A voter who casts a provisional ballot because he or she is unable to provide proof of identification must execute an affirmation that he or she is the same person who appeared to vote on election day and do one of the following within six calendar days after the election:

Appear in person at the county board of elections to complete the affirmation and present proof of identification;

Submit an electronic, facsimile or paper copy of the affirmation and the proof of identification.

I think what I call the Dinkins effect is in operation. David Dinkins was the Democratic nominee for mayor of New York in 1989, having defeated three-term incumbent Ed Koch in the primary. His Republican opponent was Rudy Giuliani. The polls all showed Dinkins well ahead, but he won the race only narrowly. In 1993, there was the same match-up. The polls all showed Dinkins (who had a lousy record as mayor) as narrowly ahead. Giuliani won in a walk.

The quoted text is essentially a lie.

A voter who casts a provisional ballot because he or she is unable to provide proof of identification must execute an affirmation that he or she is the same person who appeared to vote on election day and do one of the following within six calendar days after the election:

Appear in person at the county board of elections to complete the affirmation and present proof of identification;

Submit an electronic, facsimile or paper copy of the affirmation and the proof of identification.

And BTW wasn't Andrew Sullivan one of the earliest and loudest cheerleaders for the Iraq war before he finally saw the light?

Because having a subset of voters have to show up in multiple places multiple times is exactly the sort of process a democracy wants to have going.

The idea that coming back in six days either with an ID or to sign an affidavit won't affect vote totals - and isn't designed to do exactly that - is ridiculous. Do you guys know any actual human beings?

No, a democracy wants people to vote-early-and-often because they don't have to prove who they are.

The law is silly (and possibly unconstitutional), but it's not going to be particularly effective at suppressing the Democrat vote, if in fact that's its purpose.

“Pro-Second Amendment? The Castle Doctrine, it’s done. First pro-life legislation – abortion facility regulations – in 22 years, done. Voter ID, which is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done,” Turzai said at Saturday’s Republican State Committee meeting

If we have no evidence of false-identification based voter fraud, then voter ID schemes are as obvious a case of unnecessary government regulation impinging on freedom as one could as for.

So, I'm sure you're 100% on board with me being able to exercise my 2nd Amendment rights to buy a firearm w/o showing ID, or undergoing a background check.

Mr. Ryan also cited bankruptcy numbers to make the point that failing businesses mean fewer jobs. “In 1980 under Jimmy Carter, 330,000 businesses filed for bankruptcy,” he said. “Last year, under President Obama’s failed leadership, 1.4 million businesses filed for bankruptcy.”

But he appeared to conflate business bankruptcies and much more numerous personal bankruptcies. Of the 331,264 bankruptcies in 1980, only 43,694 were for businesses, according to the American Bankruptcy Institute.

Anyhow, as I had some figures quoted to me, I do wonder how many of the provisional ballots in 2004 required people doing this:

A voter who casts a provisional ballot because he or she is unable to provide proof of identification must execute an affirmation that he or she is the same person who appeared to vote on election day and do one of the following within six calendar days after the election:

Appear in person at the county board of elections to complete the affirmation and present proof of identification;

Submit an electronic, facsimile or paper copy of the affirmation and the proof of identification.

A voter who is indigent and unable to obtain proof of identification without payment of a fee must submit an affirmation that he or she is the same person who appeared to vote on election day and that he or she is indigent in the same time frame and manner as described above.

To answer your question, the whole point of provisional ballots is that there's some doubt as to whether they are valid.

If we have no evidence of false-identification based voter fraud, then voter ID schemes are as obvious a case of unnecessary government regulation impinging on freedom as one could as for.

its probably reasonable to conflate these to some degree: "personal" bankruptcies include sole proprietorships (both formal and informal).

Let's hear it from the mouth of the people who passed it, such as PA House Majority Leader Mike Turazi:

“Pro-Second Amendment? The Castle Doctrine, it’s done. First pro-life legislation – abortion facility regulations – in 22 years, done. Voter ID, which is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done,” Turzai said at Saturday’s Republican State Committee meeting

On freedom? There's no natural right to vote; voting is by definition a government function. To be sure, one can argue that these laws are unnecessary. But they're not an infringement on freedom, the way, say, that requiring ID to speak, bear arms, travel, or do business are/would be.

Voter ID will allow Romney to win because it will prevent Democratic voter fraud.

Now, I know you don't believe that -- but the fact that you don't believe that does not mean that PA House Majority Leader Mike Turazi doesn't believe it

or that he meant something else by what he said.

On freedom? There's no natural right to vote

Oh, I remember when I had this discussion with Dan.

Just to be clear, you're arguing that if a state were ruled by an englightened libertarian dictator who protected in full all the subsidiary rights which flow from self-ownership, the autocratic state of Libertopia would not in any way be violating the freedoms of its citizens?

But they're not an infringement on freedom, the way, say, that requiring ID to speak, bear arms, travel, or do business are/would be.

So wait, bearing arms is a "natural right?"

(Although I'm not quite sure in what way this state could reasonably be described as "autocratic.")

But how is the right to self-rule (chose your government) not a natural right?

Is it not a natural right to defend your natural rights?

Look, in a state of nature, do you have the right to free speech? Yes. To defend yourself? Of course. To worship, to assemble? Yeah. But to vote? The question doesn't even make sense. Voting is a derivative 'right'; it cannot exist without government.

I think one very notable aspect of the Arab Spring has been how utterly central democracy - the right to vote - has been for people seeking their freedom against autocratic states.

The polls all showed Dinkins (who had a lousy record as mayor) as narrowly ahead. Giuliani won in a walk.

Among a certain set of libertarians (I was surprised Dan was one, not surprised David is), democracy is only good insofar as it's better at protecting core libertarian freedoms that other forms of government. An autocracy which protected those freedoms would be, in theory, a superior place.

(Although I'm not quite sure in what way this state could reasonably be described as "autocratic.")

"Autocracy", a system of government in which political power is held by one single person.

I think one very notable aspect of the Arab Spring has been how utterly central democracy - the right to vote - has been for people seeking their freedom against autocratic states.


And it's working so well in Egypt as the Democratic Process has shut the liberal reformers out of government, started implementing Islamic law, sent religious minorities fleeing the country, chilled the relationship with the US, and further isolated Israel! Excelsior! Once women start being stoned regularly for showing their faces in Egypt, then we can really taste the freedom.

No, a system of government in which a single person holds absolute power. But in our hypo, our dictator doesn't have absolute power; he has almost no power.

then we can really taste the freedom.

chilled the relationship with the US

and further isolated Israel!

But in our hypo, our dictator doesn't have absolute power; he has almost no power.

He has immense power, he just chooses not to wield it.

And it's working so well in Egypt as the Democratic Process has shut the liberal reformers out of government, started implementing Islamic law, sent religious minorities fleeing the country, chilled the relationship with the US, and further isolated Israel! Excelsior! Once women start being stoned regularly for showing their faces in Egypt, then we can really taste the freedom.

Look you can critcize other peoples/countries, all you want, but by what right can you that the Egyptians have no right to run their own country?

Rather, I said that the people who rose up against their autocratic oppressors understood the right to political representation as utterly central to their own freedom.

If they democratically choose to oppress women, religious minorities, etc., they have no right to be a democracy.

A coup overturning such a democracy would be just.

That's not self-rule; that's majority rule.

If they democratically choose to oppress women, religious minorities, etc., they have no right to be a democracy.

I think one very notable aspect of the Arab Spring has been how utterly central democracy - the right to vote - has been for people seeking their freedom against autocratic states.

What makes it a country at all?

Look, in a state of nature, do you have the right to free speech? Yes. To defend yourself? Of course. To worship, to assemble?

If restriction of the franchise, or even monarchy is necessary to protect basic right, then they are superior to majority rule.

If restriction of the franchise, or even monarchy is necessary to protect basic right, then they are superior to majority rule.

That's not self-rule; that's majority rule.

That's what self-determination generally means.

That's not self-rule; that's majority rule.

It is [[a natural right to defend your natural rights]]. Look, in a state of nature, do you have the right to free speech? Yes. To defend yourself? Of course. To worship, to assemble? Yeah.

But to vote? The question doesn't even make sense. Voting is a derivative 'right'; it cannot exist without government.

It is. Look, in a state of nature, do you have the right to free speech? Yes. To defend yourself? Of course. To worship, to assemble? Yeah. But to vote? The question doesn't even make sense. Voting is a derivative 'right'; it cannot exist without government.

f restriction of the franchise, or even monarchy is necessary to protect basic right, then they are superior to majority rule.
Who gets to decide?

Please specify at what point life becomes unnatural.

If you majority chooses to oppress me, I have every right to try and overthrow that system. There's nothing magical that makes majority rule the only legitimate form of gov't.

If restriction of the franchise, or even monarchy is necessary to protect basic right, then they are superior to majority rule.

The question is so confused that it makes my head hurt. Why makes it "their own country"? What makes it a country at all?

I think one very notable aspect of the Arab Spring has been how utterly central democracy - the right to vote - has been for people seeking their freedom against autocratic states. Actually existing human striving for freedom has placed rights to political representation and the right to vote front and center.

The ability to attempt something doesn't make it a right.

I am still curious as to why spending tax dollars (taken at gun point I am sure) on Voter ID laws is OK, while spending tax dollars on other things (like making health insurance more affordable) is EVIL.

(Plus, there's an even bigger bait-and-switch, since you cite the Arab Spring as evidence on the democracy side of the scale while then conceding, "I wasn't saying that the Arab Spring had produced successful and free democratic societies. obviously that has not been the case." I mean, then, if you have neither theory nor empiricism on your side, what do you have?)

I mean, then, if you have neither theory nor empiricism on your side, what do you have?)

I don't see why voting is not covered under the "natural right" to free speech.

If you're the head caveman, and you ask everyone's opinion on something, everyone is just exercising their natural right to free speech. But if you say ... "well, there's a lot of you, and to make everything fair, I'm going to count everyone's opinion as exactly equal" - suddenly it's not longer free speech, it's something else, something libertarians do not care about?

A freedom granted to you by the mere fact of being human. Freedom's endowed by the creator, is the language those of us who believe in God would us.

Life. Liberty. Self-defense. Freedom to worship. Freedom to own property, and earn a living.

What makes the US your country?
What makes the US a country at all?
What gives someone in DC the "right" to tell me in Long Island what to do?

Life. Liberty. Self-defense. Freedom to worship. Freedom to own property, and earn a living.

Now the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common. With great power the apostles gave their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. They laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need. There was a Levite, a native of Cyprus, Joseph, to whom the apostles gave the name Barnabas (which means ‘son of encouragement’). He sold a field that belonged to him, then brought the money, and laid it at the apostles’ feet.

But a man named Ananias, with the consent of his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property; with his wife’s knowledge, he kept back some of the proceeds, and brought only a part and laid it at the apostles’ feet. ‘Ananias,’ Peter asked, ‘why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back part of the proceeds of the land? While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, were not the proceeds at your disposal? How is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You did not lie to us* but to God!’ Now when Ananias heard these words, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard of it. The young men came and wrapped up his body,* then carried him out and buried him.

After an interval of about three hours his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. Peter said to her, ‘Tell me whether you and your husband sold the land for such and such a price.’ And she said, ‘Yes, that was the price.’ Then Peter said to her, ‘How is it that you have agreed together to put the Spirit of the Lord to the test? Look, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out.’ Immediately she fell down at his feet and died. When the young men came in they found her dead, so they carried her out and buried her beside her husband. And great fear seized the whole church and all who heard of these things.

What the #### is a right? Seriously.

A freedom granted to you by the mere fact of being human.

If there is no God, I don't see any reason why humans have any special dignity above other animals.

You can have health care without government.