• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Could the Democrats vast voter registration lead be based on fraud??

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
5
0
eskimo, I hope you understand that allegations of voter fraud are insanely hard to prove.

And finding real numbers to match up all the allegations is also very hard. No one really knows how many of their registrations are fraudulent. It would be nearly impossible to get an accurate number.

But look at ACORNS history:
In April, eight ACORN workers in St. Louis city and county pleaded guilty to federal election fraud for submitting false registration cards for the 2006 election.

Milwaukee County prosecutors Tuesday charged a convicted felon with illegally registering himself and others to vote between his conviction and his sentencing.

A Nevada voter-fraud task force Tuesday raided the state headquarters of a Democrat-allied organization that works to get low-income people to vote

ACORN, a grassroots activist group conducting registration drives, dropped off 2,000 new voter applications last week in Lake County. ?About 1,100 are no good,? she said. (50%!!!! are no good!!!!)
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Originally posted by: ProfJohn

BTW Now we know what Democrats are so against the need for an ID to vote. Much easier to cheat when you don't have to show an ID. Register many times in multiple places with fake names and then show up and vote 3 or 4 times on election day. But if you need an ID it becomes MUCH harder.
C'mon PJ....you know that that statement is an outright lie. The Dems are not against showing an ID to vote. They are against having people being forced to get a government issued ID to vote at their own expense of time and money.

You can still use a utility bill as proof of residence in a voting district which doesn't cost the individual anything. No one gets to vote without showing some kind of proof that they are who they say they are or reside where they say that they do.

And you know that. Your desperation has resulted in your selling out of your morals. You are now resorting to known falsehoods to try to make a bogus point.
Even when Georgia change their proposal to make the government issued ID available at no charge, the Democrat activists were fighting it tooth and nail.

The requirement for a government issued ID to be produced in order to vote does not handicap anyone.

No driver's license will apply to only a few poeple and those thatare students will have a government ID.
Those that are not students and need an ID can get one issued.

Or is it to much of an inconvience to prove oneself?

Given the fraud that everyone comlians about, why not ensure the fairness at the highest level possible.

People always have the absentee ballot (but that will only allow one vote, living or dead).

 

heyheybooboo

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2007
6,278
0
0
Not really gonna matter when Obama scores close to 75 million votes and McCain struggles to get 55 million ...

:laugh:


It would most likely be much greater if not for the Bradley Effect and the NeanderCon Fall Fear Campaign.
 

351Cleveland

Golden Member
Apr 14, 2001
1,381
6
81
Originally posted by: loki8481
saw a blurb on the news this morning about some county in Indiana that had more registered voters than it has residents. seemed a little weird, maybe the undead have endorsed Obama this year?
Yeah. In Indianapolis, there are 677,000 registered voters, but only 632,000 eleigible voters. Thank God for our new voter ID law :)
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I am not crying about cheating you dumb ass.
-snip-
Well, I am.

To those arguing about the rate of cheaters caught - the real number is certainly higher. How high? We don't know, but for anybody to pooh-pooh this problem is ridiculous and I must conclude is based upon partisan-driven irrationality. We should all be concerned about violations of our voting system - and not just when it hurts our candidate.

IMO, it's a bad systen and a big problem when there is little to no disincentive to cheat. The "we'll just disqualify illegal voters when noticed" is no disincentive to cheat. The problem is not being taken seriously enough.

Reminds me of law enforcement around here where I live. People scam the elderly, trick them into signing Power of Attorney forms and then clean out their bank accounts. What happens when caught? They make them give the money back. Big F'ing deal, they just move on to the next victim.

Same with ACORN.

Fern
 

351Cleveland

Golden Member
Apr 14, 2001
1,381
6
81
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Originally posted by: ProfJohn

BTW Now we know what Democrats are so against the need for an ID to vote. Much easier to cheat when you don't have to show an ID. Register many times in multiple places with fake names and then show up and vote 3 or 4 times on election day. But if you need an ID it becomes MUCH harder.
C'mon PJ....you know that that statement is an outright lie. The Dems are not against showing an ID to vote. They are against having people being forced to get a government issued ID to vote at their own expense of time and money.

You can still use a utility bill as proof of residence in a voting district which doesn't cost the individual anything. No one gets to vote without showing some kind of proof that they are who they say they are or reside where they say that they do.

And you know that. Your desperation has resulted in your selling out of your morals. You are now resorting to known falsehoods to try to make a bogus point.
Utility bill doesnt have a photo on it. I could get my hands on about a dozen utility bills from different households if I wanted. Doesnt mean that I live there. It doesnt even mean that it is my utility bill. As far as costs (and since in Indiana, photo ID for voting is FREE)... if it is too much trouble to get a photo ID (really, who doesnt have one... in serious terms), I really doubt that you are going to spend the time waiting in line to vote.

Doesnt matter. Indiana requires government issued ID (which is free, and 99.9% of people already have), it was upheld by SCOTUS, and I am damn happy I am a Hoosier :)

EDIT: Given that it is a law in Indiana to have ID on you at all times... meaning you have to have one anyway... it doesnt seem unreasonable to pull it out and present it when you vote.
 

AAjax

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2001
3,798
0
0
Originally posted by: loki8481
saw a blurb on the news this morning about some county in Indiana that had more registered voters than it has residents. seemed a little weird, maybe the undead have endorsed Obama this year?
BRAINS, you can believe in...*



* Brains in the offer are for consumption only
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
73,118
24,676
136
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I am not crying about cheating you dumb ass.
-snip-
Well, I am.

To those arguing about the rate of cheaters caught - the real number is certainly higher. How high? We don't know, but for anybody to pooh-pooh this problem is ridiculous and I must conclude is based upon partisan-driven irrationality. We should all be concerned about violations of our voting system - and not just when it hurts our candidate.

IMO, it's a bad systen and a big problem when there is little to no disincentive to cheat. The "we'll just disqualify illegal voters when noticed" is no disincentive to cheat. The problem is not being taken seriously enough.

Reminds me of law enforcement around here where I live. People scam the elderly, trick them into signing Power of Attorney forms and then clean out their bank accounts. What happens when caught? They make them give the money back. Big F'ing deal, they just move on to the next victim.

Same with ACORN.

Fern
Not being taken seriously enough? It was the subject of a massive outlay of law enforcement funds by the Bush administration. Do you know why they stopped? Because they simply couldn't find enough cases to justify it. A bipartisan governmental panel on voter fraud found widespread agreement among experts that in-person voter fraud is simply not an issue. Finally, the report also said that most experts believe that fraudulent registration has not translated into polling place fraud.

This has been repeatedly discussed before. The issue is not that fraud should not be dealt with when it does exist, it is that you guys are spending tons of time screaming about a type of fraud that is exceedingly rare, and low impact when it does occur instead of looking to address actual voter fraud issues.

You're being led around by the nose by partisans interested in suppressing votes.
 

AAjax

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2001
3,798
0
0
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I am not crying about cheating you dumb ass.
-snip-
Well, I am.

To those arguing about the rate of cheaters caught - the real number is certainly higher. How high? We don't know, but for anybody to pooh-pooh this problem is ridiculous and I must conclude is based upon partisan-driven irrationality. We should all be concerned about violations of our voting system - and not just when it hurts our candidate.

IMO, it's a bad systen and a big problem when there is little to no disincentive to cheat. The "we'll just disqualify illegal voters when noticed" is no disincentive to cheat. The problem is not being taken seriously enough.

Reminds me of law enforcement around here where I live. People scam the elderly, trick them into signing Power of Attorney forms and then clean out their bank accounts. What happens when caught? They make them give the money back. Big F'ing deal, they just move on to the next victim.

Same with ACORN.

Fern
Not being taken seriously enough? It was the subject of a massive outlay of law enforcement funds by the Bush administration. Do you know why they stopped? Because they simply couldn't find enough cases to justify it. A bipartisan governmental panel on voter fraud found widespread agreement among experts that in-person voter fraud is simply not an issue. Finally, the report also said that most experts believe that fraudulent registration has not translated into polling place fraud.

This has been repeatedly discussed before. The issue is not that fraud should not be dealt with when it does exist, it is that you guys are spending tons of time screaming about a type of fraud that is exceedingly rare, and low impact when it does occur instead of looking to address actual voter fraud issues.

You're being led around by the nose by partisans interested in suppressing votes.
As opposed to those who try to artificially inflate voting/registration numbers?

 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
73,118
24,676
136
Originally posted by: AAjax
Originally posted by: eskimospy

Not being taken seriously enough? It was the subject of a massive outlay of law enforcement funds by the Bush administration. Do you know why they stopped? Because they simply couldn't find enough cases to justify it. A bipartisan governmental panel on voter fraud found widespread agreement among experts that in-person voter fraud is simply not an issue. Finally, the report also said that most experts believe that fraudulent registration has not translated into polling place fraud.

This has been repeatedly discussed before. The issue is not that fraud should not be dealt with when it does exist, it is that you guys are spending tons of time screaming about a type of fraud that is exceedingly rare, and low impact when it does occur instead of looking to address actual voter fraud issues.

You're being led around by the nose by partisans interested in suppressing votes.
Pot, meet kettle
Your post doesn't make any sense. What voter fraud have I been screaming about?
 

RichardE

Banned
Dec 31, 2005
10,246
2
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I am not crying about cheating you dumb ass.

I have not even suggested that a McCain loss could be connected to this type of fraud.

I am talking about perception. If Democrats believe that Obama is getting all these new voters then they will believe that Obama HAS to win. And if the polls show Obama winning, as they do now, and he losses the reaction will be "he was cheated"

We already have people claiming that their will be riots if Obama losses. Imagine if Obama enters election day with a small lead in the polls, but ends up losing. All hell will break loose.

Massive wholesale fraud by groups like ACORN are undermining our system. This stuff must stop.
ACORN delenda est.
Yet the elections wherer your guy won had no cheating at all.

Who was it that said only tinfoil hat people think elections are rigged in the states:laugh:
 

yuppiejr

Golden Member
Jul 31, 2002
1,318
0
0
So what is the logic behind NOT having some form of state-issued photo ID required to confirm voter eligibility? Even if actual cases of voter fraud are limited the perception that the system is easy to game (which it is) exists - for relatively little effort, since a majority of Americans already have a drivers license, we could put improve both the actual and perception of fraud. Easy enough to set up a program to assist those who need transportation assistance or can't afford the $15 card fee...

People scream and yell about possible fraud with electronic voting yet I need less ID to select the next president than I do to write a check for $12 worth of groceries? Seriously?
 

Stuxnet

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2005
8,403
1
0
Originally posted by: yuppiejr
So what is the logic behind NOT having some form of state-issued photo ID required to confirm voter eligibility? Even if actual cases of voter fraud are limited the perception that the system is easy to game (which it is) exists - for relatively little effort, since a majority of Americans already have a drivers license, we could put improve both the actual and perception of fraud. Easy enough to set up a program to assist those who need transportation assistance or can't afford the $15 card fee...

People scream and yell about possible fraud with electronic voting yet I need less ID to select the next president than I do to write a check for $12 worth of groceries? Seriously?
Do you hear crickets? I hear crickets.
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,299
137
106
Originally posted by: jbourne77
Originally posted by: yuppiejr
So what is the logic behind NOT having some form of state-issued photo ID required to confirm voter eligibility? Even if actual cases of voter fraud are limited the perception that the system is easy to game (which it is) exists - for relatively little effort, since a majority of Americans already have a drivers license, we could put improve both the actual and perception of fraud. Easy enough to set up a program to assist those who need transportation assistance or can't afford the $15 card fee...

People scream and yell about possible fraud with electronic voting yet I need less ID to select the next president than I do to write a check for $12 worth of groceries? Seriously?
Do you hear crickets? I hear crickets.
I think you here crickets because yuppies post is a little confusing. His english is a little bad but thats OK...everyone does it :)

But I think the jest of his post revolves around the idea that IDs should be required.

I think the logic behind NOT having some form of state-issues ID is because it is exclusionary in nature. Meaning, some people dont have photo IDs.

I guess you can argue good and bad, but from my understanding that is the logic behind not having some form of ID to vote.
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,663
1,887
126
I think the logic behind NOT having some form of state-issues ID is because it is exclusionary in nature. Meaning, some people dont have photo IDs.
I bet they have cell phones though :D Amazing that there are so few safeguards in place to protect our most cherished and valued right. Sure, some people don't have photo IDs, but all U.S. Citizens surely have SOME form of indentification to prove their residence.

How many individuals are we excluding with strict rules VS how much fraud is corrupting our system via relatively non-existant safeguards.

 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,299
137
106
Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
I think the logic behind NOT having some form of state-issues ID is because it is exclusionary in nature. Meaning, some people dont have photo IDs.
I bet they have cell phones though :D Amazing that there are so few safeguards in place to protect our most cherished and valued right. Sure, some people don't have photo IDs, but all U.S. Citizens surely have SOME form of indentification to prove their residence.

How many individuals are we excluding with strict rules VS how much fraud is corrupting our system via relatively non-existant safeguards.
I don't disagree with your points I think an ID would work towards closing a relatively small form of fraud.

benefits outweight the cost.

either way I think the percentage of votes and voter fraud, related to this issue, isn't that great. Most of the people that don't have state issued IDs probably do not put their voting rights at the forefront of their day to day issues. :)

 

Budmantom

Lifer
Aug 17, 2002
13,103
1
81
Originally posted by: Farang
Originally posted by: Budmantom
Originally posted by: Farang
A Republican is going to complain to me about voter fraud?

..really?

Is somebody complaining to you?
Yes. Did you hit your head or something?

Who is complaining to you?

I don't think so but if I hit it hard enough perhaps I wouldn't remember..... thanks for the concern.
 

Budmantom

Lifer
Aug 17, 2002
13,103
1
81
Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
Not really gonna matter when Obama scores close to 75 million votes and McCain struggles to get 55 million ...

:laugh:


It would most likely be much greater if not for the Bradley Effect and the NeanderCon Fall Fear Campaign.

At this rate Obama may get 375 million votes.
 

Budmantom

Lifer
Aug 17, 2002
13,103
1
81
Originally posted by: OrByte
Originally posted by: jbourne77
Originally posted by: yuppiejr
So what is the logic behind NOT having some form of state-issued photo ID required to confirm voter eligibility? Even if actual cases of voter fraud are limited the perception that the system is easy to game (which it is) exists - for relatively little effort, since a majority of Americans already have a drivers license, we could put improve both the actual and perception of fraud. Easy enough to set up a program to assist those who need transportation assistance or can't afford the $15 card fee...

People scream and yell about possible fraud with electronic voting yet I need less ID to select the next president than I do to write a check for $12 worth of groceries? Seriously?
Do you hear crickets? I hear crickets.
I think you here crickets because yuppies post is a little confusing. His english is a little bad but thats OK...everyone does it :)

But I think the jest of his post revolves around the idea that IDs should be required.

I think the logic behind NOT having some form of state-issues ID is because it is exclusionary in nature. Meaning, some people dont have photo IDs.

I guess you can argue good and bad, but from my understanding that is the logic behind not having some form of ID to vote.
We should put our country in the hands of people that can't afford a picture id.
 

Eeezee

Diamond Member
Jul 23, 2005
9,923
0
0
Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
I think the logic behind NOT having some form of state-issues ID is because it is exclusionary in nature. Meaning, some people dont have photo IDs.
I bet they have cell phones though :D Amazing that there are so few safeguards in place to protect our most cherished and valued right. Sure, some people don't have photo IDs, but all U.S. Citizens surely have SOME form of indentification to prove their residence.

How many individuals are we excluding with strict rules VS how much fraud is corrupting our system via relatively non-existant safeguards.
Even if you don't have a photo ID, you need to bring SOME form of identification. A utility bill is sufficient.

Each district maintains a list of its voters and can check people off of this list as they come in.

I think the biggest source in fraud is the voting machines that have been demonstrated in a countless number of studies to be easily hacked, and sometimes will create votes for one candidate for seemingly no reason. That's a much larger source of error that we should concentrate on. This ACORN article amounts to nothing more than a witch hunt against some kids who get paid per signature.

Multiple registrations != multiple votes
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY