Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm saying it makes no sense to say he isn't a Tea Party-type because he didn't do something he had no opportunity to do.
but he had an opportunity, and he didn't take it. sorry. there's no reason to believe that he's a tea party Republican, that's just your pet theory.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH
According to the article I linked, he has held up about $76 million out of $86 million for Allegheny County, which is about 88%.
and according to the article I provided he's approved ~44% of the total, hardly some hardline stance. it's not like every RACP project makes any sense, some are good, some are debt funded pork. I don't see any reason to believe there is some hardline stance being taken.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH
Does that mean you would NEVER admit he is actually deliberately delaying action? No matter how long he dithered?
it means I try to keep an open mind. I expect it to be addressed in the fall. I'm not really sure what you're point is. I think he IS delaying action...but I expected such a thing. and in the long run, it doesn't matter if it's addressed now or in two months. if 2012 rolls around and nothing has happened, yes I will admit he didn't act as I expected. not sure what that means for you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH
When Rendell's Commission came back with similar suggestions, he immediately proposed the legislature act on them. After the feds finally rejected the I-80 toll, he called a special session on transportation, and urged the legislators to come up with a solution, pledging to work with them.
that's nice but he got nothing done, and that's what matters.
the fact is, you are much more biased than I.
the rest of your posts doesn't make any sense.
That article goes further and breaks it down by ethnicity, but in general there is good reason to believe a substantial number of registered and likely voters do not have the ID necessary to comply with a strict voter ID requirement.
But in general, the burden should be on the person proposing a barrier to otherwise qualified citizens voting. You need to demonstrate some purpose that would substantially be served by erecting such a barrier, and "Why not?" isn't good enough.
Quote:
that law wouldn't be a priority of mine but the critics don't seem to have much to go on. like I said, if a bus of homeless people can't vote for the people that just picked them up and gave them food, then I won't lose any sleep.
Like I said, the fact that some posters here may agree with the Tea Party-types on voter ID laws doesn't suggest that is any less of a Tea Party-type measure (and you even supplied some Tea Party-type reasoning).
it's not like every RACP project makes any sense, some are good, some are debt funded pork.
So maybe a Tea Party-type would not in fact oppose every RACP project then.
Recall the context. You are claiming that somehow if he approves some RACP grants, that means he isn't a Tea Party-type. I don't think that standard makes any sense at all--the Tea Party-types make lots of exceptions to their supposed principles when it serves the interests of certain favored classes of people.
Quote:
if 2012 rolls around and nothing has happened, yes I will admit he didn't act as I expected. not sure what that means for you.
It is a minor thing, but maybe you will stop trying to assure people that a non-Tea Party-type version of Corbett is just around the corner.
Quote:
that's nice but he got nothing done, and that's what matters.
Nonsense. People are accountable for their own actions, including what they tried to do but failed to do, and what they didn't accomplish because they deliberately failed to act.
Quote:
the fact is, you are much more biased than I.
Judging politicians by their actual words and actions is not "bias".
Again, keep in mind we are talking about a very specific ID requirement (a non-expired government-issued photo ID), and it does appears there are a substantial number of citizens without such an ID. Indeed, they may have had such an ID at some point, but it now may be expired or lost (lots of older people would fit in this category).
They may in turn still have other forms of ID, which can work in many contexts.
I didn't say it would be unconstitutional, I said you needed a good reason to make it mandatory.
The reason for a health insurance mandate is that if you also have a rule against denials of coverage for preexisting conditions, you likely need the mandate to prevent a serious adverse-selection problem.
So what's your similar argument for requiring everyone to maintain a government-issued photo ID?
The reasoning is that if you require ID for voting then also requiring ID in general would stop people from claiming they are being disenfranchised. Though the Supreme Court of course has said that voter ID requirements by states are ok so the requirement for ID in general isn't necessary, but would address a complaint with the voter ID requirement.
I am equally fine with a less stringent ID requirement so long as there would be some requirement to say you are who you say you are. At the very least PA should strictly enforce the ID requirement that they have for initial voting which I have never encountered in practice.
Anything that could give our voting system a greater sense of legitimacy I support. Saying voter fraud isn't much of a widespread problem doesn't cut it in an era of razor close election results; not to mention who knows how much unknown fraud could be occurring when you don't have a system to catch it.
Saying voter fraud isn't much of a widespread problem doesn't cut it in an era of razor close election results; not to mention who knows how much unknown fraud could be occurring when you don't have a system to catch it.
What are you going to do about the widespread use of electronic systems with no audit trail then?
This is the problem with voter ID laws. It's not really about protecting the integrity of voting because you don't see anyone getting behind other protections of voting integrity. It's about riling people up because "OMG how can you defend people voting without photo ID?!?"
That's not true everywhere; some states/locations have better rules regarding ballots and equipment or even just coincidentally due to their choices have better audit trails. But here we don't. So an ID law "fixes" what is less likely to be a problem, without fixing what is more likely to be a problem.
You haven't explained any other good reason to require people to have a state-issued ID. The fact that it's difficult to live life these days without one does not a legitimate argument make.
What are you going to do about the widespread use of electronic systems with no audit trail then?
Never said that this was not also a problem, at least if giving the look of legitimacy to elections. Just because the possibility of voter fraud may be occurring because of lack of an ID requirement may be less then fraud from the electronic system doesnt mean it shouldnt be looked at.
Quote:
Originally Posted by greg42
This is the problem with voter ID laws. It's not really about protecting the integrity of voting because you don't see anyone getting behind other protections of voting integrity. It's about riling people up because "OMG how can you defend people voting without photo ID?!?"
That's not true everywhere; some states/locations have better rules regarding ballots and equipment or even just coincidentally due to their choices have better audit trails. But here we don't. So an ID law "fixes" what is less likely to be a problem, without fixing what is more likely to be a problem.
You haven't explained any other good reason to require people to have a state-issued ID. The fact that it's difficult to live life these days without one does not a legitimate argument make.
I pointed out that requiring an ID generally would stop those that whine about people being disenfranchised when a state requires ID for voting.
I would still love to know who these people are that are making it to the voting polls but can't get an ID.
Something seems wrong with a system where I could walk in, tell them I am Greg X, vote for someone you despise, and have no check in place to prevent this. Sounds banana-republicesque
Never said that this was not also a problem, at least if giving the look of legitimacy to elections. Just because the possibility of voter fraud may be occurring because of lack of an ID requirement may be less then fraud from the electronic system doesnt mean it shouldnt be looked at.
But you don't see any outcry or movement on anything other than the ID, do you? Why do you think that is?
Quote:
Originally Posted by UKyank
I pointed out that requiring an ID generally would stop those that whine about people being disenfranchised when a state requires ID for voting.
That's a circular argument though, not a separate reason to require state IDs on its own. That's what I was pointing out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by UKyank
Something seems wrong with a system where I could walk in, tell them I am Greg X, vote for someone you despise, and have no check in place to prevent this. Sounds banana-republicesque
You can't, though. You have to know the name, pin down the exact precinct for the home and know I'm not going to vote. And reasonably forge my signature. Short of that, you create an anomaly that's sure to be noticed.
But you don't see any outcry or movement on anything other than the ID, do you? Why do you think that is?
There should be a movement for curtailing all aspects of possible voter fraud especially when there would be no burden on the state at all... it takes no extra tax dollars to have a polling worker to make sure a voter's ID matches the voter
Quote:
Originally Posted by greg42
That's a circular argument though, not a separate reason to require state IDs on its own. That's what I was pointing out.
I concede as much.... was just trying to find a way to quell the critics that yell disenfranchisement. I still contend that there would be no disenfranchisement regardless of an ID requirement anyways & the supreme court agrees as well (at least to the extent if any disenfranchisement exists at all, the safeguarding voter confidence & elimination of voter fraud trumps), afterall the Plaintiffs in that case couldnt produce a single person in the entire state that was disenfranchised by the law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by greg42
You can't, though. You have to know the name, pin down the exact precinct for the home and know I'm not going to vote. And reasonably forge my signature. Short of that, you create an anomaly that's sure to be noticed.
Its not the most probable event but it is possible and I have no idea how someone would get caught doing such a thing so long as they beat you to the poll. A more likely situation would be fraudulantly signing up as a voter to begin with as that also requires no ID to prove you are who you say you are, and then voting as that person.
You're making my point for me. Why do you think there is no outcry about the more likely fraud? You don't appear to want to answer that, instead coming back to why IDs shouldn't be a problem. So apparently it's all about making people have IDs.
There are a couple of answers as to why there isn't as much outcry on the other possible fraud. One is that it's easier to understand IDs and a lot less easy to understand the way people could manipulate the vote with the machinery and not have any trail to catch it. The other is that it's really not an argument about fraud at all but instead a typical political game. The fraud is a convenient item to point to while requiring IDs would be a handy way to quite possibly suppress a certain part of the vote.
If you really don't think that last is the key reason that laws requiring ID for voting are proposed, I would suggest that you really take a more skeptical look at the aims of politicians.
You're making my point for me. Why do you think there is no outcry about the more likely fraud? You don't appear to want to answer that, instead coming back to why IDs shouldn't be a problem. So apparently it's all about making people have IDs.
There are a couple of answers as to why there isn't as much outcry on the other possible fraud. One is that it's easier to understand IDs and a lot less easy to understand the way people could manipulate the vote with the machinery and not have any trail to catch it. The other is that it's really not an argument about fraud at all but instead a typical political game. The fraud is a convenient item to point to while requiring IDs would be a handy way to quite possibly suppress a certain part of the vote.
If you really don't think that last is the key reason that laws requiring ID for voting are proposed, I would suggest that you really take a more skeptical look at the aims of politicians.
sounds like a suspect argument. I agree that it doesn't address back end problems but what "part of the vote" is being suppressed?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $53,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
