Yeah except for there have been plenty of groups looking for Voter Fraud…and it’s simply not found in the amounts that you guys insist exists.

So we should enact laws to deal with a makebelieve problem?

And when are you guys going to propose laws dealing with the election fraud that Republicans keep on committing?

Oh by the way..Ed isn’t in favor of Voter ID so don’t be disingenous. Since neither you nor any other Republican can provide any evidence of voter fraud happening or how Voter ID would stop it…

then at least be honest enough to shut the hell up after admitting that your position is stupid.

But don’t worry..noone here is going to hold their breath on you proving that you’re anything but still a sociopathic liar.

http://www.eac.gov/voter_resources/contact_your_state.aspx

Let us know when you find a state which has requirements to register to vote that doesn’t include proving who you are.

Ed has laid down the rule here. Proving things is good. That settles it.

Unless you’re taking issue with this? Which, from your comments, somehow I’m doubting that.

You know, it’s pretty strange: Basic set arithmetic. Subsets and supersets. You both seem to be coming at this from a perspective of: Voters should be taken at their word, it’s wrong to do any kind of research into verifying what they’ve said…but Republicans should always be doubted. As if none of the voters are Republicans. It’s just strange. No, more than strange, it’s as if you can’t keep track of your own argument.

As I said, either proving things is good, or it isn’t. And Ed has made it clear that it is. So: Voter ID. Better late than never. Not my argument. It’s Ed’s.

(The combination to your gated community isn’t working for me this week.)

Last year Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler estimated that 11,805 noncitizens were on the rolls. Curiously..that number keeps on shrinking. After his office sent letters to 3,903 registered voters questioning their status, the number of noncitizens now stands at 141, based on checks using a federal immigration database. Of those 141, Gessler said 35 have voted in the past. The 141 are .004 percent of the state’s nearly 3.5 million voters and its likely that those numbers of “ineligble” voters is smaller then that.

Officials in Flordia found 207 noncitizens on its voter list, a .001 percent of the state’s voters, but they did not necessarily commit fraud. Florida’s purge discovered just one Canadien who illegally voted. In North Carolina, hundreds of voters have received letters requesting proof they were citizens, but an elections board member acknowledged there were just 12 instances of noncitizen voting. Iowa has filed charges against three noncitizen voters.

And in none of those few instances of noncitizens voting would Voter ID have stopped them.

And lets remember Pennsylvania..where the GOP admitted in open court that they had absolutely no evidence of any voter fraud.

And then there is Indiana..which has possibly the most stringent form of Voter ID law.

And yet that didn’t stop their own Republican secretary of state from possibly committing voter fraud along with committing perjury, theft, and financial fraud

http://www.eaglecountryonline.com/news.php?nID=2951

Indiana Secretary of State Charlie White

http://www.in.gov

(Indianapolis, Ind.) – A jury could decide Friday whether or not Indiana’s Secretary of State committed voter fraud, a decision which could have him removed from office.

Charlie White’s criminal trial began Monday in a Noblesville, Indiana courtroom. He faces seven felony charges including voter fraud, perjury, theft, and financial fraud. He was indicted last March.

When he registered to vote in the May 2010 primary, White used his ex-wife’s address instead of a townhome he was allegedly living in. Prosecutors argue that White used the address on his registration because he was a member of the Fishers Town Council and the townhome was outside the district he represented.

During the trial, prosecutors presented as evidence cell phone records showing a vast majority of White’s nighttime calls on his cellphone were “pinged” at a cell tower near his townhome, not his ex-wife’s house.

ELECTION DAY REGISTRATION
8200.5100 REGISTRATION AT PRECINCT ONLY.
Subpart 1. Procedure; proof. Any person otherwise qualified but not registered to vote in the
precinct in which the person resides may register to vote on election day at the polling place of the
precinct in which the person resides. To register on election day, a person must complete and sign the
registration application and provide proof of residence. A person may prove residence on election day
only:
A. by presenting:
(1) a valid Minnesota driver’s license, learner’s permit, or a receipt for either that contains the
voter’s valid address in the precinct;
(2) a valid Minnesota identification card issued by the Minnesota Department of Public Safety or
a receipt for the identification card that contains the voter’s valid address in the precinct; or
(3) a tribal identification card issued by the tribal government of a tribe recognized by the Bureau
of Indian Affairs, United States Department of Interior, that contains the name, address, signature, and
picture of the individual;
B. by having a valid registration in the same precinct;
C. by presenting a notice of late registration mailed by the county auditor or municipal clerk;
D. by having a person who is registered to vote in the precinct and knows the applicant is a
resident of the precinct sign the oath in part 8200.9939; or
E. by having an employee employed by and working in a residential facility located in the
precinct, who knows that the applicant is a resident of that residential facility, vouch for that facility
resident, and sign the oath in part 8200.9939, in the presence of the election judge.
256E.33, subdivision 1; a supervised living facility licensed by the commissioner of health under
Minnesota Statutes, section 144.50, subdivision 6; a nursing home as defined in Minnesota Statutes,
section 144A.01, subdivision 5; a residence registered with the commissioner of health as a housing with
services establishment as defined in Minnesota Statutes, section 144D.01, subdivision 4; a veterans
home operated by the board of directors of the Minnesota Veterans Homes under Minnesota Statutes,
chapter 198; a residence licensed by the commissioner of human services to provide a residential
program as defined in Minnesota Statutes, section 245A.02, subdivision 14; a residential facility for
persons with a developmental disability licensed by the commissioner of human services under
Minnesota Statutes, section 252.28; group residential housing as defined in Minnesota Statutes, section256I.03, subdivision 3; a shelter for battered women as defined in Minnesota Statutes, section 611A.37,
subdivision 4; or a supervised publicly or privately operated shelter or dwelling designed to provide
temporary living accommodations for the homeless.
To be eligible to sign the oath, the employee must:
(1) have his or her name appear on a list of employees provided by the general manager or
equivalent officer of the residential facility to the county auditor at least 20 days before the election; or
(2) provide a statement on the facility’s letterhead that the individual is an employee of the
facility that is signed and dated by a manager or equivalent officer of the facility. The statement must be
in substantially the following form:
To the Election Judges
I am a [insert title of manager or equivalent officer here] at [insert residential facility name here].
Let it be known and recorded that [insert employee name here] is an employee of [insert
residential facility name here], a residential facility as defined in Minnesota Statutes, section 201.061,
subdivision 3, paragraph (c), and by my signature I certify that this is true as of the date signed.
____________________________________________________________________
[signature] [date]
_____________________________________________
Printed Name of Residential Facility Manager or
Equivalent Officer
If the letterhead on which the document submitted under subitem (1) or (2) does not include the
address of the residential facility in the precinct, the document must also include this address.
The oaths in items D and E must be attached to the voter registration application and retained for at
least 22 months.
Subp. 2. Additional proof of residence allowed. An eligible voter may prove residence under
this subpart by presenting one of the photo identification cards listed in item A and one of the
additional proofs of residence listed in item B.
A. The following documents are acceptable photo identification cards under this subpart if they
contain the voter’s name and photograph:
(1) a Minnesota driver’s license or identification card;
(2) a United States passport;
(3) a United States military identification
(4) a student identification card issued by a Minnesota postsecondary educational institution;
or
(5) a tribal identification card issued by the tribal government of a tribe recognized by the
Bureau of Indian Affairs, United States Department of the Interior, that contains the individual’s
signature.
B. An original bill for:
(1) telephone, television, or Internet provider services, regardless of how those telephone,
television, or Internet provider services are delivered; or
(2) gas, electric, solid waste, water, or sewer services,
is acceptable as an additional proof of residence under this subpart if:
(a) the bill shows the voter’s name and current address in the precinct; and
(b) the due date on the bill is within 30 days before or after election day.
A rent statement from a landlord that itemizes utility expenses and meets the requirements of this
paragraph is a utility bill for purposes of providing proof of residence.
(3) A current student fee statement that contains the student’s valid address in the precinct is
also acceptable as proof of residence.
proof of residence presented by the voter establishes the voter’s current address in the precinct, the
voter shall have proven residence under this subpart.
C. The secretary of state shall provide samples of utility bills acceptable as additional proof of
residence under item B to local election officials for use in election judge training and in the polling
place on election day.
Subp. 3. Additional proof of residence allowed for students. An eligible voter may prove
residence by presenting a current valid photo identification issued by a postsecondary educational
institution in Minnesota if the voter’s name, student identification number (if available), and address
within the precinct appear on a current list of persons residing in the postsecondary educational
institution’s housing certified to the county auditor by the postsecondary educational institution.
This additional proof of residence for students must not be allowed unless the postsecondary
educational institution submits to the county auditor no later than 60 days prior to the election a written
agreement that the postsecondary educational institution will certify for use at the election accurate
updated lists of persons residing in housing owned, operated, leased, or otherwise controlled by the
postsecondary educational institution. A written agreement is effective for the election and all
subsequent elections held in that calendar year, including the November general election which is
instead governed by subpart 4.
The additional proof of residence for students must be allowed on an equal basis for voters resident
in housing of any postsecondary education institution within the county, if lists certified by the
postsecondary educational institution meet the requirements of this part.
An updated list must be certified to the county auditor no earlier than 20 days prior to each election.
The certification must be dated and signed by the chief officer or designee of the postsecondary
educational institution and must state that the list is current and accurate and includes only the names of
persons residing as of the date of the certification in housing controlled by the postsecondary
educational institution.
The auditor shall instruct the election judges of the precinct in procedures for use of the list in
conjunction with photo identification. The auditor shall supply a list to the election judges with the
election supplies for the precinct.
The auditor shall notify all postsecondary educational institutions in the county of the provisions
of this subpart and subpart 4.
Subp. 4. Additional proof of residence allowed for students at November general elections.
An eligible voter may prove residence at the general election held in November of each year by
presenting a current valid photo identification issued by a postsecondary educational institution in
Minnesota if the voter’s name, student identification number (if available), and address within the
precinct appear on a list of students certified to the secretary of state by the postsecondary educational
institution.

You can’t make a case that is a good idea.

(bold emphasis mine.)

Now, these are your words, not mine…so you’re conceding the point that at the point of registration there is some protection put in place to make sure the person is who he or she says he is. It seems you have further conceded the point, or at least it’s not being disputed seriously, that without some kind of process that involves the presentation of some kind of credential, there is a “missing link” concerning the verification that the person appearing to vote, is who that person is claiming to be. So. We have strength of authentication at registration, we do not have strength of authentication when it comes time to vote…and we agree on all this…

How do you get from there, to “requiring the presentation of ID is the wrong thing to do”? Ah yes that’s right. The Republicans are up to shenanigans because you feel like they are. Silverman proved it by quoting a Republican official who said — the outcome of the vote in Pennsylvania may depend on whether people prove they are who they say they are, when they vote. Spooky!

I think we should just quit beating around the bush: Conservatives think, liberals feel. This must be about making it difficult for Obama-friendly demographics to cast votes because it feels good for liberals to so conclude. So you do have a lot in common with Ms. Silverman after all.

You said I can’t make a case that it’s a good idea. It seems you’ve made the case yourself, you just don’t want to conclude what then becomes logical. Feels so much better to keep things crooked and then claim you’re crusading for the voting rights of Ms. Applewhite (who, when the rubber met the road, was able to get hold of her voting ID just fine).

Hey here’s an idea: How about pushing some ideas that would find favor with a real majority of Americans, and then you wouldn’t have to worry about bribing homeless people with smokes & hooch and then falsifying voting records, to grasp that final fifty-first percent of the vote and make the elections come out “right”?

You can’t make a case that is a good idea. You can’t even make a case that our election system isn’t tighter than a drum, now. Vote fraud that affects one out of every 4 million votes (or fewer) simply is not a problem. But you can’t even provide evidence of that minuscule amount of vote fraud. Worse, you have utterly, completely and fatally failed to demonstrate voter ID works, at all.

You’re not moving your pieces? There’s your problem. You look at injustice, and you think it’s a chess game.

Life is not an analogy. Voter ID takes real voting rights from millions of Americans. Voter ID is expensive. Voter ID is wasteful. Voter ID provides zero benefits. Voter ID is unjust. Voter ID is probably criminal. Voter ID is immoral, and hammers at the moral foundations of our nation. God struck down Sodom and Gomorrah for less. But you defend it. Res ipsa loquitur.

Contrary to your assertion, this is not chess, no matter how much you coo.

It isn’t necessary to go any further because, according to your own rules, we should have voter ID and voters should prove they are who they say they are when they go vote.

You’re in a check-mate and can’t recognize you’re in one. You don’t know what to make of the fact that I’m not moving any of my pieces on the board…the fact is, that’s not what you do when you check-mate the other side. You just point out that you did it and the game is over.

http://www.chess.com/learn-how-to-play-chess#checkmate

I don’t know how to convince you that evidencing one’s claims is important in most discussion.

This is where an information assurance auditor would hold up the accreditation activity and say — red flag. People are keeping the information from me. No-go, for now. Need more protections in place.

Well apparently I know more then you since I know that voter fraud isn’t this widespread problem. Whereas you just believe what you’re told like a good little sheep.

We’re not pouring any energy into having the process operate in a fog..you are. You’re the one that is supporting the party of purging legal voters from the rolls. You’re the one that is supporting the party of pretending that Voter ID is a problem that it’s not so your party can keep legal people from voting.

Your party is the one that blocked any attempts to require that electronic voting machines like Diebolds leave a paper trail.

Your party is the one that is engaging in election fraud. Because Thaddeus McCotter and his staff are hardly the only example I can give of Republicans engaging in such shenanigans. If you and your party really want more protections then why isn’t your party acting against that?

As for “Need more protections in place” yeah..protections are only protections when they actually work. Since Voter ID will not protect a damn thing and you know it..don’t pretend its a protection. You can argue that “Voter ID” is a protection all you want but you are simply wrong.

Two years ago the Democrat secretary of State for minnesota proposed a database in Minnesota linking all preceints so they could better keep former felons from voting. And the database would also have helped the precients be able to track when someone moved from one preceint to another.

Your party’s response? Blocked it and refused to even consider it.

Your party wants to act like absolutely everyone is guilty of voter fraud..that they have to prove their innocence before they can vote instead of the state having to prove their guilt of voter fraud. Why should I have my vote questioned and potentially not counted if noone can prove me guilty of voter fraud in a court of law?

And you don’t see a problem with that?

If the process acts in a fog, Morgan, its because your party is the one trying to create the fog. Your party is the one that is coming up with rules on the fly. Your party is the one trying to set up one set of rules for Democrats and another set of rules for Republicans. hell your party in Indiana is trying to shorten early voting because its somehow a problem despite the fact that your party didn’t think it was a problem when they used early voting for the Republican primary a few months ago.

Voting and the rules to vote should not be changed in a partisan manner. By either party. And you can’t deny that your party is attempting to change the rules in a purely partisan manner.

I don’t know enough to say that and neither do you. The whole process operates in a fog…

I think with the possible exception of Diebold voting machines, the processes are in the daylight, on a clear day, and quite transparent. That GOP attorneys general and GOP secretaries of state have been unable to find and prosecute more than a tiny handful of voter irregularity cases is solid evidence that the process is honest and open. You should man the polls sometime. It’s not in a fog at all, but very clear.

What do you say?

I don’t know enough to say that and neither do you. The whole process operates in a fog…and here is you, Ed, and countless others pouring all this energy into keeping it that way.

This is where an information assurance auditor would hold up the accreditation activity and say — red flag. People are keeping the information from me. No-go, for now. Need more protections in place.

And yet Morgan, you are destroying that integrity by depriving people who can legally vote from voting. And your party is destroying that integrity because they don’t want to ensure the integrity of our elections….they want to ensure that Republicans win.

If you guys were really so interested in ensuring the integrity of our elections you’d find better ways to do that does not deprive people of the right to vote legally.

You are engaging in Orwellian doublespeak

You and your party are trying to do to democracy here what the Nazi’s did to democracy in Germany…tilt and rig the system so that you guys win.

And you want to talk about integrity? You have none