Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   Firm educating Pennsylvanians about the state's new voter ID law is full of GOP lobbyists, backers, and voters. But they totally won't give Democratic voters wrong information; take their word on it   (tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com ) divider line
    More: Fail, GOP, voter ID, deputy assistant, voting ages, tom ridge, SSA, lobbyists, George H. W. Bush  
•       •       •

2773 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 Jul 2012 at 11:56 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2012-07-20 09:45:48 AM  
8 votes:
So what is an acceptable ratio of disenfranchised to prevented fraud?

Seriously, GOP--100:1? 1000:1? 100,000:1?

You resist banking regulation because it's "only a few bad apples." So what percentage of spoiled fruit ruins the entire barrel?

If you can't answer these questions with a modicum of intellectual honesty then you're simply hiding behind false outrage in an attempt to rig our elections. But hey, keep on shouting jingoistic buzzwords like 'freedom' while you systematically undermine our democracy.
MFK
2012-07-20 12:02:13 PM  
3 votes:
THESE LAWS ARE NOT, NOR HAVE THEY EVER BEEN, ABOUT "VOTER FRAUD"!!!
2012-07-20 10:00:47 AM  
3 votes:
If you need to resort to voter disenfranchisement and union busting your side has already lost. It's almost like they have given up on broadening the base.
2012-07-20 09:54:26 AM  
3 votes:

t3knomanser: doyner: So what is an acceptable ratio of disenfranchised to prevented fraud?

It seems to me that the GOP gets sick with fear at the very thought that someone, somewhere, might be breaking the rules. It's better to throw a hundred innocents in jail if we can keep one guilty person from getting away with something they shouldn't.

The reality is, of course, that the GOP doesn't afraid of anything. They're running a structured campaign to disenfranchise the people most likely to vote against them. People in jail, people off the voter rolls, people without IDs- they're all poor and usually minorities. From the GOP standpoint: problem solved.


What this is about is that no matter how much money the Koch Brothers and Sheldon Adelson contribute, at the end of the day they only get one vote each. The idea that their vote can be cancelled by a welfare queen from the city enrages them. They expect a return on their investment and they can't get that if the lessers muck things up by exercising their basic human rights.
2012-07-20 01:29:30 PM  
2 votes:
This law is nothing but a brazen attempt at voter suppression. Now its come out that if your social security card is laminated, it cannot be used to get a voter ID. You need to apply for another social security card and wait to get that before you get the voter ID card. The fact that any American politician would vote for this kind of law is a disgrace. It shows a lack of moral character beyond even what we are used to seeing these days.

If you really think blocking a group of people from their right to vote because they don't vote the way you do is a good idea, you truly don't deserve to call yourself an American or a patriot. People did not fight in the Revolution, the War of 1812, two World Wars and the Cold War just so you could spit on all they fought for.
2012-07-20 01:01:45 PM  
2 votes:
So, how can you distort the electoral process ? Let me count the ways

1. Staff registrar offices with severe-looking arseholes who look like the 'establishment' (blonde hair/ blue eyes / pale skin)

2. Require a fee to obtain the franchise (registration, ID)

3. Locate polls in areas in which your opponents don't feel comfortable (Churches, Synagogues, Police stations)

4. Locate polls in poorly-advertised locations with unclear signage

5. Locate polls in areas without mass transit or that are otherwise hard to access.

6. Make all voting material in a cultural perspective that renders it useless to some voters

7. Restrict polling hours to those when people work

8. Make it difficult for people to have access to non-polling-place ballots

9. Intimate that any deficiency (warrants, traffic tickets, taxes owed) can invalidate your vote (be sure to pay your parking tickets so that you can vote on Tuesday!)

10. Misinform people about the election itself ("Due to high volume, This precinct will vote Wednesday, and that precinct will vote Tuesday")

11. Put more than one cop inside the polling places.

12. Put voting booths too close together

13. Allow electioneering inside the polling place.

14. Permit reporting of the 'results' partway through the day.

15. Gerrymander the voting districts so that one party has a clear advantage over the other.

Anyone else ? Please ....

also : Why not just use that purple finger dyer crap that is used so famously in the middle east?!
2012-07-20 01:01:12 PM  
2 votes:
These firms should have to put up some kind of bond before the Nov. election from which the state of PA can deduct an amount for each voter who is turned away from the polls for lack of ID. That way the PR firm would have a financial incentive to do the job right.
2012-07-20 09:30:04 AM  
2 votes:
But just think about the tens of cases of voter fraud this is going to prevent! And all the people it'll keep away from the polls.
2012-07-20 07:40:41 PM  
1 vote:

pxsteel: Go get an ID. Show them, that they are not going to disenfranchise you. You will be better off, because whole new worlds will be open to you.


Yup. I'll farking show you guys! You curtail my constitutional rights... well I'm gonna... ummmm... I guess comply.

Bravo USA.

I mean honestly, it's an election. If you're worried about fraud, why not use the Canadian system? It's free if you don't have ID, but there's still oversight. Unless, of course, the goal is to disenfranchise people.
2012-07-20 02:28:31 PM  
1 vote:

Shaggy_C: Pretty much every CEO out there is by default a rich white man, but not every corporation is Republican-biased. Just look at Whole Foods.


The CEO of Whole Foods is anti-union, a climate change denier and is strongly opposed to the idea of universal health care. I wouldn't really hold him up as an example of a non-evil CEO.
2012-07-20 02:19:31 PM  
1 vote:

Shaggy_C: And public schools educating Pennsylvanian students about everything are full of Democrat Teacher Unionists. Are we really going to bash entire organizations for the personal beliefs of some members?


Bullshiat. Prove it. I mean, really provide me with rolls that show that every farking Pennsylvanian teacher is a Democrat and a Unionist. Do it. I farking dare you, because I know it's not farking true.

Asshat.
2012-07-20 01:53:49 PM  
1 vote:

MyRandomName: LarryDan43: If you think its possible there is any chance there could be a warrant out for your arrest. Stay home. Did you miss a credit card payment? Have an account in collection? Forget a parking ticket. Then you might have a warrant out you and they will be arresting people at the polls. It's okay, your one vote wasn't going to swing the election either way.

And this is the best argument for hilarity. Liberals ask for proof of voter fraud, without identification it is really really hard to prove fraud. You could keep an election official and police there to check ID if signatures don't match, but then the left would cry intimidation.

So question for you liberals, name one way to catch fraud if we can't use identification. The only fraud able to be caught are felons attempting to vote, not voting as someone else. How can the latter be prosecuted if no video taping at stations and no identification recquired? If the real person shows up later there is a questionable vote, but no conviction as the person committing fraud is long gone. So how do you find voter fraud without the use of identification?


I think the best thing to do is continue to base our laws on the unprovable fears of a bunch of people scared of almost everything. Evenytually the Right will govern themselves into their own 1984-esque New World Order with their constant restrictive laws against all things that 'might' be happening. I'm sure we'll all be happy then. Or maybe we could realize there is a whole other group of people out here that don't want to be governed based on the paranoid fears of a party that has been fed fear as a means of control. Jeezuz, wake up you farking pussies. The world isn't as scary as you've been told time and time and time and time and time again. You want proof? The fact your sitting here jagging your stupid opinions off on the internet and not dead or imprisoned from one of the million scary fantasies you've bought into shoudl suffice.
2012-07-20 01:49:38 PM  
1 vote:

pxsteel: It's 4 months till the election

you have 4 months to get an ID

If you are so incompetent that you cannot get an ID in 4 months. How are you competent enough to vote


Because there's no competency test for voting, nor should there be?
2012-07-20 01:47:22 PM  
1 vote:

MFL: Hell Al Franken won Minnesota by 312 votes and they later discoverd over 341 felons illegally voted and they were counted as good votes in the recount. Now...I wonder who most of them voted for?


The republican, 90% of felons are christians.

Sounds like Franken kicked his ass.
2012-07-20 01:39:29 PM  
1 vote:

doyner: You resist banking regulation because it's "only a few bad apples." So what percentage of spoiled fruit ruins the entire barrel?


# of voters in the US : ~280,000,000
# of bankers who can crash the economy : ~ 100,000

# of voters required to 'rig' an election in every voting district in the US: ~10,000,000
# of bankers required to screw the jobs of 50,000,000 persons: 25

See why banking regulation is more important than voting 'fraud' yet?
2012-07-20 01:31:48 PM  
1 vote:
Amen

whitman00: This law is nothing but a brazen attempt at voter suppression. Now its come out that if your social security card is laminated, it cannot be used to get a voter ID. You need to apply for another social security card and wait to get that before you get the voter ID card. The fact that any American politician would vote for this kind of law is a disgrace. It shows a lack of moral character beyond even what we are used to seeing these days.

If you really think blocking a group of people from their right to vote because they don't vote the way you do is a good idea, you truly don't deserve to call yourself an American or a patriot. People did not fight in the Revolution, the War of 1812, two World Wars and the Cold War just so you could spit on all they fought for.

2012-07-20 01:22:06 PM  
1 vote:

t3knomanser: There are plenty of reasons why we shouldn't use biometric identification. The main one is that you can't ever change your authentication tokens. I can change my name, I can change my address, but I can't change my fingerprints. And they can be faked at several points in the authentication chain.

How about we just give people voter ID numbers. Oh wait, we do.


no no no ... you misunderstand.

I'm not asking for fingerprinting - that's not what those pictures of smiling brown-skinned voters with purple fingers portray.

3.bp.blogspot.com

When you vote, you stain your index finger with purple dye that makes it hard to vote twice in the same day. Doesn't matter if you're registered in three places - you still only get one vote. Doesn't matter if you vote under a false name - because you only get one vote. It enforces the central equality of the franchise.

Of course some will argue that it's not just one-person-one-vote, but that your franchise is limited to one vote in the district in which you live. This then shows the real issue :Politicians have engineered districts so narrowly to ensure their political viability that apparently, even a few dozen of these missteps may radically shake the membership of our elected institution.
2012-07-20 01:15:12 PM  
1 vote:

machoprogrammer: rubi_con_man: also : Why not just use that purple finger dyer crap that is used so famously in the middle east?!

That is what I want to know... Would be cheaper and more effective.


Well the answer is clear :They don't want an easy ,clear, simple way to prevent people from voting TWICE.

They want to make it difficult for many many people to vote even once.
2012-07-20 01:09:54 PM  
1 vote:

rubi_con_man: also : Why not just use that purple finger dyer crap that is used so famously in the middle east?!


That is what I want to know... Would be cheaper and more effective.
2012-07-20 01:09:29 PM  
1 vote:
My wife went to vote (Tennessee) last election, old timer walked her to the booth. It was ready to cast a vote for McCain, he said "There you go honey, ready to go"

She told him she had it covered. When she left the booth the blue hairs and Rebs sphincters were twitching with anger
2012-07-20 01:08:39 PM  
1 vote:
It's more than a little suspicious that Republicans are in favor of additional regulation.
2012-07-20 01:01:15 PM  
1 vote:

Pincy: sammyk: If you need to resort to voter disenfranchisement and union busting your side has already lost. It's almost like they have given up on broadening the base.

I'm pretty sure as the old white scared people die off and the younger generations take their place they will lose even more of their base.


Don't be so sure. The derpiest, pants-shiattingist, most bigoted right-wing nutjobs that I work with are all in their twenties. People thought the same thing you did in the sixties. Yet new old white scared people keep replacing the dead ones.
2012-07-20 12:59:23 PM  
1 vote:

Maud Dib: TheGogmagog: Maud Dib: MFL: Citrate1007 alienating eligible voters is treason

How do we know they are "elibile" if they don't show proper identification?

Take their word for it?

[i865.photobucket.com image 848x398]

It's not just a verbal word, you have to sign to verify you are eligible.

[media.tumblr.com image 400x400]


It's not uncommon to accept a signature as proof.
assets.dstatic.org
2012-07-20 12:49:20 PM  
1 vote:

MFL: Citrate1007 alienating eligible voters is treason

How do we know they are "elibile" if they don't show proper identification?

Take their word for it?


While having to show ID seems reasonable, the timing and implementation is NOT. The people truely effected are the poor, elderly, disabled citizens. Believe it or not many don't have a drivers license and even if they could afford one the time it would take to get one is not instant hence the timing of these laws. Add in the fact that humans are generally corrupt farkers, the people processing the IDs have the ability (which the GOP is counting on) to take their time......as much time as needed......just to be sure........that this citizen......truely is........eligible.......This may take until December to figure out because there are THOUSANDS of new ID applications due to this law.

Now lets talk about the voter registration purges. Generally this isn't news because it is standard practice to clean up the registered voter lists....however when 3rd party companies with a known political slant start purging people as dead/felons/or otherwise ineligible it becomes a serious farking issue. Try to convince buck tooth bubba the drunked redneck voting official that you are #1 not in fact dead, #2 who you say you are #3 not a muslim/commie/socialist on election day when you've been purged. Since it was a 3rd party company that was hired at a local level by conservatives....plausable deniability will be used even though we will all know that they are guilty as sin.

All under the false guise of keeping a single brown person from having a say. But your white and male and afraid so I see where you are comming from too.
2012-07-20 12:41:14 PM  
1 vote:
My general question is why private companies, and not public entities, are used to inform the public about public laws passed by public officials.
2012-07-20 12:40:00 PM  
1 vote:

Musikslayer: Koalaesq: keylock71: I've yet to hear any of the clowns pushing these laws adequately explain why they're needed or how they won't disenfranchise large groups of people, who just happen to vote Democratic...

I mean, I know that's the whole point, but you'd figure they'd at least have some good bullshiat to distract from their real goal.

My republican friend explained it to me like this: "Voting is such an important right that if there's even one person out there who is voting fraudulently, we should make sure he doesn't get away with it." When asked about how this stacks against disenfranchising other voters, he replied "well, no one's going out there and actually STOPPING the legal voters from voting- they're just too lazy or scared to read the laws correctly, and how is that the new law's fault?"

/don't agree. Just reporting back from derpfront

I used to have friends like that. Used to.


I keep him around because we can have intellectual discussions about politics without either of us resorting to sound bites or strawmen and can discuss in a calm, non-personal way. You know, the opposite of what happens here. Sometimes he even brings up some good points I hadn't previously considered.

Also, he got me into the Game of Thrones books, so he can't be ALL bad.

/the republican friend who started an argument with "Allowing gays to marry is like allowing you to marry your dog" got thrown away REAL fast.
2012-07-20 12:37:42 PM  
1 vote:

MFL: Citrate1007 alienating eligible voters is treason

How do we know they are "elibile" if they don't show proper identification?

Take their word for it?


Yeah we take their word for it on an affidavit, it's the same trust we put in witnesses in court cases.
2012-07-20 12:32:48 PM  
1 vote:

doyner: So what is an acceptable ratio of disenfranchised to prevented fraud?

Seriously, GOP--100:1? 1000:1? 100,000:1?

You resist banking regulation because it's "only a few bad apples." So what percentage of spoiled fruit ruins the entire barrel?

If you can't answer these questions with a modicum of intellectual honesty then you're simply hiding behind false outrage in an attempt to rig our elections. But hey, keep on shouting jingoistic buzzwords like 'freedom' while you systematically undermine our democracy.



Once in a while I hear someone respond to this question with the usual deflection ("you need an ID to buy beer", "doesn't everyone drive??" "b-b-b-but the IDs are free!") but I've never heard anyone actually answer this question. Not one of our own shills, not a politician who's trying to implement this stuff.

Questions #2 and #3 we need to hammer them with, in my opinion: Are they the least bit troubled by the possibility of keeping too many legit voters from voting? If/when/wherever they manage to get one of these changes written into law, they're not even thinking of checking to make sure they're overdoing it, are they?

I doubt if we'll ever hear a satisfactory answer to any of these questions from voter ID supporters. Someone who's trying to keep likely D voters from voting won't answer honestly; someone whose faith in U.S. conservative ideology is naïve and uncritical isn't capable of seeing the problem.
2012-07-20 12:29:40 PM  
1 vote:

Citrate1007: Cat Food Sandwiches: The nerve of those bastids thinking that only citizens straight white Christian male landowners should vote.

Fixed this to reflect the GOP. Your own views may differ.

2012-07-20 12:26:17 PM  
1 vote:

Cat Food Sandwiches: The nerve of those bastids thinking that only citizens should vote.


Statistical-relevancy speaking, as well as per effecting the outcome of elections, only citizens do.

//zero:ten
2012-07-20 12:25:47 PM  
1 vote:

Cat Food Sandwiches: The nerve of those bastids thinking that only citizens should vote.


I had no idea that holding an ID is citizenship.
2012-07-20 12:18:40 PM  
1 vote:

Citrate1007: Allowing ineligible people to vote is bad. Legislating discriminitory regulations with a political agenda of alienating eligible voters is treason. It is also an early warning sign of a coup.


Also, why bother? Just keep on with the electoral shenanigans. An open coup would just bring unwanted attention.

Just keep voting! That is your only obligation and your only power, citizen!
2012-07-20 12:16:50 PM  
1 vote:

keylock71: I've yet to hear any of the clowns pushing these laws adequately explain why they're needed or how they won't disenfranchise large groups of people, who just happen to vote Democratic...

I mean, I know that's the whole point, but you'd figure they'd at least have some good bullshiat to distract from their real goal.


Why bother? They don't care. None of their bad acts carry any consequences. Their voting base is composed of evil-minded scum who like this sort of thing and ignorant twits who don't know or care what is going on in the world. Any legal action will result in cries of "partisan witch hunt!" and quietly disappear. If it doesn't, they've got a nice grip on the Supreme Court. There is literally nothing the right can do that will result in any negative consequences, not in this environment. Dead girl/live boy? nope.avi. That era is long gone.
2012-07-20 12:14:14 PM  
1 vote:
Allowing ineligible people to vote is bad. Legislating discriminitory regulations with a political agenda of alienating eligible voters is treason. It is also an early warning sign of a coup.
2012-07-20 12:11:24 PM  
1 vote:
I've yet to hear any of the clowns pushing these laws adequately explain why they're needed or how they won't disenfranchise large groups of people, who just happen to vote Democratic...

I mean, I know that's the whole point, but you'd figure they'd at least have some good bullshiat to distract from their real goal.
2012-07-20 12:04:02 PM  
1 vote:

t3knomanser: doyner: So what is an acceptable ratio of disenfranchised to prevented fraud?

It seems to me that the GOP gets sick with fear at the very thought that someone, somewhere, might be breaking the rules. It's better to throw a hundred innocents in jail if we can keep one guilty person from getting away with something they shouldn't.

The reality is, of course, that the GOP doesn't afraid of anything. They're running a structured campaign to disenfranchise the people most likely to vote against them. People in jail, people off the voter rolls, people without IDs- they're all poor and usually minorities. From the GOP standpoint: problem solved.


The GOP politicians aren't afraid, but they sure are preying on the fears of the ignorant, the bigoted, and the just plain stupid that lap up the derp they, fox news, and the conservative blogosphere spew.
2012-07-20 11:58:50 AM  
1 vote:

Weaver95: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Weaver95: I'd tend to assume corruption over conspiracy in cases like this one.

You forgot "incompetence". There's always room for incompetence.

well that too...but in this case, it's mostly corruption.


I think the incompetent ones are most easily corrupted.
2012-07-20 11:58:50 AM  
1 vote:
Stick a fork in America. She's done.
2012-07-20 11:57:58 AM  
1 vote:

thomps: and there are people who have the audacity and sufficient lack of patriotism to actually brag about it.


No, I don't blame them. I blame the voters who put them into power over and over again.
2012-07-20 11:08:21 AM  
1 vote:
Pennsylvania recently admitted that over 750,000 voters (or over 9 percent of registered voters) lack state-issued identification, a statistic that has Democratic officials pretty worried.

almost 10% of voters (not citizens - registered voters) get disenfranchised over a non-existent issue.

One Republican leader in the state has already bragged that the law will help presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney win the Keystone State.

and there are people who have the audacity and sufficient lack of patriotism to actually brag about it.
2012-07-20 10:38:07 AM  
1 vote:

Weaver95: I'd tend to assume corruption over conspiracy in cases like this one.


You forgot "incompetence". There's always room for incompetence.
2012-07-20 10:18:46 AM  
1 vote:

sammyk: If you need to resort to voter disenfranchisement and union busting your side has already lost. It's almost like they have given up on broadening the base.


be that as it may, this reads like typical Central Pennsylvania corruption. I"m sure the folks who got hired to do this have close ties to the Corbitt administration. that's how/why they got the contract. Not because of some grand GOP conspiracy....but because in this state, allies are rewarded, while enemies are cut off from lucrative government contracts.

which isn't to say that the GOP is above outright lying to Pa voters....but living in this state, I'd tend to assume corruption over conspiracy in cases like this one.
2012-07-20 10:08:20 AM  
1 vote:

doyner: So what is an acceptable ratio of disenfranchised to prevented fraud?


1:1.

t3knomanser: It seems to me that the GOP gets sick with fear at the very thought that someone, somewhere, might be breaking the rules.


Conservatives live their lives in fear that someone, somewhere, might be getting something they do not deserve.
And Liberals live their lives in fear that someone, somewhere, might not be getting something they do deserve.

t3knomanser: The reality is, of course, that the GOP doesn't afraid of anything.


It's not clear to me whether the GOP is more governed by RWA-fear or SDO-contempt. It appears plausible that the de facto GOP leadership has a large fraction of double-highs, so it's likely to contain significant elements of both.

Prior research suggests that individuals' prejudiced attitudes form a single generalized dimension predicted by Right Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) and Social Dominance Orientation (SDO). A dual process approach, however, expects different domains of generalized prejudice that relate differentially to RWA and SDO. To test this, 212 participants rated attitudes to 24 typically disliked groups. Factor analysis revealed three distinct generalized prejudice dimensions. Hierarchical Linear Modelling indicated that attitudes towards a 'dangerous' groups domain was significantly related only with RWA, attitudes toward a second 'derogated' groups domain was related only to SDO, and attitudes toward a third, 'dissident' groups, domain was significantly related to both, but powerfully with RWA and weakly with SDO. These findings have implications for explaining and reducing prejudice. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. - (doi:10.1002/per.614)
2012-07-20 10:01:03 AM  
1 vote:

doyner: Seriously, GOP--100:1? 1000:1? 100,000:1?


it's approximately black people:1
2012-07-20 09:48:00 AM  
1 vote:

doyner: So what is an acceptable ratio of disenfranchised to prevented fraud?


It seems to me that the GOP gets sick with fear at the very thought that someone, somewhere, might be breaking the rules. It's better to throw a hundred innocents in jail if we can keep one guilty person from getting away with something they shouldn't.

The reality is, of course, that the GOP doesn't afraid of anything. They're running a structured campaign to disenfranchise the people most likely to vote against them. People in jail, people off the voter rolls, people without IDs- they're all poor and usually minorities. From the GOP standpoint: problem solved.
2012-07-20 09:34:03 AM  
1 vote:
When minorities vote, everyone loses.
So when you hear some whiny brown person complaining about the new law, hug a Republican.
 
Displayed 46 of 46 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report