Voter I.D.

[dramaturge]

Ok, Now that I have more than two minutes to sit down at the computer--

It isn’t that I don’t like the language, it’s that the article is full of charged language and very little fact. The tone and language of the article is that of an opinion piece, not objective journalism. It’s similar to the tone of all those articles impugning the East Anglia scientists—and basically about as short of facts.

This is quite interesting--
http://factcheck.org/2008/10/acorn-accusations/

Oh, and the racketeering fine was for paying the canvassers who were registering voters, not for grand schemes of illegal operations to have people vote fraudulently. Further, it should be noted that any information on a registration form that turns out to be incorrect constitutes a fraudulent registration. Intimidation is also considered fraud. Even going back and signing something filled out by the actual person would constitute fraud.

The reorganization was not related to the bankruptcy. The reorganization was related to settlements in the racketeering case. The bankruptcy came the way bankruptcies do: spending money.

Oh, and finally, the Nevada case was because canvassers were paid and forced to meet quotas, not because the registrations were fraudulent or because they were paying people to register. It was the canvassers, like in Ohio, who being unlawfully paid.

So that leaves the registrations mentioned in the FactCheck article which were the result of trying to make more money/meet quotas, not, it seems, to get a bunch of phony voters to the polls. I’m not seeing the big, bad voting fraud here. And now that I’ve had the time to check up on the facts, I’d barely even say there was a registration fraud issue. It’s not like the registrations filled out to earn bonuses were going to result in people showing up to vote on those names. It was just going to result in more cash for a handful of workers.

Interestingly, none of those clarifying things were present in the repeated AtlasShrugged/Brietbart/RedState memage. But then, they’re still insisting O’Keefe didn’t alter his videos, so there’s that.

And the point still remains that any and all of this argues for maintaining voter records, not at all for requiring photo ID.

[Donb123]

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/07/1...-democrat/

A new study by the Minnesota Majority found that at least 341 convicted felons in heavily Democratic Minneapolis-St. Paul who voted illegally in the 2008 Senate race. And it looks quite likely that felons gave Franken his narrow Senate victory.

The six month vote recount in the Senate race was a torturous process. The morning after November 4, 2008 election, Senator Norm Coleman lead Al Franken by 725 votes. Correcting for typos cut Coleman’s margin to 215, and a recount by all the counties reduced it further to 192.

[RobMille]

I'm thinking if it actually happened they should report it to authorities. Partisan hacks don't report cause they know they don't have facts to back it up (ala James O'Keefe making it up against A.C.O.R.N.).

[Donb123]

(01-27-2012 09:41 PM)RobMille Wrote:  I'm thinking if it actually happened they should report it to authorities. Partisan hacks don't report cause they know they don't have facts to back it up (ala James O'Keefe making it up against A.C.O.R.N.).

Because, you know, Secretaries of State are never partisan.

And I suppose it's easy enough to write stuff off as "partisan hacks" when truckloads of ballots magically show up at the last minute and push the Progressive over the top. The thing is, next time it might be the guy you don't like.

[RobMille]

Report it to authorities. You'll never know if you don't report, and these guys only report it to Fox. Have no other conclusion other than they know it isn't true if you don't report it to authorities.