Pennsylvania Upholds Voter ID Law

[doorhinge]

Originally Posted by Lobohan

Which, since you mention it, wasn't done by ACORN. It was done by elected officials and party operatives.

Where is the voter fraud again? You do know that the registration fraud was people scamming to get out of signing people up, right? You further know that no illegal votes happened, right?

I do have a leg. But I think you'll find that because of where it is, you're the one that'll have trouble sitting.

Well, ya got me there. It was Democrat party elected officials and their "operatives" who were found guilty of voter fraud in Troy.

As far as your offer of role-play, I respectfully decline. There are just too many weirdo's on the internet. Best of luck to you and your leg and your partner.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Lobohan

You are doing a terrible job of understanding this thread.

It may or may not be legal. I'm saying that it's wrong.

Got it. But since only a small minority of the public agrees with you, you're out of luck.

Sure, sure -- slavery was wrong. And women not having the vote was wrong. But under our system, you cannot simply declare that a minority view should control because other wrongs once existed.

If we could, then I'd like to declare that abortion is wrong. Sure, only a minority agrees with me -- although a bigger minority than you have. So let's shut down the abortion clinics, because after all slavery was wrong.

[elucidator]

How nimbly you leap from non-equivalence to non sequitar, the Nureyev of bad analogy.

[davidm]

When someone's argument is reduced to "the public disagrees with you, nya nya nya nya", you know they've got nothing.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by davidm

When someone's argument is reduced to "the public disagrees with you, nya nya nya nya", you know they've got nothing.

To the contrary. Why do you want to ensure that every votes? Isn't it because, in this country, we hold to the idea that the sovereign powers rests ultimately with the people?

"The public disagrees with you," is in fact the clincher. It means the very people on whose behalf you are supposedly arguing have said, in effect, "We reject your idea."

I find it far scarier that you're willing to discard our democratic republic's rules when they reach a result you don't like than I find any tiny inconvenience imposed in a tiny fraction of the voting public.

We The People. Look it up. Learn it. Live it.

[elucidator]

Again? Again you spike the ball and do a victory boogie because you've proved that voter ID is popular with the public? Of course it is, nobody doubts it, its popular right here, popular amongst the people arguing with you! How many times I gotta say it, not crazy about such restrictions, but not that worked up about it, either.

Its the perversion of that value to corrupt, partisan and cynical ends. We poll the people, ask them if its a good idea for more people to vote, you will likely get an equally positive result. Does that fact mean any program my lefty little mind can cook up is thereby justified? Think carefully, you only get one pick....

He said yes! Unleash the ACORN Zombies!

Even a very good idea can be perverted and warped. Conversely, sometimes a perverted and warped idea is a very good one! But I digress....

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by elucidator

Does that fact mean any program my lefty little mind can cook up is thereby justified? Think carefully, you only get one pick....

No. But if your program itself gets the requisite support, then sure -- go right ahead. It's for this reason that I reluctantly and with heavy heart acknowledge current abortion policy is legitimate. I don't like it, and wish it weren't supported, but it is.

[elucidator]

Originally Posted by Bricker

No. But if your program itself gets the requisite support, then sure -- go right ahead. It's for this reason that I reluctantly and with heavy heart acknowledge current abortion policy is legitimate. I don't like it, and wish it weren't supported, but it is.

Man, can't nobody on this Earth evade a question like you can! My man Bricker is a question ducking mother...Shut your mouth!.....but I'm talking about Bricker!?....well, we can dig it......

You sure you weren't a matador in your past life? A fairly successful one, even?

I didn't need basic instruction of the process of making laws. I'm talking about perverting a purpose to another end. And honest argument, while we're about it. For you to claim that the popularity of voter ID by itself justifies any purpose you might use it for is weak.

We might subvert the legislature sufficiently to gain the upper hand. Shit happens. And we look at that poll showing how popular more voting is, and we say "Yowzah! Lets do a massive voter registration drive, door to door, everybody! And while we're at it, we'll record all the guns everybody's got, and get GPS coordinates for the Black Helicopters!"

And I'm arguing for that and I say "Hey! Got a poll right here, says more voting is very popular!" That's stinky reasoning. So how about we let that be the tenth and final time you sling that one at us, OK? It bites.

[adaher]

John Fund just wrote an interesting article about Republicans' legitimate concerns about election manipulation in Pennsylvania:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...tate-john-fund

Last month, City Commissioner Al Schmidt, a Republican, issued a 27-page report on irregularities he found in a sample of Philadelphia precincts during this year’s primary. The report, which looked at only 1 percent of the city’s 1,687 districts, found cases of double voting, voter impersonation, and voting by non-citizens, as well as 23 people who were not registered to vote but nonetheless voted. Schmidt also found reports of people who were counted as voting in the wrong party’s primary.

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Sure, only a minority agrees with me -- although a bigger minority than you have.

Fox News reports 70% of voters think voter ID is necessary, whereas 20% of people think abortion should be illegal under any circumstance.

Schmidt apparently found 9 cases of voter fraud.

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally Posted by Bricker

"The public disagrees with you," is in fact the clincher. It means the very people on whose behalf you are supposedly arguing have said, in effect, "We reject your idea."

I find it far scarier that you're willing to discard our democratic republic's rules when they reach a result you don't like than I find any tiny inconvenience imposed in a tiny fraction of the voting public.

We The People. Look it up. Learn it. Live it.

So "our democratic republic's rules" are that our collective decisions are made by Fox polls, not by elections? Why do we even bother with elections, then? Why bother restricting access to the things, when you don't even need them at all? What the hell are you afraid of that might happen? Is that the ditch you've fallen back to now in your attempts to convince yourself your position is not only legal but right?

Dear, sweet Og, that IS what it's come to now.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by adaher

John Fund just wrote an interesting article about Republicans' legitimate concerns about election manipulation in Pennsylvania:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...tate-john-fund

Last month, City Commissioner Al Schmidt, a Republican, issued a 27-page report on irregularities he found in a sample of Philadelphia precincts during this year’s primary. The report, which looked at only 1 percent of the city’s 1,687 districts, found cases of double voting, voter impersonation, and voting by non-citizens, as well as 23 people who were not registered to vote but nonetheless voted. Schmidt also found reports of people who were counted as voting in the wrong party’s primary.

That article is pretty thin on specifics. How many cases of voter impersonation occurred, and what is the proof of this? Why doesn't Fund give a number? He mentions a specific number for the non-registered voters, 23, but he can't figure out from Schmidt's report how many impersonation cases were "proven"? Surely the original report says how many. Do you have a link to Schmidt's 27 page report? It would be helpful to this discussion. It seems to me that, if this report actually proved anything, the state would have loved to have used it in their court case. Why didn't they?

Have any of the fraudsters Schmidt found been arrested? Surely if this is such a huge problem, it would be important to make very public examples of these people, yet I, in the Philly suburbs, haven't heard of one case. Are the supporters of voter ID laws publicly demanding investigations and arrests?

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by elucidator

Man, can't nobody on this Earth evade a question like you can! My man Bricker is a question ducking mother...Shut your mouth!.....but I'm talking about Bricker!?....well, we can dig it......

You sure you weren't a matador in your past life? A fairly successful one, even?

I didn't need basic instruction of the process of making laws. I'm talking about perverting a purpose to another end. And honest argument, while we're about it. For you to claim that the popularity of voter ID by itself justifies any purpose you might use it for is weak.

We might subvert the legislature sufficiently to gain the upper hand. Shit happens. And we look at that poll showing how popular more voting is, and we say "Yowzah! Lets do a massive voter registration drive, door to door, everybody! And while we're at it, we'll record all the guns everybody's got, and get GPS coordinates for the Black Helicopters!"

And I'm arguing for that and I say "Hey! Got a poll right here, says more voting is very popular!" That's stinky reasoning. So how about we let that be the tenth and final time you sling that one at us, OK? It bites.

Nice try. But even when a survey asks about the possibility of discouraging legitimate voters as an outcome of VOter ID, it gets majority support. So the equivalent would be mentioning the black helicopters and gun listing in your survey, and if your survey got popular support for those measures, I would accept it.

See, that's what you just can't stand. You want the voters, but only while they support the ends you want. The moment the majority doesn't like your goals, you reject their authority to choose.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

Fox News reports 70% of voters think voter ID is necessary, whereas 20% of people think abortion should be illegal under any circumstance.

Schmidt apparently found 9 cases of voter fraud.

How about the voters that agree with me, that abortion should be legal under some circumstances? Why did you mention the people who think it should be illegal under any circumstance?

[ElvisL1ves]

Perhaps because your position is not consistent and therefore not respectable. If you do, as you repeatedly tell us, believe abortion to be murder, then allowing abortion under some circumstances is allowing murder under some circumstances. There obviously cannot be such circumstances, right? So your position cannot be the result of thinking through a problem based on a consistent moral code. But you hold that position nevertheless.

Likewise, if you do believe in the high importance of democracy, then you cannot allow undermining of democracy "under some circumstances", if you cannot articulate such circumstances in a way that is definable separate from partisanship, which is the case. But you hold that position nevertheless.

Is it really puzzling that your attempts at special pleading receive such derision?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Nice try. But even when a survey asks about the possibility of discouraging legitimate voters as an outcome of VOter ID, it gets majority support. So the equivalent would be mentioning the black helicopters and gun listing in your survey, and if your survey got popular support for those measures, I would accept it.

See, that's what you just can't stand. You want the voters, but only while they support the ends you want. The moment the majority doesn't like your goals, you reject their authority to choose.

Do you have a link to that survey? Exactly what question was asked? (The exact wording please.) Who was asked? What were the possible answers (assuming multiple choice)? Were the respondents given information regarding the evidence (or lack of evidence) for the actual occurrence of impersonation fraud? Was it explained to them just what the difficulties could be for legitimate voters, how many legitimate voters would have difficulty because of the law, and what those difficulties would be? Were the issues regarding the time and resources available to correct those problems before the election discussed?

It's all well and good to ask simple questions of people without informing them of the issues but it does a disservice to both those people and the truth.

And in case you're planning to respond that I don't respect the public or that I think they're stupid; no, I do not disrepect them or think that they're stupid. I do think that, unlike you and I, most people aren't political geeks and don't have the time, resources, or inclination to research such issues. Certainly they're not going to be able to do so while being asked a survey question about something they may not even have thought about before that moment. None of that makes them stupid.

[elucidator]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Nice try. But even when a survey asks about the possibility of discouraging legitimate voters as an outcome of VOter ID, it gets majority support. So the equivalent would be mentioning the black helicopters and gun listing in your survey, and if your survey got popular support for those measures, I would accept it.

See, that's what you just can't stand. You want the voters, but only while they support the ends you want. The moment the majority doesn't like your goals, you reject their authority to choose.

In my native Texas, the one I grew up in, the majority of citizens approved of laws that oppressed and disenfranchised the minority. So did I, until I knew better. You could look it up, but I assure you it happened, because I was there.

It is tricky, to be sure, to balance individual rights against the will, and the errors, of the majority. To guarantee that the rights of the majority to rule do not become the tyranny of the majority. I assert, in almost blind faith, that a reasonable people can manage it. I insist that we try.

You attended law school, and this was never discussed? Is this why you offer a version of "majority rules" that could have been debunked by an Afterschool Special about civics? How very odd.

And, of course, I flatly reject your insinuation that my commitment to democracy is subject to blind partisanship, as you simultaneously twist your reasoning into knots trying to justify a partisan corruption of voting rights. You have quite good argumentative skills, Counselor, a pity that you whore them out to such a corrupt purpose.

[davidm]

It's ironic that people who advocate policies that suppress voting then try to use the supposed will of the majority to justify those policies.

[adaher]

Originally Posted by davidm

That article is pretty thin on specifics. How many cases of voter impersonation occurred, and what is the proof of this? Why doesn't Fund give a number? He mentions a specific number for the non-registered voters, 23, but he can't figure out from Schmidt's report how many impersonation cases were "proven"? Surely the original report says how many. Do you have a link to Schmidt's 27 page report? It would be helpful to this discussion. It seems to me that, if this report actually proved anything, the state would have loved to have used it in their court case. Why didn't they?

Have any of the fraudsters Schmidt found been arrested? Surely if this is such a huge problem, it would be important to make very public examples of these people, yet I, in the Philly suburbs, haven't heard of one case. Are the supporters of voter ID laws publicly demanding investigations and arrests?

I'm not saying it's proof, just that this is the kind of thing Republicans are concerned about. To prove it would require someone non-partisan who actually cared to look into it, something that no one wants to do. Voter fraud is just assumed away, and since no one but Republicans ever look for it, this is cited as proof that it doesn't exist.

[elucidator]

The reason we can't find Nessie is because Nessie does not exist. Same for Bigfoot. And why would we believe that the only reason we cannot find it is because only Republicans look for it? Because they did look for it, hooo doggies, did they ever look for it!

But why not simply tell us what you believe? Cut you a temporary pass, you don't have to prove it, just tell us what you believe. How much voter fraud runs rampant through our nation? To what effect?

[ElvisL1ves]

Correction: It's the kind of thing Republicans SAY they are concerned about.

The fact that those with the most interest in finding it, and thereby proving that it really is a problem and really is the source of their worry, cannot find it should be revealing. However, those such as you who consider evidence and lack of evidence to be equivalent concepts will not be worried over such a small matter as mere obvious bullshitting.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by adaher

I'm not saying it's proof, just that this is the kind of thing Republicans are concerned about. To prove it would require someone non-partisan who actually cared to look into it, something that no one wants to do. Voter fraud is just assumed away, and since no one but Republicans ever look for it, this is cited as proof that it doesn't exist.

Impersonation fraud (let's be specific) is not just assumed away, any more than invisible pink unicorns are just assumed away. If it happens in any meaningful numbers than there would be instances of people being caught at it. Not everyone would be caught, but some would be.

The assertion that it's always a perfect crime is ridiculous. Someone, somewhere, would be recognized as a fraud by a poll worker who's a neighbor of the person they're impersonating. Most people can't even be bothered to vote at all, let alone take a risk like this.

It's unlikely that anyone would even try to get away with it. Who would risk years in prison for 1 vote? Who would risk committing such a crime publicly, amongst people who may very well know the person you're attempting to impersonate?

Have you ever heard the saying "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"? The claim that there are a meaningful number of people who take this risk for little personal gain is an extraordinary claim. Not only is there not extraordinary evidence for it, there's no evidence, or at least very little, I'm not aware of any and neither is the state of Pennsylvania.

[elucidator]

To be ruthlessly fair, they were not required to provide any such evidence. They could not have done so, but didn't have to.

[elucidator]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

....Schmidt apparently found 9 cases of voter fraud.

Your link does not connect to anything Schmidt-like. Goes to the Gallup poll. Ooopsy daisy!

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally Posted by elucidator

To be ruthlessly fair, they were not required to provide any such evidence. They could not have done so, but didn't have to.

It's a great argument though, gotta hand 'em that. If you cut yourself loose from the mere everyday, grubby world of facts and evidence and reality, you can say and do whatever the fuck you want. It even actually becomes the duty of anybody who disagrees to prove you wrong. Unfortunately, though, it's indistinguishable from clinical psychosis.

And the pro-ID-law is not motivated by a lack of connection to reality, not actually, not even psychotically. It just isn't the reality that they say it is. The motive is obviously and pathetically not the reality of a problem with integrity of elections, but with their results. It is sad that supporting an effort to address that "problem" requires such extensive bald-faced lying, but sadder still that the lying works.

Now, time to move on to the unicorn leash law.

[Damuri Ajashi]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Got it. But since only a small minority of the public agrees with you, you're out of luck.

Sure, sure -- slavery was wrong. And women not having the vote was wrong. But under our system, you cannot simply declare that a minority view should control because other wrongs once existed.

If we could, then I'd like to declare that abortion is wrong. Sure, only a minority agrees with me -- although a bigger minority than you have. So let's shut down the abortion clinics, because after all slavery was wrong.

Of course the majority isn't always wrong but when you have a law that addresses a virtually non-existant problem and in the process disenfranchises a lot of people by erecting barriers to the polls, then you can say it is wrong whether it is a minority view or not.

It is one of the duties of the judiciary, to overturn the popular will of the people when they are wrong. A duty that at least one Pennsylvania judge has failed.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by elucidator

To be ruthlessly fair, they were not required to provide any such evidence. They could not have done so, but didn't have to.

But seriously, you're going to present any evidence you have in your favor whether it's required or not, right? You don't discard whatever opportunity you can to tilt things in your favor. And people who have the legal resources of the state of Pennsylvania behind them could find examples if anybody could, right? Research is a big portion of what a law firm does.

At the very least, I'd think that if they had evidence, they'd at least publicize it in order to discredit us naysayers. Someone, somewhere in the US would know of a case if it existed. Even if PA can't find an instance, the Republican Party surely would have found something somewhere that fits the bill, even if it was something that only served the purpose if you looked at it kinda sideways and squinted.

[ElvisL1ves]

"But it's all legal! Ha, ha, suck on it!"
There. That's out of the way.

It's more Rovian misdirection, accusing the other guys of a problem to inoculate themselves against it. There is a problem with public confidence in elections, yes, but the lack of confidence is in how they're run and how the votes are counted, all of it stemming from the 2000 hijack of democracy they orchestrated. By establishing the lie among the credulous that the Democrats' attempts to let masses of illegal-alien and minority-felon (with all the associated racial dogwhistles) vote at all, they to some degree dissipate their factual history.

[elucidator]

...Even if PA can't find an instance,...

Well, now, hold on a second there, hoss! Bricker supplied that very thing, above, a one woman crime wave of voter fraud! Voter registration fraud, but same thing! Close enough! So, one, count 'em, one! And four times! Our nation reels in horror....

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally Posted by davidm

But seriously, you're going to present any evidence you have in your favor whether it's required or not, right?

Not if it's so laughably trivial as to invalidate your argument. It's actually more credible to handwave it away than to present it.

[elucidator]

The case was so narrowly defined that all such evidence was irrelevant. Not about whether something was right or wrong, but legally permissible.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

Not if it's so laughably trivial as to invalidate your argument. It's actually more credible to handwave it away than to present it.

Exactly my point.

[elucidator]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/16/op...iers.html?_r=1

The New York Times weighs in...

...There is no evidence that Judge Simpson contorted law and precedent to reach his conclusion. He even described Mr. Turzai’s comment as “disturbing” and “tendentious.” But his ruling, in a case brought by potentially disenfranchised voters, is a clear and disturbing illustration of the way Republicans have manipulated legislation for their own ends, placing a veneer of civic responsibility on a low-minded and sleazy political ploy.
The real reasons for voter ID laws are quite clear. The desire to dampen the Democratic vote after 2006—and particularly in the wake of President Obama’s election—prompted six states to decide, virtually simultaneously, to pass voter ID laws....

"...a low-minded and sleazy political ploy..." Just so.

The quote above is but a sample of an excellent editorial analysis, brief, succinct, and pointed. Joe Bob 'luc says "Check it out!"

[davidm]

Originally Posted by elucidator

The case was so narrowly defined that all such evidence was irrelevant. Not about whether something was right or wrong, but legally permissible.

But doesn't PA's constitutionally guaranteed right to vote enter into the legality question? Don't they have to show that any suppression of voting is outweighed by the supposed fraud crisis? Don't they have to show that this law overall increases the legitimacy of elections? I'm not a lawyer so I don't know for sure, but if it isn't the case then the whole guarantee is meaningless isn't it? Surely the authors didn't intend it as a meaningless clause that could be ignored at the whim of the legislature?

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi

Of course the majority isn't always wrong but when you have a law that addresses a virtually non-existant problem and in the process disenfranchises a lot of people by erecting barriers to the polls, then you can say it is wrong whether it is a minority view or not.

It is one of the duties of the judiciary, to overturn the popular will of the people when they are wrong. A duty that at least one Pennsylvania judge has failed.

And the Supreme Court in Crawford v Marion County?

See, the problem is your ilk keep asserting they're right, and the other side is wrong.

But we have a system in this country. It doesn't depend on one judge. And when all the judicial courts at all the appellate levels disagree with you, it's time to admit that maybe you are the one that's wrong.

[davidm]

"Ilk"? Now we're throwing around words like "ilk"? Things just got serious folks.

[elucidator]

Got ilk?

[elucidator]

Originally Posted by davidm

But doesn't PA's constitutionally guaranteed right to vote enter into the legality question? Don't they have to show that any suppression of voting is outweighed by the supposed fraud crisis? ...

As Judge Parker pointed out above, the judge followed a strategy (if that's the right word) on the legalism of credibility, he was empowered to make decisions based on his own assumptions about what was reasonable, and didn't need to ask for evidence if he chose not to. He might, if he were so moved, make his decision based entirely on a witnesse's "demeanor". Maybe he would be pressing his luck, but he could do it.

Also, the case was deliberately (IMHO) narrowed to only consider disenfranchisement, as the judge dismissed any minor inconveniences as unimportant. You read what the guy said, you could swear it was Bricker talking. Same phrases, same, ah, reasoning.

Now, TG, IANAL, but still, the degree of abject adoration the judge offered the Republican side of this debate sets one back a step. Especially, as I may have mentioned, that part about taking the State's promises "at face value". What, did they offer him a blow job from Ann Coulter? Or threaten, as the case may be...

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by elucidator

You read what the guy said, you could swear it was Bricker talking. Same phrases, same, ah, reasoning.

Well, I said I used to be a defense attorney.

[elucidator]

Did you ever badger a witness into a tearful confession of the crime? I always liked that part. Hamilton Burger was a Republican.

[adaher]

Originally Posted by elucidator

The reason we can't find Nessie is because Nessie does not exist. Same for Bigfoot. And why would we believe that the only reason we cannot find it is because only Republicans look for it? Because they did look for it, hooo doggies, did they ever look for it!

But why not simply tell us what you believe? Cut you a temporary pass, you don't have to prove it, just tell us what you believe. How much voter fraud runs rampant through our nation? To what effect?

I believe there is enough voter fraud, intentional or not(some people vote when they are ineligible without knowing it), to swing a race when there's a margin of 1000 or less. I believe Dino Rossi got robbed in Washington, and Norm Coleman got robbed in Minnesota. No, it's not a big problem and I wouldn't favor extreme solutions to solve it(like notarizing absentee ballots), but common sense solutions that do not pose an onerous burden should be considered.

[adaher]

Originally Posted by davidm

But doesn't PA's constitutionally guaranteed right to vote enter into the legality question? Don't they have to show that any suppression of voting is outweighed by the supposed fraud crisis? Don't they have to show that this law overall increases the legitimacy of elections? I'm not a lawyer so I don't know for sure, but if it isn't the case then the whole guarantee is meaningless isn't it? Surely the authors didn't intend it as a meaningless clause that could be ignored at the whim of the legislature?

There isn't a right to vote in Pennsylvania's constitution. Just a passage about qualified electors and reasonable regulations on what constitutes a qualified elector.

If I missed something, by all means let me know.

[elucidator]

Well, you told us essentially nothing, there are so many provisos in that statement that it boils down to mush. You don't favor "extreme solutions"? Well, good, but is what we are seeing here such a solution? Or no? And just how onerous does a burden need to be? How is any burden justifiable, if that burden falls unevenly? Or worse, falls selectively on those people that they prefer didn't vote?

And Norm Coleman lost a very, very close race, but he was not robbed. And your inclusion here insinuates but coyly doesn't state that you think illegal voting had something to do with it.

(John Cleese as barrister) I put it to you, sir, that Norm Coleman loss had nothing whatever to do with the issue at hand. Norm Coleman lost because he is the only person on Earth that Garrison Keillor actually hates.

[elucidator]

Originally Posted by adaher

There isn't a right to vote in Pennsylvania's constitution. Just a passage about qualified electors and reasonable regulations on what constitutes a qualified elector....

There is a right to vote in our national Constitution, sir! Further, there is right to vote n every stitch in the fabric of our flag, in every inch of ground oer which our forefathers bled for Liberty! From the shining mountain majesties and the amber wavy grains....hey, quit that! Stop shoving! That's uncool, man, really uncool......

[adaher]

Originally Posted by elucidator

Well, you told us essentially nothing, there are so many provisos in that statement that it boils down to mush. You don't favor "extreme solutions"? Well, good, but is what we are seeing here such a solution? Or no? And just how onerous does a burden need to be? How is any burden justifiable, if that burden falls unevenly? Or worse, falls selectively on those people that they prefer didn't vote?

And Norm Coleman lost a very, very close race, but he was not robbed. And your inclusion here insinuates but coyly doesn't state that you think illegal voting had something to do with it.

(John Cleese as barrister) I put it to you, sir, that Norm Coleman loss had nothing whatever to do with the issue at hand. Norm Coleman lost because he is the only person on Earth that Garrison Keillor actually hates.

If you've got enough anecdotal evidence of fraud, it might be a good idea to make a thorough attempt to get hard data. No such attempt has been made. The first sorta attempt was when Minnesota Majority referred 2000 names for investigation and the end result was over 100 convictions. And that's only because when Minnesota gets tips they have to investigate. Which I'm sure is a law that will be targeted for repeal by voting rights activists.

[adaher]

Originally Posted by elucidator

There is a right to vote in our national Constitution, sir! Further, there is right to vote n every stitch in the fabric of our flag, in every inch of ground oer which our forefathers bled for Liberty! From the shining mountain majesties and the amber wavy grains....hey, quit that! Stop shoving! That's uncool, man, really uncool......

There is a right to not be discriminated against on the basis of race or sex. There are still qualifications to be a voter, unlike actual rights, which are universal and apply even if one is not a citizen.

To the extent there is a right to vote, it's equivalent to the right to bear arms: subject to reasonable regulation.

[elucidator]

If you take the time to google them, you will find that their claims are rather more in doubt than you seem to think. Just for an instance:

http://minnesotaindependent.com/7451...raud-frivolous

County attorneys: Minnesota Majority reports on voter fraud ‘frivolous’

The Minnesota County Attorneys Association’s (MCAA) executive director John Kingrey says Minnesota Majority’s reports of massive voter fraud in the 2008 election were “widely overstated” and “frivolous,” adding that the conservative group’s demands of those investigating suspected voter fraud were draining county public safety resources....

Further details are at the site, suffice to say you will find scant ammunition....

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by elucidator

There is a right to vote in our national Constitution, sir! .

For who? Not for president.

Presidential electors are selected by each state, in such manner as the legislators may direct. No rule requires that a state let its citizens vote for President.

Originally Posted by SCOTUS

The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College. U.S. Const., Art. II, §1. This is the source for the statement in McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 35 (1892), that the State legislature’s power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary; it may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself, which indeed was the manner used by State legislatures in several States for many years after the Framing of our Constitution.

[adaher]

Originally Posted by elucidator

If you take the time to google them, you will find that their claims are rather more in doubt than you seem to think. Just for an instance:

http://minnesotaindependent.com/7451...raud-frivolous

County attorneys: Minnesota Majority reports on voter fraud ‘frivolous’



Further details are at the site, suffice to say you will find scant ammunition....

I've seen just about every cite on this case, and they all say it's crap, while gliding over the fact that there were actual convictions, and not just a handful. And the only way to get a conviction is to prove that an ineligible voter voted knowing they were ineligible. That's not easy. Which means that the 100+ convictions were the tip of the iceberg.

And I love the complaint "draining county resources". Sounds more like sour grapes that the counties spent resources and actually found voter fraud.

[elucidator]

nm ninja'd