I probably should back off on my previous post. It looks like that misinformation came from the (very Dem) City of Philadelphia.
Millions of registered PA voters were sent mailers in Sept. telling them that ID would be required. New mailers will not be sent correcting this.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-10-12/confusion-sown-in-pennsylvania-by-lingering-voter-id-ads#p2
How many people will stay away because they believe that they don’t have the proper ID?
Hopefully the Dems will make correcting this a big part of their get out the vote drive, but that means resources directed away from pure “get out the vote” to letting people know that they actually can vote.
In any case it’s looking like PA will go for Obama, but I’m concerned about whether or not it may affect other races.
And this just in, courtesy of your good friends at Talking Points Memo:
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/supreme-court-turns-down-ohio-early-voting-case?ref=fpa
Supreme Court Turns Down Ohio Early Voting Case
Why doesn’t he ave an equal claim to Pennsylvania residency?
Slightly more difficult. Versus having a system in place that reduces fraud.
You say “one case,” without even a nod at the obvious truth that one reported case suggests many other unreported cases.
So what? Does that make his illegal vote more palatable?
Just heard this morning there’s a new Quinnipiac poll that has Obama’s lead down to 4 in Pennsylvania. I’m not saying that’s really where the Pennsylvania voters are (it’s just one poll, compared to others with Obama up by double-digits), but that’s a bit too close for comfort, especially with these voter shenanigans going on.
Just one poll, could be outlier, waiting for Nate Silver’s analysis … but these are the openings the GOP is looking for in order to use voter suppression to turn things their way.
Oh, it suggests. Suggests. Well that’s a pretty powerful reason to disenfranchise thousands of voters. And if most of those would have voted for the other team? Happy coincidence I’m sure.
Suggests. You crack me up.
I’m going by the article, which states that he is a Sugar Land resident who also owns a home in PA. The fact that he is running for Precinct 1 commissioner in Sugar Land also strongly suggests that that was where he was residing at the time.
Recall that a large portion of the discussion in this thread is about how unlikely in-person voter fraud is. I, and others, maintain that it’s unlikely because of the risk / reward ratio. The risk of being caught, when appearing personally, is too great for most rational people when compared to the reward of one extra vote. This case is not proof against that argument because Fleming voted in person in the precinct where he was known to reside and was known to be a candidate for office. No one was going to point to him and say, “I know you. You voted absentee in Pennsylvania!”
The PA votes were stupid and risky, but less so because he didn’t have to present himself to people who might say, “hey, when did you move back”?
He didn’t need any cases to suggest thousands. You just know they are out there…
Saw a two headed cat at a circus side show in Waco, TX. Which suggests that here are thousands of two headed cats in Texas.
I’m even more cracked up by the part where he suggests it’s actually okay to vote in more than one jurisdiction. Presumably only if one votes “the right way”, of course.
:p:rolleyes:
And he claims to be a lawyer. With some knowledge of constitutional law, at that. A-frickin’-mazing.
He claimed that it’s okay to vote in more than one jurisdiction? I must have missed that.
I can just imagine Bricker as a proprietor of a Kmart, strip searching all his customers and then wondering why his bottom line is so bad when he has done such a good job at preventing shoplifting.
From the lack of voter fraud it appears that at least %99.9 of votes cast without ID are legitimate. To throw them out to prevent the 0.1% that aren’t is absurd.
I think your analysis depends on the poll precinct. In a larger city, the odds of being recognized are small.
Of course, I agree that in-person voter fraud is unlikely to begin with: perhaps one in 25,000 votes.
Of course, Voter ID rules won’t “throw out” 99.9% of legitimate votes, will they?
And why do you get to decide the percentage cut-off point for “absurd?”
Don’t we have a system that we use to make laws, when not all persons agree on what the wise law should be?
Why do you believe you, and the small percentage of people that agree with you, should get to make this decision?
Doesn’t have to be real, that’s the beauty part. Its about voter confidence, and if the voter fears having his vote negated by illegal aliens, then that justifies a whole bunch of stuff because freedom.
What else can logically follow from the statement I quoted?
Who said that? Me? I never said that.
From whence this interesting number, where did you pull that from? And why is it all brown and stinky?
I know it’s a long thread. But if you can’t be bothered to read it, I can’t be bothered to help you.
Been here from the beginning, read every word, and you’re bluffing.