–2/05), coverage generally gives equal weight to Republicans who argue that large-scale illegal voting is prevalent enough to steal elections, and Democrats who argue that voter ID laws are really aimed at discouraging those likely to vote for their party—with actual facts and the threat to democracy outside the media frame.
David Iglesias, the Republican U.S. attorney for New Mexico who was fired by the Bush administration, said that he looked at over 100 claims of alleged voter fraud but found not a single prosecutable case. “We cannot prosecute on rumor and innuendo,” Iglesias told the Albuquerque Journal (3/15/07). (His refusal to prosecute cases that he felt were bogus was a central feature in his firing, as it was in the cases of nearly half of the 12 U.S. attorneys ousted by the administration—Washington Post, 5/14/07.) Iglesias’ findings are consistent with national data. Federal records “show that only 24 people were convicted or pleaded guilty to illegal voting between 2002 and 2005” (Project Vote, 3/5/07)."
SOURCE
Shaw Kenawe: This is also informative and disputes dmarks' claims...
A Republican who disagrees with the majority of other Republicans who think voter fraud is a widespread problem? Don't expect dmarks to agree with him. dmarks never allows an overwhelming preponderance of facts, nor extensive quotations from a number of highly authoritative people involved (like the Republicans you cite), get in the way of his belief in Republican hoaxes like "voter fraud" (carried out individually or perpetrated by organizations "allied" with the Democrats like ACORN).
It's like, damn it, dmarks thinks the sun rises in the west, and there's not a damn thing you can do to convince him otherwise.
Will: I brought up the fact that provisional ballots would be used in Rhode Island and you... tried to put a damper on it, without even knowing a semblance of the facts.
No, you're the one "putting a damper" on (or, more accurately, completely ignoring) the facts regarding the extremely poor record of provisional ballots being counted countrywide. I'd guess the reason is because it totally refutes your defense of voter ID laws.
Worse than me not knowing "a semblance of the facts" (which I actually do, but whatever), Will is informed what the facts are, and he ignores them because they hurt his argument.
Will: WRONG AGAIN, wd. A mainstream publication would be one that doesn't have a blatant ideological slant to it. It has absolutely nothing to do about agreeing with me.
Bullshit. It has everything to do with the source agreeing with you, as a source with a blatant centrist slant most likely would.
dmarks lied: I have been up to bat and hit a home run each time. You keep bringing up Republicans, when they have nothing to do with this scandal.
You've struck out each time. Republicans are the ones who created this hoax, when they lied about ACORN being involved in voter fraud. This is something that didn't happen. The Republicans made it up.
Shaw: The article ignores the actual voter fraud crimes committed by ACORN, a group allied with Democrats. The criminals in this organization padded voter registration with fake names.
"Despite the threat these laws pose to Americans’ right to vote—many legitimate voters lack photo ID, and they are disproportionately poor, older and of color"
Which is also an entirely bogus argument, as voter fraud elimination efforts such as the one in South Carolina provide free photo IDs to anyone who lacks one
WD: "Republicans are the ones who created this hoax"
Actually, this scandal was created by a Democratically allied group, ACORN. The Republicans did not create this.
dmarks lied: The article ignores the actual voter fraud crimes committed by ACORN...
ACORN committed no voter fraud, therefore it cannot be "ignored".
dmarks: ...as voter fraud elimination efforts such as the one in South Carolina provide free photo IDs to anyone who lacks one.
"Voter fraud elimination efforts" are, in actuality, voter suppression efforts. Republicans support these efforts because they know the supposed 50/50 split in this country (between Republican and Democrats) is bogus. A lot of the time the only way they can "win" elections is by cheating.
Also, what if a person needs a copy of their birth certificate to get an ID? Will that be provided gratis as well? I think not. I know I had to pay for a copy of mine (after I lost my original in a fire) to get a voter ID card.
dmarks lied: this scandal was created by a Democratically allied group, ACORN. The Republicans did not create this.
ACORN and the Democratic Party were never "allied". The Republicans most certainly *DID* create this hoax when they lied about how ACORN "padded voter registration with fake names". It never happened.
"Shaw: The article ignores the actual voter fraud crimes committed by ACORN, a group allied with Democrats. The criminals in this organization padded voter registration with fake names."
dmarks, you may be confused over voter fraud and registration fraud.
This is from Factcheck.org:
Neither ACORN nor its employees have been found guilty of, or even charged with, casting fraudulent votes.
What a McCain-Palin Web ad calls "voter fraud" is actually voter registration fraud.
Several ACORN canvassers have been found guilty of faking registration forms and others are being investigated.
But the evidence that has surfaced so far shows they faked forms to get paid for work they didn’t do, not to stuff ballot boxes.
Can you please drop this now?
Or do you have information that disputes Factcheck.org?
And this:
Satterberg: [A] joint federal and state investigation has determined that this scheme was not intended to permit illegal voting.
Instead, the defendants cheated their employer, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (or ACORN), to get paid for work they did not actually perform. ACORN’s lax oversight of their own voter registration drive permitted this to happen. … It was hardly a sophisticated plan:
The defendants simply realized that making up names was easier than actually canvassing the streets looking for unregistered voters. … [It] appears that the employees of ACORN were not performing the work that they were being paid for, and to some extent, ACORN is a victim of employee theft.
The $8-an-hour employees were charged with providing false information on voter registration forms, and in one case with making a false statement to a public official. Five of the seven who were charged pleaded guilty. ACORN was fined for exercising insufficient oversight, but it was not charged with masterminding any kind of deliberate fraud.
SOURCE: Factcheck.org
Wrong AGAIN, wd. You a prior judged that the provisional ballots in Rhode Island would be a problematic thing (a paranoiac and idiotic claim in that what possible reason would the Democratic legislature in Rhode Island have to NOT count the ballots there - duh!!).............And bullshit to your bullshit. A respected and unbiased source would be CNN, ABC News, Time Magazine, The Atlantic, Politico - you know, outlets that don't have an agenda like the crappolla that you're constantly citing; Daily Kos, Media Matters, MSNBC, Think Regress, etc..
Will: Wrong AGAIN, wd. You a prior judged that the provisional ballots in Rhode Island would be a problematic thing...
No, you're wrong. I never mentioned Rhode Island in my comment. I think you need to read more carefully next time... perhaps then you can avoid posting untrue accusations.
I SAID that the Rhode Island bill allowed for provisional ballots and you IMMEDIATELY and mindlessly shat upon that notion, as if it didn't matter that that was a component of the legislation. So, are you now saying that you WOULD trust provisional ballots in this case.
And you still haven't answered my question. Do you think that people should be forced to show SOME identification prior to voting? Is it just the pictured I.D. component that bothers you? Also, what if a person doesn't have any identification of any kind? Would not the not allowing of this person to vote also be considered voter suppression? Seriously, I'm curious, wd.
Shaw said: "What a McCain-Palin Web ad calls "voter fraud" is actually voter registration fraud."
Voter registration fraud is just a type of voter fraud. As is voter ballot fraud and other types of fraud perpetrated in this fashion.
Post a Comment