gut;1200217 wrote:Bear with me here....

So, these "legal" voters, whom conceivably could not prove they had the right to vote, have proven so? In other words, they provided said documentation so what's the problem?

Second question: Why is it a lawyer finding that these people are legal voters instead of, you know, the election supervisors tasked with the job? As far as the lawyer validating their right to vote - well, OJ's lawyers said he was innocent and I guess they were correct. Not like lawyers ever lie or anything.

Legal voters were purged from the voter roll’s based on a defective document. A special burden was placed on them to prove their citizenship for a second time that was not put on other voters.
An employee of the election supervisors who happened to be a lawyer checked the voters. Just about every voter is checked by an employee of the election board or supervisor rather than the director or supervisor themselves.

isadore;1200257 wrote:Legal voters were purged from the voter roll’s based on a defective document.

That would be the opinion of the lawyer. Obviously the state has a different perspective.

believer;1200128 wrote:Great. I guess they shouldn't have any issues showing their valid drivers license's at the polling places then. Apparently they had to prove at some point to the state election department they are citizens. No harm in requiring that ID to be produced at the voting booth then.

And even if they don't it isn't as if they are thrown in prison - they can fill out a PROVINCIAL BALLOT that will be counted if ID is provided within a reasonable time.

It is an entire non-issue - there is no disenfranchisement if you still get to vote - you do!

This is all a lie.

Manhattan Buckeye;1200944 wrote:And even if they don't it isn't as if they are thrown in prison - they can fill out a PROVINCIAL BALLOT that will be counted if ID is provided within a reasonable time.

It is an entire non-issue - there is no disenfranchisement if you still get to vote - you do!

This is all a lie.

It is a lie and a lie designed to hide the fact that there are, indeed, plenty of invalid votes leeching into the system. The Dems/Libs/Progressives/Socialists in particular turn a blind eye to it because a vast majority of the illegal votes are cast in their direction.

If anything is "disenfranchised" in this nonsense it's votes cast by Americans with valid citizenship. Illegal votes are not only - well - ILLEGAL it dilutes our democratic process.

Just another sad symptom of our decaying American culture.

Manhattan Buckeye;1200944 wrote:And even if they don't it isn't as if they are thrown in prison - they can fill out a PROVINCIAL BALLOT that will be counted if ID is provided within a reasonable time.

It is an entire non-issue - there is no disenfranchisement if you still get to vote - you do!

This is all a lie.

provisional

isadore;1200960 wrote:provisional

So you've heard of it, how is anyone disenfranchised?

Manhattan Buckeye;1200972 wrote:So you've heard of it, how is anyone disenfranchised?

taking qualified registered voting citizens off the voting rolls is disenfranchising.

Well I suppose those that are disenfranchised can fill out a provisional ballot.

Again, this is a non-issue. There is no legitimate reason why a jurisdiction shouldn't mandate that people who vote prove who they are.

In order to vote, someone should have to show an ID and a pay stub that's less than 3 months old.

That would eliminate a lot of the less intelligent lazy sloths who want more handouts and/or 95% of the Democratic party.

believer;1200955 wrote:It is a lie and a lie designed to hide the fact that there are, indeed, plenty of invalid votes leeching into the system. The Dems/Libs/Progressives/Socialists in particular turn a blind eye to it because a vast majority of the illegal votes are cast in their direction.

Disagree with your wording there. I don't think it's too far off to say they facilitate and encourage it.

sleeper;1201129 wrote:In order to vote, someone should have to show an ID and a pay stub that's less than 3 months old.

That would eliminate a lot of the less intelligent lazy sloths who want more handouts .

Isn't that redundant with this?

95% of the Democratic party

Less intelligent? Let's see, their job is basically go vote for whomever offers bigger handouts. Like 30 minutes of work for thousands of dollars. Clearly I'm the fool.

sleeper;1201129 wrote:In order to vote, someone should have to show an ID and a pay stub that's less than 3 months old.

That would eliminate a lot of the less intelligent lazy sloths who want more handouts and/or 95% of the Democratic party.

In 2008, the Supreme Court overwhelmingly ruled that States have every right to require voters provide government issued photo identification before casting a ballot. Such measures of course, help to stop rampant voter fraud and election theft. Yet Obama's Attorney General Eric Holder has decided he does not like the Supreme Court ruling, so he has instructed the U.S. Department of Justice to persecute States who, following the Supreme Court directive, have established voter ID laws.

password;1233179 wrote:In 2008, the Supreme Court overwhelmingly ruled that States have every right to require voters provide government issued photo identification before casting a ballot. Such measures of course, help to stop rampant voter fraud and election theft. Yet Obama's Attorney General Eric Holder has decided he does not like the Supreme Court ruling, so he has instructed the U.S. Department of Justice to persecute States who, following the Supreme Court directive, have established voter ID laws.

Those three little words deflate your entire argument. I would be happy if you can provide authentic documentation on "rampant voter fraud". I'm sure I'll be waiting a long, long time for it, because it simply does not exist (except in the minds of the hopelessly paranoid and most Republicans and teabaggers).

stlouiedipalma;1233272 wrote:Those three little words deflate your entire argument. I would be happy if you can provide authentic documentation on "rampant voter fraud". I'm sure I'll be waiting a long, long time for it, because it simply does not exist (except in the minds of the hopelessly paranoid and most Republicans and teabaggers).

Here you go sunshine, there are many more links if you ever want the truth.


http://articles.cnn.com/2008-10-22/politics/voter.fraud_1_voter-registration-acorn-workers-number-of-swing-states?_s=PMOLITICS


http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/opinion/jack-kelly/voter-fraud-is-real-224753/

Nice try. The Acorn guy said he registered nearly 2000 non-existent voters. None of his registrants managed to cast a single ballot.

The case in Indiana involves just over 100 signatures.

When you consider the millions of ballots cast in a Presidential election, these numbers hardly amount to "rampant voter fraud".

The truth is, R's use the fraud issue as a fear tactic. They throw the term around and uniformed folks accept it as true. If you bothered to do any real digging, you'd find that the actual number of voter fraud cases is extremely low, hardly worth the time and money to work on laws in search of a crime. Of course, when you're looking to steal an election or disenfranchise voters I guess it justifies the effort and expense.

There are over 20,000 towns in america and if there is 100 fraudulent votes in eaach town, you have over 2 million fraudulent votes. Please don't play dumb with the fraud issue.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/25/drug-money-funds-voter-fraud-in-kentucky/



Vote buying, he says is "where the money's at."