Holder's Ballot Given to Young Man

[woolfe9999]

Have any proof of that other than you don't think its possible?



One word, ACORN. Sure, they got caught, but only because some people, like the person in the article, recognized the problem and acted. But it does prove that this can become rather large scale .

No, the situation with ACORN proves nothing of the sort. What was going on there wasn't sanctioned by the organization itself, and the fraud wasn't even at the ballot box. It was in the registration process, meaning it produced no actual fraudulent votes. Yet still, as small scale as this was, they got caught anyway.

Think about how many actual phony votes you'd need to sway an election even in one state. Voter ID laws or no, it's never going to happen unless the authorities themselves are corrupt. The only situation where I can see small scale individual voter fraud making a difference is maybe in a local election for city council or something like that.

 

[FuzzyBee]

Gotta love this argument that only dimocrats commit voter fraud especially since its was Republican Tamminy hall that pioneered the process.
.

It's better to keep your mouth closed have have people think you're stupid than to open it and remove all doubt.

 

[LTC8K6]

Taking candy from a baby is super easy to commit. Does it mean that candy snatching is a widespread problem?

He never uses the name "Eric Holder", iirc, and he did not take a ballot. No voter fraud.

He does the bare minimum, he just asks about the name "Holder", and notes the offered address, and he would have been allowed to vote as Eric Holder.

 

[xBiffx]

Let me ask you how is the ID of the person verified of an absentee ballot? How do you know who filled it out?

I guess you don't know that the person on the ballot filled it out. But are you saying that people are targeting absentee ballots for potential voter fraud? Would seem like a lot of work to intercept an out of state piece of mail and mail it back without a suspicious postmark to commit fraud when you can just walk into your local polling place and claim you are Eric Holder.

 

[HomerJS]

I guess you don't know that the person on the ballot filled it out. But are you saying that people are targeting absentee ballots for potential voter fraud? Would seem like a lot of work to intercept an out of state piece of mail and mail it back without a suspicious postmark to commit fraud when you can just walk into your local polling place and claim you are Eric Holder.

What I'm saying if the GOP are so concerned about the integrity of votes why no machanism proposed for handling absentee ballots??

I know the answer but I just want you to say it.

 

[xBiffx]

No, the situation with ACORN proves nothing of the sort. What was going on there wasn't sanctioned by the organization itself, and the fraud wasn't even at the ballot box. It was in the registration process, meaning it produced no actual fraudulent votes. Yet still, as small scale as this was, they got caught anyway.

Think about how many actual phony votes you'd need to sway an election even in one state. Voter ID laws or no, it's never going to happen unless the authorities themselves are corrupt. The only situation where I can see small scale individual voter fraud making a difference is maybe in a local election for city council or something like that.

The 2000 presidential election was decided by basically ~500 votes in Florida. Doesn't take much fraud to make up for 500 votes. Sure that's a circumstantial case but it doesn't take much in one or two states to affect the outcome of the entire election given the electoral college system.

 

[JockoJohnson]

I provided that link as an example of mono's claim of Rs wanting a more secure system.

I'm with you on the prosecuting, throw the friggin book at them, that's always been my position. I don't really have an issue with presenting ID to vote either - what I do have an issue with is talk radio idiots pretending that their talking points and stereotypes fully represent the threat of voters being disenfranchised.
To me it resembles the issue of illegal immigrants, only the GOP faithful are reversing the appropriate actions.

Arresting and deporting token handfuls of illegals will not solve the problem, you have to address the cause of them coming here for work, i.e, you need to hold corporations accountable for their use of illegal labor. Conservatives get this approach, but many conveniently play stupid when it comes to voting. Never mind the malfeasance and fraud of those in government involved with systemic and organized abuses, it's the voters themselves we need to watch!


Hilarious indeed.

True. I don't think it really is as big of an issue as radio hosts would have people believe.

And I know it is getting off-topic but the employers of illegals need to be held much more accountable for hiring them than to go after the illegals in small groups. I wish the politicians would get their heads out of their asses...or better yet, get the lobbyists' hands out of the politicians asses so laws can be enforced that prevent hiring of illegals.

Back on topic, I just can't see hundreds or thousands of illegals somehow voting illegally or dead people voting or people voting multiple times.

There may be an undue cost put on gov't to force everyone to have an ID to vote but we can't even get the conversation going. Gov't is either sneaking these laws through, or if they are brave enough to discuss it publicly, get it shouted down because of excuses such as poor people will be disenfranchised. Both of these methods are not honest.

 

[thraashman]

Wow. I should make a video of me taking a gun and shooting someone dead to prove how easy it is to murder someone with a gun. Then, by the logic of every conservative in this thread, all you conservatives will then agree that we need heavily increased gun control laws even if they infringe on the Constitutional rights of a large amounts of Americans! Because as you all seem to think, proving it's easy to do something proves that it happens ALL the time.

Sounds pretty stupid when your own bad logic is used against you, huh?

 

[Moonbeam]

That's good that he got caught. I don't think anyone in this thread said Republicans don't commit voter fraud. But Republicans seem to be the only ones trying to prevent it with voter ID laws. Of course, this will disenfranchise those that don't know how to get to a DMV or similar gov't place that will issue one to them....most likely for free.

Anyone who commits voter fraud should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Yup can't have idiots voting.

 

[Moonbeam]

He still has no proof that voter fraud is a problem that is bigger than people being denied their right to vote if some partisan official claims their ID is not authentic or it's not them, or whatever. All he has proof of is him attempting to engage in voter fraud.

He doesn't have to. All you need is some way to justify your own evil and that makes everything OK. Get real.

 

[xBiffx]

Wow. I should make a video of me taking a gun and shooting someone dead to prove how easy it is to murder someone with a gun. Then, by the logic of every conservative in this thread, all you conservatives will then agree that we need heavily increased gun control laws even if they infringe on the Constitutional rights of a large amounts of Americans! Because as you all seem to think, proving it's easy to do something proves that it happens ALL the time.

Sounds pretty stupid when your own bad logic is used against you, huh?

Leave it to a lefty to strawman so horribly. But since you brought up gun laws, so be it.

Gun laws don't prevent people from getting guns in the same way voter ID laws don't prevent people from voting. No one on the right is saying there should be zero gun laws either. In both cases, to execute the right, yes it is more difficult, but neither is impossible. The left would have us believe that voter ID laws without a doubt would prevent legal voters from voting but at the same time gun laws only stop criminals from obtaining guns. Give me a break, you can do much better than that.

 

[Jaskalas]

Depends what the statute says. If it says that giving false identity to an election worker is a crime, then he should be prosecuted.

Yes, proof of voter fraud is illegal to obtain. All so you can say there is no proof of fraud, no need for voter ID. Proof against failed government policy is hereby illegal.

 

[classy]

This is really irrelevant. Most polling places don't require a person to show ID. How voter fraud is caught is when a two people show up to vote using the same name. Then it would be caught. Because the voting ticket would already have been used.

 

[LTC8K6]

Wow. I should make a video of me taking a gun and shooting someone dead to prove how easy it is to murder someone with a gun. Then, by the logic of every conservative in this thread, all you conservatives will then agree that we need heavily increased gun control laws even if they infringe on the Constitutional rights of a large amounts of Americans! Because as you all seem to think, proving it's easy to do something proves that it happens ALL the time.

Sounds pretty stupid when your own bad logic is used against you, huh?

Murder is already illegal.

You already need photo ID to buy a gun.

Voter fraud is already illegal.

I need a photo ID on me to drive to the voting booth.

I need photo ID to buy cough medicine at the local store.

When they arrest you for that murder, they will ask for your photo ID.

 

[woolfe9999]

The 2000 presidential election was decided by basically ~500 votes in Florida. Doesn't take much fraud to make up for 500 votes. Sure that's a circumstantial case but it doesn't take much in one or two states to affect the outcome of the entire election given the electoral college system.

That was an extraordinary case but even there it would have been very tough for individual voter fraud to sway the outcome (institutional fraud is a different matter of course.) The problem is that individual fraud can cut either way, and over a large enough sample size of fraudulent votes, they will roughly cancel each other out. In that case, if you posit 1000 fraudulent votes, they would have to lean 750 on one side vs. 250 on the other to make a difference, a ratio of three-to-one,. Yet there is no reason to assume that fraudulent votes won't show roughly the same lean as the legitimate ones. Unless of course the fraud is both organized and on a larger scale.

 

[FoBoT]

talking about this issue has become as pointless as talking about abortion
group A - "if a single case of voter suppression exists, the voting laws are too strict"
group B- "if a single case of voter fraud exists, the voting laws are too weak"

/the end

 

[xBiffx]

This is really irrelevant. Most polling places don't require a person to show ID. How voter fraud is caught is when a two people show up to vote using the same name. Then it would be caught. Because the voting ticket would already have been used.

This is true. But in a case like this, how do you eliminate the fraud without either a) suppressing someone's right to vote by tossing their ballot or b)requiring someone to show ID to prove they are the real voter and their ballot is valid? After all, you cannot have two ballots for the same person so what do you do?

If you had to ask for ID to clear it up why not ask for it to begin with to eliminate the problem from the beginning?

 

[LTC8K6]

That was an extraordinary case but even there it would have been very tough for individual voter fraud to sway the outcome (institutional fraud is a different matter of course.) The problem is that individual fraud can cut either way, and over a large enough sample size of fraudulent votes, they will roughly cancel each other out. In that case, if you posit 1000 fraudulent votes, they would have to lean 750 on one side vs. 250 on the other to make a difference, a ratio of three-to-one,. Yet there is no reason to assume that fraudulent votes won't show roughly the same lean as the legitimate ones. Unless of course the fraud is both organized and on a larger scale.

Al Franken's win comes to mind.

 

[xBiffx]

That was an extraordinary case but even there it would have been very tough for individual voter fraud to sway the outcome (institutional fraud is a different matter of course.) The problem is that individual fraud can cut either way, and over a large enough sample size of fraudulent votes, they will roughly cancel each other out. In that case, if you posit 1000 fraudulent votes, they would have to lean 750 on one side vs. 250 on the other to make a difference, a ratio of three-to-one,. Yet there is no reason to assume that fraudulent votes won't show roughly the same lean as the legitimate ones. Unless of course the fraud is both organized and on a larger scale.

How would it have to be still large scale to have an effect? Over 100 million people voted in the 2000 presidential election. How is 500 votes anything but small scale when compared to the overall number of voters. Hell even just in Florida you are comparing 500 to nearly 6 million voters.

 

[FoBoT]

Most polling places don't require a person to show ID.

http://www.ncsl.org/legislatures-elections/elections/voter-id.aspx
according to that source, five states require "Strict Photo", six require "photo", nineteen require "non-photo" ID and the rest have "No Voter ID Law". 30 of 50 states have a law regarding ID to vote. 60%. more than half. Most polling places require a person to show ID.

it should be left to the states to decide. it isn't defined in the Constitution so 10th Amendment applies, states should pass voter ID law if they choose. if someone in the state doesn't like it, they should put it into the judicial system to challenge the law. the courts either find it a valid law or not. that's how it works

The 32 voter ID laws that have been enacted vary in their details. In half, the ID must include a photo of the voter; in the remaining half, non-photo forms of ID are acceptable. Voter ID laws can be broken down into the three following categories:

Strict Photo ID: Voters must show a photo ID in order to vote. Voters who are unable to show photo ID at the polls are permitted to vote a provisional ballot, which is counted only if the voter returns to election officials within several days after the election to show a photo ID. At the beginning of 2011, there were just two states--Georgia and Indiana--with strict photo ID laws. Six states passed strict photo ID laws in 2011, although four are not currently in effect (see the notes below Table 1 for more information regarding effective dates for new legislation). That leaves four states with strict photo ID laws currently in effect.

Photo ID: Voters are asked to show a photo ID in order to vote. Voters who are unable to show photo ID are still allowed to vote if they can meet certain other critieria. In some states, a voter with ID can vouch for a voter without. Other states ask a voter without ID to provide personal information such as a birth date, or sign an affidavit swearing to his or her identity. Voters without ID are not required to return to election officials after the election and show a photo ID in order to have their ballots counted in the manner that voters without ID in the strict photo ID states are.

Non-Photo ID: All voters must show ID at the polls. The list of acceptable IDs is varied and includes options that do not have a photo, such as a utility bill or bank statement with the voter's name and address. Rhode Island passed a new voter ID law in 2011. It takes effect in stages -- beginning in 2012, voters will be required to show an ID (although not necessarily a photo ID) at the polls, and in 2014 a photo ID requirement will take effect.

 

[theeedude]

Yes, proof of voter fraud is illegal to obtain. All so you can say there is no proof of fraud, no need for voter ID. Proof against failed government policy is hereby illegal.

He didn't obtain proof of voter fraud unless you count what he did as voter fraud, in which case he should be charged.

 

[xBiffx]

http://www.ncsl.org/legislatures-elections/elections/voter-id.aspx
according to that source, five states require "Strict Photo", six require "photo", nineteen require "non-photo" ID and the rest have "No Voter ID Law". 30 of 50 states have a law regarding ID to vote. 60%. more than half. Most polling places require a person to show ID.

it should be left to the states to decide. it isn't defined in the Constitution so 10th Amendment applies, states should pass voter ID law if they choose. if someone in the state doesn't like it, they should put it into the judicial system to challenge the law. the courts either find it a valid law or not. that's how it works

I agree with the states rights approach. The only thing I have to add is the article/story in the OP occurred in Washington, D.C. which then becomes a federal issue. At some point, the federal government is going to have to take a stance.

 

[FuzzyBee]

http://www.ncsl.org/legislatures-elections/elections/voter-id.aspx
according to that source, five states require "Strict Photo", six require "photo", nineteen require "non-photo" ID and the rest have "No Voter ID Law". 30 of 50 states have a law regarding ID to vote. 60%. more than half. Most polling places require a person to show ID.

it should be left to the states to decide. it isn't defined in the Constitution so 10th Amendment applies, states should pass voter ID law if they choose. if someone in the state doesn't like it, they should put it into the judicial system to challenge the law. the courts either find it a valid law or not. that's how it works

Is a "non-photo" ID (such as a utility bill) really an ID?

 

[theeedude]

Bush v. Gore made elections a federal issue.

 

[xBiffx]

He didn't obtain proof of voter fraud unless you count what he did as voter fraud, in which case he should be charged.

Not surprising, Holder agrees with you.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/04/09/DOJ-Voter-Fraud-OKeefe

This is nonsensical. Obviously this wasn’t an actual case of voter fraud—O’Keefe and Project Veritas didn’t want to break the law. And obviously the situation is manufactured—it’s the only way to show that voter fraud is easy and plausible, since we presumably don’t know when voter fraud takes place.