I see dead people...and they are registering to vote.

BTW, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

Paul I think you see very few people.

http://www.minnpost.com/politics-policy/2012/08/cases-voter-id-election-fraud-found-virtually-non-existent

Voting's one thing Paul, but call me when the dead are googling. That's the story I want to get in front of.

Lauren, was there something I wrote that implied voter fraud changed the outcome of elections? Does voter fraud occur? Do you dismiss it offhand because you don't know if voter fraud ever affected an election's outcome? Does it bother you that a white man can walk into a Eric Holder's polling location, identify himself as Eric Holder and be offered Eric Holder's ballot without even a request for ID? Does it bother you that the white man then suggested that maybe he should show some ID but was waved off by the poll-worker and told that would not be necessary? Do you know who Eric holder is:-) Eric holder doesn't think there's a problem with voter fraud either. You're in good company, Lauren.

Here you go, Paul. Seems like Lauren's in pretty educated company at least.

http://www.truthaboutfraud.org/pdf/TruthAboutVoterFraud.pdf

Lauren, what a good answer - I chuckled out loud!!!!!!
I am a republican but I do not want to go back to the ways of Dubya and Cheney and yet Romney and Ryan want to give us more years of the same. We cannot afford two more wars – in Iraq and North Korea.

I really enjoy reading your posts, Matt. They are well though-out and respectful.
Regardless of party affiliation, everyone should register to vote, and go to the polls to do so.
My parents taught us that voting is both a right and a responsibility. The great thing is, when you go to vote, you are alone in that ballot box, and no one can coerce you into voting for "their" candidate.
Educate yourselves on the party platforms, their past performances in the White House and Congress, and pull that lever.

Just busting your chops, Paul. Voter-related crimes do bother me, but I think it's become an urban myth how widespread they are. That report Matt posted from the Brennan Center pretty much sums it up for me - people hear about all of these alleged incidents, but most (not all) of the time, it's not really fraud, just a mix up.

But I appreciate the back and forth on the issue on this thread.

Thanks for the compliment, Patrick! We want this to be a place of discussion. It takes everyone to keep it nice around here.

I get it, throw links at me until I agree;-) It won't be that easy.
There is voter-fraud where "one voter impersonates another at the poll to cast a fraudulent vote" and we have absentee-ballot-fraud (self explanatory). In fact, in some jurisdictions registration lists have been found to include up to as high as 3% of names that don't belong. So, the problem is not as prevalent as some have suggested but, worse case, 3% of the votes in any election can usually sway the outcome if such occurred. Now, here's a potentially, worse problem; absentee-ballot-fraud which is about 50 times more common than voter-impersonation-fraud.
http://blogs.wpri.com/2012/09/04/wsjs-numbers-guy-on-the-truth-about-voter-fraud-in-the-us/
One look at the problem found that while investigation 'doesn’t reveal (substantial) evidence of impersonation in voting booths, it does show that other types of voter fraud — especially in voter registration and manipulating absentee ballots — are alive and well'.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-truth-about-voter-fraud/2012/08/13/7d6f5ad2-e58b-11e1-936a-b801f1abab19_story.html
Finally, Kennedy versus Nixon and the Cook County 2-to-1 Kennedy over Nixon ratio that was double the Kennedy national margin. What happened? Whether admitted voter-fraud in Cook County swayed an extremely close election is a matter of debate but what isn't up for debate is that massive voter fraud did occur in Cook County in 1960.
http://stonezone.com/article.php?id=391

How do voter ID laws counter absentee-ballot fraud? That's the question. And the Kennedy-Nixon example you give is an oft-cited example of alleged election fraud, not voter fraud, and would also not be stopped by requiring voters to show ID at polls. The GOP leader in the Pennsylvania House explained why the GOP wants voter ID laws. Google "Paul Turzai." As you stated, Paul, it doesn't take much to swing an election from one candidate to the other.

Sean, try to color inside the lines:-) I don't remember mentioning voter ID laws although that is a worthy subject of debate. Point: you couldn't get into the Democratic Convention without a picture ID. Why was that?
Anyway, the subject of this particular thread was voter fraud and part of voter fraud is absentee ballot fraud. So, what's your question? Additionally, in the instance I provided of voter fraud, the 1960 Cook County election results, would voter ID have thwarted that fiasco since you have a concern about voter ID? Methinks thou protesteth too much!
BTW, did you hear the one about the Democratic wife who tore up and threw away her Republican husband's absentee ballot because she know he would vote for Romney? It would be hilarious if it wasn't true and so pathetic.
Anyway, Sean, since you brought up the subject, I'm game. What is your particular concern about voter ID? Given that voting is one of the most important things we do and there is so much at stake, and we require picture ID for so, so many less important things (need I list them), why so much resistance?

I think my concerns about voter ID laws are evident. And I think the true reason the laws have been passed in recent years—all GOP-controlled states, btw—is equally evident.

I'm sorry, Sean, maybe I'm too dense but I fail to see any major distinction between voter-fraud and election-fraud. The hoped-for outcome is the same...they're both an attempt to control the results of the election process.
As for whether voter ID would have changed anything in Cook County...we really have to decide whether voter ID is a good idea or not. I guess I can't really see the harm in requiring proof of eligibility to vote before actually being allowed to vote.
Now, stand back because this one will floor you, I am actually in favor of stricter rules for voting. It's beyond me why we set minimum standards for so many things but have no requirement for voting other than maybe fog on a mirror placed beneath one's nostrils and even that requirement can be waived when necessary.

To elaborate just a bit: This country should be about encouraging citizens to participate in the process, not about making them sit in their local DMV office for 2 to 3 hours to purchase a $50 to $80 ID they likely will use only once each year, if that often. An 80-year-old woman who does not drive, and has no other need for a non-driver photo ID—she doesn't fly on airplanes, she doesn't have a bank account under her control, etc.— and has been voting for 62 years should not have to sit at the DMV for 2 hours to continue on voting as she has for her entire life. There's no evidence that voter impersonation has been a significant enough problem that the elected leaders of the political party of "limited government" needed to waste time and resources in 10+ states crafting legislation to require photo ID.

I'm more than willing to debate this issue, Sean. Your concerns are not necessarily evident to me as to why you are against voter ID and I, for one, would appreciate you enumerating them that way I'm not shooting at shadows. You see, whatever arguments I've heard to date against voter ID do not make sense to me and I believe there are work arounds for any argument I've seen raised. It always comes down to someone's idea that it will prevent people from voting but no one wants to find a fix. Is it a good idea to have to prove you are who you say you are and that you've met the minimum requirements we set for being permitted to vote or not? That's the question, not that if we set a minimum requirement that some will have trouble meeting that requirement. We can fix that.
List your concerns and let's intelligently debate each one.

Hey, Sean, I am confronted with a book containing names and signatures. I think the poll worker should be comparing my signature with my signature of record. So, there is a minimum requirement to try to identify that I am the voter of record. I have never observed one poll worker in over 20 years actually compare or scrutinize my signature. Is this a form of voter ID? Do you object to signing before voting? Why not?
I'd be curious to know what happens in the case when a perspective voter is completely illiterate and cannot even sign their name. Does an X suffice? Why are we even required to sign our names? The fact is I could probably very easily sign for my three sons and get away with voting in their stead. With a wig I might even get away with signing for my three daughters, my wife, and my mother-in-law:-)
Regarding the cost for voter ID, I think we can work it out, Sean. We put a man on the moon (or at least some think we did). I work in military electronics and it's amazing what we have been able to achieve. Really, Sean, we ought to be able to work out voter ID.
I would prefer that all voters meet some minimum educational requirement especially with regard to understanding what and who they are actually voting for but I realize I will probably not win on that one. That being said, I don't think asking for proof of identity in voting is an insurmountable issue. With all that we waste money on in the U.S., maybe we can make picture IDs free for all citizens.

I believe I did lay out my concerns with my example of the 80-year-old woman. Encourage voting, don't throw up roadblocks. There's no evidence—NONE—that voter impersonation has impacted any election, anywhere ever. And there are already corrective actions in place for instances where one contends another had voted for him or her. And the instance of such reports is often less than 100 nationwide per election. I'm sorry, but I see no need for these laws. And I again point you to Paul Turzai's comment for why I feel there is a cynical motive behind them. There is no other context for what he said. The only way to interpret it is: The PA GOP passed the law to (presumably) help Romney win Pennsylvania.

Make the IDs free and make sure granny doesn't have to sit at the DMV for 2 to 3 hours—we've all been there—for something she hasn't needed her whole life, and I'm with you.

Wow, Sean, the Paul Turzai quote...is that the best you can do? Which actions by politicians are not carried out to benefit them or their party? Whatever sinister plot you think was behind the voter ID act of PA does not necessarily guarantee that voter ID is a bad idea.
Again, when you go to vote is any means of identifying you practiced? Or do you just say I'm here to vote and you are given a card? Please answer the question?
People oppose the death penalty because they feel it is carried out unfairly and innocent people could get put to death. Without debating the merits of that idea, the logical end of that argument is that nobody should be put in jail for life, or for whatever length of term, because you might be destroying an innocent person's life.
The form of the argument is valid here, if we will disenfranchise (I'm trying to press all the buttons:-) one legitimate voter by requiring some form of ID we shouldn't require any form of ID from anyone.
Again, does it make any sense at all in your view of things to require some proof that you who say you are when you cast your ballot?
Again, we can deal with helping people get ID but first we must agree or disagree it matters.
Is it wrong for one person to perpetrate voter fraud? If not, how many cases have to occur before we protest? We provide ID for almost anything we now attempt to do in this country but all of a sudden it's a problem. when it comes to voting.

Paul, this is intellectually dishonest hogwash, and comparing a voter ID plan to the death penalty is beyond the pale of absurdity.

Here, since I was 'throwing links at you,' and you likely didn't read the report, is the excerpt on New Jersey voter fraud:

"The 2004 general election, in which 3,611,691 votes were cast in New Jersey. There were eight substantiated cases of individuals knowingly casting invalid votes—eight voters voting twice. This amounts to a rate of 0.0004%. None of these problems could have been resolved by requiring photo ID at the polls. Assuming that all 13,419 of the remaining cases in fact involved voter fraud...that would amount to a rate of 0.61%.

"Photo ID laws are effective only in preventing individuals from impersonating other voters at the polls — an occurrence more rare than getting struck by lightning."

For each instance of voter fraud the penalties are $10K and 5 years in prison excluding any state penalties. There's nobody who thinks that's an acceptable risk for the ends of a single vote...oh wait:

"Royal Masset, the former political director for the Republican Party of Texas...connected the inflated furor over voter fraud to photo identification laws and their expected impact on legitimate voters:

"Among Republicans it is an “article of religious faith that voter fraud is causing us to lose elections,” Masset said.

And yes, there are checks in place to make sure that you're who you say you are WHEN YOU REGISTER TO VOTE. That's when you provide your information.

You want to talk about a real issue? Get us a broader slate of candidates on the ballot. Widen the primaries, and shut down special interest funding. So few Americans actually participate in the process that we need to broaden access to their constitutional rights, not restrict them.

Matt, are you practiced in situational ethics?
I asked a question:
Q. Is it a good idea to deal with situation-X?
A. Situation-X supposedly happens very rarely so let's leave it alone.

How about...
A. Dealing with situation-X is a bad idea because of...

It seems that people think that picture ID is reasonable for pretty much every other situation except Voter ID; then, all of a sudden, it's a bad idea.

Yeah Paul, I've got a philosophy degree actually, so I know a false dilemma when I see one too.

One thing for sure, Matt, is that it's tough getting a straight answer to a simple question around here.

ITA

Have you seen some of the comments on the political articles around here, Tom? It's a lot of shoot-from-the-hip, emotionally charged namecalling. Hard to even get two people to have a reasonable conversation about their choices or their pet issues.

Politics in this country seems to be operating on two levels: the Internet, where it's screeds and all-caps yelling, and in-person, where people politely change the topic and mutter under their breath. Neither approach seems healthy to me.

My sentiments exactly; I DID escaped comubist country......and I see what you see... Oh, boy....those memories...and dreams, and hope....and CHANGE...and..............

I did see the movie, Matilda, and it was sobering, to say the least. I might also recommend two books by Dinesh D'Souza: "The Roots of Obama's Rage," and "Obama's America: Unmaking the American Dream."
I would suggest reading the former first as it lays out the president's formative years and what his thoughts were during those times. Much of the supporting information is gleaned from Obama's own book, "Dreams From My Father;" the rest from those who knew quite well both Obama and his father.
The latter reading tells how Obama intends to "fundamentally change America" over the next four years. The movie, when seen in conjunction with these books, gives a more complete picture of what the author is trying to convey. At the very least---even if one is a die-hard Obama-ite---this information should give one a long and ponderous pause before pulling that voting lever in November. The first four years of his presidency allowed Obama to set the stage for Act I of his plan to transform America. The next four years, Act II, will finalize that plan.

Interestingly, AllTaxedOut, is the fact that some have complained that Dinesh D'Souza never talked to, or interacted directly with, with Mr. Obama and so had no real first person evidence for what he wrote in his book. Of course, reading Mr. Obama's own words and talking to other people that did interact directly with Mr. Obama apparently doesn't count.
At this point it now becomes evident that it is time to clean out our libraries of all biographical accounts that have ever been written posthumously or without actual first-hand knowledge and direct interaction with the subject under discussion. Anybody up for a good, old-fashioned book burning?

Wow and I thought my memory was short...who was the last President who took a surplus and spent like a wild man........a Republican.....when will you all learn that both parties have taken us on a joy ride....and try to work together again to stop the craziness, instead of the typical blame game...Until we as people fund elections, all we are going to be voting for are the well to do, who have enough money to run an election or someone who has already promised their soul to the ones who gave them the money. Seeing a movie with which the other party made, is nothing more than propaganda for your side. As an independant, I look at both of the fringe sides on these forums and cringe...when have we become so intolerant of eachother. Very sadd

Deborah, while your analysis of Mr. Bush's spending habits might by accurate have you considered the wisdom of starting with a sizable deficit, promising you'll cut it in half, and then spending like a wild man and doubling down on that deficit?
At this point I am looking for who might do the least damage to our already fragile situation. Before we can heal the wound, however, we need to stop the bleeding. I see what Mr. Obama has done and think that we stand a better chance of slowly heading back to reality under Romney/Ryan. Remember, one of them, Romney or Obama, will be president; if I am forced to choose between the lesser of two evils, so be it.

Joe, please go to any other blog on Patch to see the same thing from the people who disagree with Matilda. Fact is, they don't seem to have discovered this story yet but give it time.

Joe, maybe you're familiar with the phrase,"IN ESSENTIALS UNITY, IN NON-ESSENTIALS LIBERTY, IN ALL THINGS CHARITY."
While I agree with you and would hope for liberty and charity whenever possible, there does come a time when unity on a viewpoint with those with whom you agree requires one to take the stand of "no compromise." For me, that would be on abortion. There can be no compromise for me on that issue. While I would refrain from name-calling and personal insults directed toward those who disagree with me, I would not extend that same consideration to the arguments that are used to support abortion.

Hey, here's a take on that from someone who actually lived through communism:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/11/opinion/obama-the-socialist-not-even-close.html

It's amazing to see what people have done to escape such conditions. I think of the Stastny brothers, the hockey players from the Czech Republic who had to defect in secret during an international competition, wondering if they would see their families again. Or a close family friend from Belarus whose dad made it out of Stalin's army on a medical discharge because the Russian postal service was so bad the food his mom sent spoiled and made him sick. He and his wife left with the contents of two suitcases, came to America, and worked as a cab driver and hairdresser until they could discover "which jobs pay the most." When I was in college, his mother finally started out-earning his father; both became very successful computer programmers.

My point in saying all this? There are people who lived through actual communism and who don't throw around the term to try to score cheap rhetorical points. It's a pet peeve; I'll put the soapbox away...

By the by, senior, it would be wonderful to talk to you sometime. Would you be interested in telling your story on Patch? Send me an e-mail.

Yes, Matilda, I happened to see that video. It shows me that the Democratic party has been co opted by radicals. It's no longer the party of my parents and belonged to.

Amen, senior. Thank you for sharing your experiences with us. I saw Matt offered an opportunity to speak with him for a story. I do hope you consider it so that we can hear more. Perhaps it will help ALL readers - Democrats, Republicans or Other -appreciate just how great we have it here.

I don't know; I've been living under one all my life. And hey, the Republicans didn't even let their small government guy's delegates into the convention, right? Violating their own party rules?

Mr. Hasenpat,
You should see the documentary Obama's America: 2016. It's playing in Cherry Hill, Voorhees and Somerdale and then tell me who is the lesser of two evils.

Paul,

This site is insufferable and I wonder how you maintain your stamina. For a local website representing such a small community, I wonder why these editors have not been tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail. They seem to have a particular need to marginalize what you write which I for one would wear as a badge of honor.

Quite scary.

Ed Pacelli

Ed, here's the thing...I take particular pleasure in pointing out the obvious to people because most of the time people want to ignore what is staring them in the face.

I read the book and will wait for the DVD. The book was very well written and the criticism that D'Souza never talked to Obama so the details are suspect is hogwash. A lot of the book was based on Obama's own writings so who's putting out hogwash? Additionally, as I stated above, if these people who question D'Souza's effort want to be consistent they better clean all the biographies off their bookshelves because unless the subjects were interviewed personally the information is useless.

Stop smoking that crap, its rotting your brain