Voter fraud? Open your eyes
The issue of requiring a government-issued photo ID when voting has been a hotly debated topic for some time statewide. Unfortunately, there has been a coordinated misinformation campaign by opponents of the law.
The most common “fact” is that there is virtually no voter fraud since there have been so few prosecutions of the crime, and hence no need for the requirement.
Having been a poll watcher at various polls in Lackawanna County for more than 15 years, I beg to differ, given the following scenario:
John Jones enters a poll and claims to be Joe Smith. No one in the poll is familiar with either Smith or Jones (not an uncommon occurrence where hundreds if not thousands of voters pass through in a single day) and thus Jones is allowed to cast a ballot after signing the registration book (which has a copy of Smith's signature in plain sight to aid Jones).
Without a photo ID, how is anyone supposed to know whether voter fraud has been committed? Even if Smith does show up later to vote, there is nothing anyone can really do to rectify the situation.
How can you investigate, let alone prosecute, a crime that goes completely undetected?
There is a light-year-wide gap between claiming there is little, if any, in-person voter fraud and the act actually taking place on a regular basis while eluding detection.
To me, it's not a question of whether to require a photo ID but, rather, why hasn't such been mandatory for years?
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Rushing to judge
- Foley & Obama I
- Foley & Obama II
- LED sign: Negative ad
- Self-serving & corrupt
- Bring back ‘eagle cam’
- Even bigger waste
- Better school security
- Life Care Center a jewel
- Raise minimum wage
- New policy falls short