Are Democrats promoting any bills aimed at keeping people

[sleepyhead]

Hello,

The republicans have sponsored bills requireing ID's, and also bills in Ohio which prevent people from voting early. Both were aimed at a certain group of voters (Democrats). Have democrats put forth any similar bills aimed at keeping republicans from the polls?

[East of Eden]

(It couldn't possibly be what Rep Mike Turzai stated - "Voter ID laws, which will win the State of Pennsylvania for Romney..." )

I have no problem with that statement, if the intent was to say that by eliminating voter fraud, Romney would have a chance.

300 more non-citizens just discovered on CO voter rolls:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10 ... ter-rolls/

You have no problem with that statement? It is not like that statement indicates an attempt at passing this regulation in the 11th hour before a very tight election for the explicit purposes of bringing a win of a certain swing state for Romney... Oh, wait, yes it does, because there has been exactly ZERO documented cases of voter impersonation in the State of Pennsylvania since at least the beginning of this century.

Even the people who introduced the legislation could produce no evidence to back up their public claims: [Leading up to the trial, the state said it would offer no evidence that “in-person voter fraud has in fact occurred in Pennsylvania or elsewhere� or that “in-person voter fraud is likely to occur in November 2012 in the absence of a photo ID law.� Pennsylvania officials, who responded to the News21 public record requests, also reported no cases of Election Day voter-impersonation fraud since 2000.]

It is hard for me to believe that the other swing states, with Republican Reps who just happened to introduce this legislation at the exact same time were of hugely different opinions that Rep Mike T.

And as for non-citizens on the CO voter rolls - my friend, you are talking about apples and oranges. If you look at each state and the requirements to get an ID card, there is an exemption for non-citizens to be able to get an ID card.

From the DMV website: "If you are legally present in the US, but ineligible for an SSN, you are exempt from SSN requirements. However, you must still provide an acceptable birth date/legal presence document for any DL/ID card application"

Birth date and legal presence documents aren't too difficult to obtain for non-citizens. So not only is it entirely feasible for a non-citizen to get an ID card, but many of them already do. And so do convicted felons - who are also ineligible to vote, but have ID cards. So, it is not like presenting an ID card is going to stop someone from voting, even if they are ineligible, as long as they are on the voter roster.

So, lets stick with the current issue - which is why the sudden "need" for Voter ID laws? It couldn't be the 785,000 people in the state of Pennsylvania alone, according to DOS and DOT, who don't have ID cards? The majority of which just happen to be more likely to swing the other political direction...

You have yet to provide evidence of the need for Voter ID laws...

How can the electoral process be harmed by making it more secure? Where is your evidence that huge numbers of people who would like to vote aren't because of this security?

Sorry, it doesn't work like that... "you show me yours and then you show me yours again".

You have yet to show any evidence that demonstrates a need for voter ID law, or even disprove that this legislation wasn't explicitly created to sway voting. I have already demonstrated ample evidence that there is little to no reason to justify requiring ID cards at this juncture (and also that it is a little shifty for Republicans to introduce this increased regulation, which goes against their party platform of decreasing regulation, at this particular point in time).

Since you are for this law, I am sure you have plenty of evidence to support increasing regulation. I will await for you to present this evidence, and then I will demonstrate to you how passing something like this without concern for those who don't have an ID or the means to get one can damage the electoral process.

I just posted a significant instance of CO voter fraud, can I take it you don't have anyone who has not been able to vote because of these security measures?

[chris_brown207]

I just posted a significant instance of CO voter fraud, can I take it you don't have anyone who has not been able to vote because of these security measures?

You presented the evidence of ineligible names on rolls. Seeing as the people on those rolls didn't actually vote - it is not fraud.

And, as we said before, its apples and oranges. Voter impersonation, which is what the ID Laws were attempting to address, and ineligible names on a voter rolls are two entirely different things.

I will await your evidence to support the passing of Voter ID laws.

[East of Eden]

I just posted a significant instance of CO voter fraud, can I take it you don't have anyone who has not been able to vote because of these security measures?

You presented the evidence of ineligible names on rolls. Seeing as the people on those rolls didn't actually vote - it is not fraud.

And, as we said before, its apples and oranges. Voter impersonation, which is what the ID Laws were attempting to address, and ineligible names on a voter rolls are two entirely different things.

I will await your evidence to support the passing of Voter ID laws.

Look we disagree on this, and I reject the OP premise that these safeguards are intended to prevent people from voting. Another Democratic made-up non-issue.

[chris_brown207]

I just posted a significant instance of CO voter fraud, can I take it you don't have anyone who has not been able to vote because of these security measures?

You presented the evidence of ineligible names on rolls. Seeing as the people on those rolls didn't actually vote - it is not fraud.

And, as we said before, its apples and oranges. Voter impersonation, which is what the ID Laws were attempting to address, and ineligible names on a voter rolls are two entirely different things.

I will await your evidence to support the passing of Voter ID laws.

Look we disagree on this, and I reject the OP premise that these safeguards are intended to prevent people from voting. Another Democratic made-up non-issue.

Hey, I get it. We do disagree on this topic. I just wanted to see if you had any valid reasons beyond support for the Republican party to disagree on Voter ID laws specifically.

[East of Eden]

I just posted a significant instance of CO voter fraud, can I take it you don't have anyone who has not been able to vote because of these security measures?

You presented the evidence of ineligible names on rolls. Seeing as the people on those rolls didn't actually vote - it is not fraud.

And, as we said before, its apples and oranges. Voter impersonation, which is what the ID Laws were attempting to address, and ineligible names on a voter rolls are two entirely different things.

I will await your evidence to support the passing of Voter ID laws.

Look we disagree on this, and I reject the OP premise that these safeguards are intended to prevent people from voting. Another Democratic made-up non-issue.

Hey, I get it. We do disagree on this topic. I just wanted to see if you had any valid reasons beyond support for the Republican party to disagree on Voter ID laws specifically.

Tell you what, let's wait until this is implemented and see if there are any issues. Until then it's just Democratic Party nonsense talking points.

[chris_brown207]

I just posted a significant instance of CO voter fraud, can I take it you don't have anyone who has not been able to vote because of these security measures?

You presented the evidence of ineligible names on rolls. Seeing as the people on those rolls didn't actually vote - it is not fraud.

And, as we said before, its apples and oranges. Voter impersonation, which is what the ID Laws were attempting to address, and ineligible names on a voter rolls are two entirely different things.

I will await your evidence to support the passing of Voter ID laws.

Look we disagree on this, and I reject the OP premise that these safeguards are intended to prevent people from voting. Another Democratic made-up non-issue.

Hey, I get it. We do disagree on this topic. I just wanted to see if you had any valid reasons beyond support for the Republican party to disagree on Voter ID laws specifically.

Tell you what, let's wait until this is implemented and see if there are any issues. Until then it's just Democratic Party nonsense talking points.

Just as soon as it written sensibly enough to not get struck down then I guess we will. Hopefully by then, it will have enough common sense that it will cause no issue nor be in conflict with Poll Tax laws written into our constitution.

Remind me again which party claims to be protectors of the Constitution, and stands for less regulation and smaller government? I guess that is only true as long as one is leading in the polls.

[WinePusher]

A prominent tenant of the Republican Party is smaller government, less regulation. So, it strikes me as a little questionable that they would go so stridently against their own platform on this one topic - one that the statistics show no good reason to suddenly change laws to "fix" when the current laws are working perfectly fine. Less than 1 case of voter impersonation a year would make any other nation boastful. (Change "voter ID" to "gun ownership" and I would think we would find Republicans staunchly against further regulation).

Um, first of all, I support a law that forces someone who wants to purcahse a gun to have to produce an ID. Just like I support laws that force people to have to produce an ID when purchasing alcohol and cigarettes at the discretion of the person selling it. Secondly, these voter ID laws are not new ideas just being proposed. Many states have already implemented voter ID laws. The reason that they are being brought to light just recently is because the Democratic party has all of a sudden made this a contreversy. And finally, smaller government and less regulation doesn't mean no government and no regulation. I thought you liberals were supposed to be all about bigger government and more regulation, so why are you all of a sudden upset about voter ID laws, which are extremely miniscule laws to begin with.

[East of Eden]

A prominent tenant of the Republican Party is smaller government, less regulation. So, it strikes me as a little questionable that they would go so stridently against their own platform on this one topic - one that the statistics show no good reason to suddenly change laws to "fix" when the current laws are working perfectly fine. Less than 1 case of voter impersonation a year would make any other nation boastful. (Change "voter ID" to "gun ownership" and I would think we would find Republicans staunchly against further regulation).

Um, first of all, I support a law that forces someone who wants to purcahse a gun to have to produce an ID. Just like I support laws that force people to have to produce an ID when purchasing alcohol and cigarettes at the discretion of the person selling it. Secondly, these voter ID laws are not new ideas just being proposed. Many states have already implemented voter ID laws. The reason that they are being brought to light just recently is because the Democratic party has all of a sudden made this a contreversy. And finally, smaller government and less regulation doesn't mean no government and no regulation. I thought you liberals were supposed to be all about bigger government and more regulation, so why are you all of a sudden upset about voter ID laws, which are extremely miniscule laws to begin with.

Maybe this commotion is meant to give the Democrats an excuse if Obama loses, like Gore's phoney 'Supreme Court stole the election' whine.

[Wyvern]

The reason that they are being brought to light just recently is because the Democratic party has all of a sudden made this a contreversy.

The point being that the democratic party wants to give everyone the opportunity to exercise their right to vote while the Republican party appears to be doing everything they can to limit how many people vote.

And finally, smaller government and less regulation doesn't mean no government and no regulation. I thought you liberals were supposed to be all about bigger government and more regulation, so why are you all of a sudden upset about voter ID laws, which are extremely miniscule laws to begin with.

Stop listening to the propaganda the conservatives are putting out, the size of the government has actually shrunk under Obama. More importantly why has this become such an important issue for the Republicans when there have been no cases of massive voter fraud and by all indications no action needed to be taken? Why is it the party which states they want smaller government and less regulations suddenly trying to increase both?

[East of Eden]

The reason that they are being brought to light just recently is because the Democratic party has all of a sudden made this a contreversy.

The point being that the democratic party wants to give everyone the opportunity to exercise their right to vote while the Republican party appears to be doing everything they can to limit how many people vote.

Amazing how the Democrats panic when we crack down on voter fraud.

Stop listening to the propaganda the conservatives are putting out, the size of the government has actually shrunk under Obama.

You're funny. http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrar ... d-history/

More importantly why has this become such an important issue for the Republicans

Uh, because we have an election coming up?